See below.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There are some cases of statements and not testimony, but there was no statement at the top that all was from sworn testimony. I use it where I can, and most places I do.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> See later comments.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > At *odds* with some of what he told Lifton, he then begins to give *sworn*
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > testimony refuting what he told Lifton earlier and affirming facts
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > generally in agreement with the official findings of a smaller entrance
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > wound in the back (occipital area) and that most of the missing bone was
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in the parietal area.
>
> >
>
> > >
In looking over the Stringer testimony, I found some interesting lines.
On major page 37, on minor page 197, read the text there. Stringer is
being asked about the wound in the BOH. It goes like this:
Q: You're referring to that piece of what, again, looks like matter near
the hairline?
A: Yeah, and here again, it shows where the hole - the scalp was intact
then.
While Stringer speaks the party line, he made a slip of the tongue in
answering about the BOH. He spoke of the 'HOLE' and then quickly
corrected it to 'scalp'.
In his testimony of 1972 he says what so many people said, then in 1996
he says the party line, but makes a slip. Hard for me to give credence to
his version of the 'hole' in 1996.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > How then can you list him as a large BOH witness, when his own *sworn*
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > testimony seems to refute that?
>
> >
See below for that answer.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He said that he had seen the 'large hole', then was convinced to say otherwise, as with others in the case that changed statements. Seymour Weitzman, for example.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Hmmm. That attitude makes me wonder about the wisdom of trying to follow down your testimony path. In some of your recent writings, you emphasize that the people you site are giving sworn testimony. In my mind you are implying that *sworn* testimony should generally be given more weight than something said not under oath.
>
>
I was told in another forum that sworn testimony was more believable, I
don't agree with that, but I've tried to use it where I can because it is
better at convincing those I'm talking to.
>
> However, upon closer scrutiny, it seems that you are kind of trying to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you want the oath to carry some weight when the witness says something that supports a conspiracy, but feel free to reject it flatly when it goes against one.
>
> >
See below for answer.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 3) You list Francis O'neil as #9 as a BOH witness---best as I can
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > tell---based purely on non-*sworn* testimony. Yet in support of your own
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > theory on how the top of the head was damaged, you ignore his *sworn*
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > testimony to the ARRB that body of Kennedy arrived in the "Bronze Casket"
>
> >
I took the list of people in the montage early on because they were all
together and had said basically the same thing. I didn't then go and
check his testimony to see what he said about the casket. I looked into
the casket situation separately, and may never have looked at O'Neill's
separate statements (if any). I looked at the Sibert & O'Neill report,
and putting that together with all the other statements and facts, it came
out that they glossed some of the details. It had to be, since there was
clear testimony about the switch from more than one person. Tell me if
I'm wrong, but looking through the 5 pages of the Sibert & O'Neill report,
I find NO mention of the word 'bronze' or any similar descriptive word,
like 'metallic' or 'decorative' or some such. If you found 'bronze
mentioned somewhere in testimony, let me know.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > wrapped in a "sheet" with another bloody one wrapped around his head.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The 2 things don't work together. O'Neill saying something about a wound has nothing to do with what casket JFK was in, as far as I know.
>
>
>
> But what I am saying *does* work together. My point is really very simple. You are implying that the sworn nature of some of your witnesses testimony makes them more likely to be telling the truth. However, when it comes down to brass tacks, it seems that you are really just picking testimony you like based *solely* on whether it bolsters your ideas.
>
Ah, I see. The meaning of sworn testimony was impressed on me by
someone in another forum. I used 'sworn testimony' as something more
believable for those that feel that it is more likely true because of the
possible punishment for lying. In this case I believe some would lie
under oath for their safety, if not told to.
>
>
> If a witness makes non-sworn statements friendly to your ideas, you are perfectly happy to embrace it, but when that *SAME* witness gives sworn testimony that contradicts your notions, you have no issue dismissing that those statements as lies. At the end of the day, you are trying to have it both ways when it comes to sworn testimony meaning anything.
>
>
Usually I used a search engine to find the people, and took the first
testimony or statement that I found that indicated a 'large hole' in the
BOH. I did NOT take any names that described the wound as being on top or
side of the head. The case where I said that I took the earlier statement
was correct though. I took the one I believe was true and not the party
line.
>
>
>
>
>
> First, Frank O'Neill was quoted in the montage spoken of at the beginning of the article. Here it is, and note O'Neill being quoted and placing his hand at the rear of his head, not the side, which was where later they tried to make the wound appear to be.
>
> >
>
> >
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8187/witnessesrearexitwoundk.jpg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Second, while the Sibert & O'Neill report doesn't specify, it's generally calculated from it that the arrival of the bronze casket at the main entrance (front) of the Bethesda facility was at 7:17pm. Testimony says that the Kennedy party that traveled with the naval ambulance with the Bronze casket came inside and rode up to the executive suite on the 17th floor. The ambulance then drove the casket around to the back of the facility. The situation was that the Bronze casket was empty and the body of JFK had been placed in a simple shipping casket at the airport. The people that saw to it were General Wehle and his aide, Richard Lipsey. Here is a short version of Lipsey's testimony:
>
> >
>
> >
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/HSCA_Medical_Interviews
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You can look through Lipsey's testimony in transcript too, it's also online.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The switch having been made with the caskets, the bronze casket was sent to Bethesda in an ambulance with the Kennedy party, including the FBI and SS agents. The real casket with the body was sent by helicopters (the honor guard were carried too) and got to Bethesda much sooner that the empty Bronze casket. A Marine sgt. Roger Boyajian recorded the arrival time of the simple shipping casket as 6:35pm in his after action report, which is online. This is earlier than the time for the Bronze casket.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Has it ever occured to you that Boyajian, who wrote the time down the time 4 days later and described the situation as "hectic" in his discussion with Horne, could have simply gotten the time off by about 30 minutes? AFAIC see, his statments to Horne do no indicate what kind of casket he saw or where he saw it arrive:
>
>
>
>
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md236.pdf
>
>
I don't think Boyajian's time was off at all. It matches with the times
used by Dennis David. Dennis David used 6:45pm as his time for the casket
arriving.
>
> Also, even by helicopter, the timing of the casket arriving only 20 minutes after AF1 landed seems mighty tight. Do you have any witnesses as to what time it allegedly took off with JFK's body?
>
>
So far, I've only found the testimony of Richard Lipsey, the guy that
helped to do the switch and arrange the helicopter ride. I imagine it was
done in as much secrecy as possible, so there wouldn't be too many
observers. My guess is that they got the bronze casket taken to a
building nearby at the airport with some pretext, and then switched the
caskets while no one was watching. There was a story that the 2 drivers
of the ambulance with the shipping casket were wearing surgeon's gowns,
and that (if true) would fit nicely with moving the body from one casket
to another. It wouldn't do to have blood all over your uniform as you
arrived at the Bethesda morgue...:) 20 minutes DOES seem short. Where
did you get the starting time for the helicopters? Is that solid?
Lipsey didn't go into detail about what and how they moved the body and
where it was done. I think they weren't that happy that they had to do
it, and thought it wouldn't go over well to be brought out to the public.
>
> >
>
> > Sibert & O'Neill may or may not have known about the casket switch, supposedly to fool the media (that was the stated reason for the switch). But at some point at the morgue, they had to find that the body was NOT in the Bronze casket, but in the shipping casket. Given the timing, the body was already on the table and being worked on by Humes and Boswell. They had been ordered not to leave the body, yet they had, knowingly or not left it and followed an empty casket. I doubt they wanted to report that. But if it was known by them that the switch was done, then they wouldn't want to report on that either. Folks wouldn't want to know that in the middle of the night and Jackie's grief and all the rest, the FBI ands SS were playing musical caskets with JFK's body.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yep. More persons willing to lie uder oath that they saw the body taken out of the bronze casket, when in fact they could not have seen any such thing.
>
>
Sometimes the description of what happened in reports or testimony
glosses over the body and what casket it came out of, but later after the
damage was done and the body put into the bronze casket, which was stored
in the cooler area, people saw the body come out of the bronze casket as
expected after the 8:00pm 'official' autopsy was underway.
>
> >
>
> > Make note, the casket switch is in the sworn testimony of Richard Lipsey. The testimony of others at Bethesda back that up as to the body being in the shipping casket. Those that saw it in the Bronze casket at Bethesda may have seen it after Humes and Boswell put the body back in the Bronze casket after they had damaged the top of head. If you check the Sibert & O'Neill report, you see a note on page 3 that when the body was taken out and put on the table, it was noticed that "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull" had been done. They had thought that happened as a first step, when Humes and Boswell actually had been working earlier on that area and put the body back. The only other choice there is that the FBI and other agents there knew what was going on, that the body was being altered to match the scenario of the 'lone nut' and they all covered it up, which doesn't seem probable.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Yet the surgery comment has been explained by Sibert as referring to the neck wound. See about the 9:15 mark of the following:
>
>
>
>
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
>
>
If you use DVP's site you'll find all you need to back up any LN
viewpoint, but I find I don't trust it. But I couldn't find the item you
pointed out. I don't think it would matter though, because here's the
statement from the Sibert & O'Neill report itself generated soon after the
autopsy:
"It was ascertained that the president's clothing had been removed and it
was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, AS WELL AS
SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL." [MY CAPS]
If Sibert said something that matched with the party line in 2005, and
it disagreed with that statement, then I'm going with the statement above
from their report so close to the action. The report was clear that
surgery of the top of the skull was done, and Humes's remark about it just
cinches it.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > How is it determined by you that his non-sworn testimony is to be
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > believed, but his *sworn* testimony can be ignored?
>
> >
See above.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He said what he was quoted as saying. If he later got on to the party line, that's another story. Others were also convinced to change their stories where it needed to match the scenario of the wacky WC 'lone nut' theory.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Yep. Sworn testimony only matter in on direction.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 4) Sibert #27, also repeats the general comments about the type of casket
>
> >
I don't follow. Sibert & O'Neill were with the Kennedy party and the
bronze casket that was sent over the road to get to Bethesda later than
the helicopter that carried the shipping casket with Wehle and Lipsey. I
just noticed an odd circumstance. Gen. Wehle and Richard Lipsey, who was
supposed to stay with the JFK body through thick and thin, were NOT listed
in the Sibert & O'Neill report!! Many other military people were listed,
from high to low ranks. Were they kicked out early with the assistants
before Sibert & O'Neill got there at 7:17pm? Odd. Unless they didn't
want to mention them because it might bring out the musical caskets and
that that the military was playing with the body of a beloved president.
The family might not approve.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and how JFK was wrapped in his *sworn* testimony.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That's dealt with in another thread and above. He may not have wanted to admit that he left the body of JFK after being ordered to stay with it. He followed the Kennedy family and the Bronze casket, which was empty. The idea that the casket switch was to fool the media seems silly when you look back on it. The media followed the family with Jackie and Bobby anyway, and they wouldn't have let them enter the morgue if they had followed the body. The marines were stationed at all access points to keep unauthorized people out. Of course, there had to be some excuse to get the body to Bethesda early for the prosectors to do the damage before anyone else arrived. They even kicked out the assistants as they were doing the deed to have privacy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> I've seen a different explanation as to the helicopter's purpose, but will need to do more research before commenting.
>
>
>
> However, one point you have made repeatedly is how "highly unsual" it was
>
> for Humes or Boswell to have done some of the pre-autopsy prep-work they
>
> would normally leave to underlings. May I take this opportunity to point
>
> out that having the youthful and shockingly slain President of the United
>
> States wheeled into your morgue on short notice for you to autopsy without
>
> having a background as a *forensic* pathologist, is itself, a *HIGHLY*
>
> unusual situation.
>
>
>
> Given that context, is it *really* so strange that these men would get
>
> involved in a "hands-on" way that they would never do if it were "Joe
>
> Stiff" being wheeled in after having died from a heart attack?
>
>
I might have gone with that explanation if it wasn't for a number of
items of information. First, they had been informed in advance that JFK
was coming, and (I assume) were told generally what to do to cover up
shots from the front. Second, when Paul O'Connor went to do his assigned
task of taking out the brain, he was nonplussed that it wasn't there, and
had to assume that it was blown out by a bullet! Mind you, as he is in
there looking to do his duty, Humes and Boswell were standing right there
next to him, and failed to tell him that they took out the brain already.
They just let him flounder around until he gave up with the belief that
the brain was blasted out of the head. That was his testimony in the Mock
Trial, it was so much after, and they STILL hadn't told him.
Third, Humes facetiously spoke of surgery earlier, yet HE was the one
that did it, and here he was playing like someone else had done it. Was
he trying to blame Parkland staff? Or was he just nervous because it was
obvious that surgery had been done, yet the autopsy was just beginning.
What would people think that they were invited to witness and the work was
done secretly in advance? It might suggest a cover up. Heavens!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Again, how do you determine it is appropriate to give such weight to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > *sworn* testimony in one case, but not another?
>
> >
See above.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > As noted above there are only a few cases where you've found that situation.
>
>
>
> Yes. But I've only looked at a few cases so far. Not a trajectory that
>
> makes me assume that these will prove to be the last such situations.
>
>
>
> I used search engines to find the information, and sometimes they found
>
> one and not the other case, but when I looked at the ones you pointed out,
>
> they were both cases where the person has spoken of the 'large hole'
>
> first, then later came along to the party line. I usually take the
>
> earlier statement, which is common investigative procedure. That is
>
> closer to the 'event' and more believable. That's for those where I actually knew there were 2 statements, which there were few of.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> So are you telling me that in each case among your witnesses where they
>
> have rendered more than one version that I am going to find that it is the
>
> *earlier* statement that are supportive of your theories? I would be
>
> surprised if that were true, but I haven't carried this through further
>
> yet.
>
>
Nope. I won't tell you that. Most often when I found a person's name,
I googled it, or looked in testimony and when it said something that meant
a 'large hole' in the BOH, I recorded it and where it came from. I didn't
spend hours checking every word out of a witness's mouth.
>
> >
>
> > I know there is a lot above to wade through, and I'm sorry about that, but there were certain basics I had to cover to answer your questions. If it has generated more questions, just ask...:)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> I am sure I will when I get 'round to looking at more.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I have repaired the problem of the duplicate entry of Stringer, and we are back to a list of 39 names, and I continue to look for others that should be listed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes I see.
>
>
>
> BT George
The amount of names that say 'large hole' in BOH is not that important
since there are so many names compared to those that say there was a small
hole, or a bullet hole in the BOH. I've only found the 2 prosectors.
There was a doctor at Parkland, but he was never in the ER and just used
it to make some money, write a book, and get on TV and go around and
speak. All the sort of things that most of the witnesses didn't do.
Chris