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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Anybody know the citation for Stover saying they probed (photographed?) the back wound?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

John Canal

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 1:10:10 PM2/3/10
to
Whether or not they probed the back wound has never been an issue I was
all that interested in.......until last night when Fiorentino evidently
tried to discredit Dr. Karnei as a witness (surely because Karnei was
supportive of an artcle I mailed him) by pointing out Karnei had said he
saw photos of the autopsists probing the back wound.....which Fiorentino
said never existed.

While I knew there was at least one other witness who had said they probed
the back wound, I didn't realize there were several until Barb mentioned
the names of some "probe winesses". (thanks again Barb).

Anyway, I found several related citations but couldn't find where Captain
Stover (Barb had mentioned him) said anything about the wound being
probed...can anyone help me out on that?

Thanks.

John Canal


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

yeuhd

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 4:16:51 PM2/3/10
to


1. Assassination Records Review Board, Medical Deposition 26,
Memorandum, Andy Purdy to Jim Kelly and Kenneth Klein, August 17,
1977, Notes of interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, p. 6.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md26/html/Image00.htm

2. Assassination Records Review Board, Medical Deposition 44, FBI
Report of O’Neill and Sibert, November 26, 1963, p. 4.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image0.htm

3. Dennis L. Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part III,” Journal of the American
Medical Association, vol. 268, p. 1750, October 7, 1992.

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 4:18:46 PM2/3/10
to

>>> "Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the
ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe
inserted
into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in
evidence." <<<


How could there possibly be a photograph of something that never
happened in the first place (i.e., a picture of a probe IN THE BODY of
John F. Kennedy)?

Quoting Dr. Boswell:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of
probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and
the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you
COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr.
J. Thornton Boswell; February 26, 1996; Page 75 of Dr. Boswell's ARRB
deposition

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0039a.htm

-----------

But even if a photo DID exist that showed a "probe" somewhere in the
picture -- so what? Dr. Boswell stated in his 1996 ARRB deposition
that President Kennedy's upper-back wound WAS, indeed, probed with
"all sorts of probes", but the probes would not go through the body
due to JFK's muscles having "closed", prohibiting any probe or any
other object from going through the President's body.

So we know that some type of "probe" was utilized by the autopsists at
JFK's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963. Dr. Boswell certainly
wasn't hiding that fact during the ARRB excerpt I cited above.

Is it the contention of certain conspiracy theorists (and possibly
John Canal too) that a picture was taken during the autopsy that
supposedly depicts a probe going ALL THE WAY THROUGH John F. Kennedy's
body?

But, since we know from the various testimony sessions of autopsy
doctors Boswell and Humes that no such "all the way through the body"
probing was done at JFK's autopsy, then (obviously) no such photograph
like that could exist in the first place.

And I'm trying to figure out why photographer John Stringer would have
wanted to take a picture of a probe that had been placed only a small
distance into JFK's upper-back wound (with the probe obviously not
going very far into the body, per Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony).

What purpose would a "partial probe" photograph have served in the
overall documentation of JFK's autopsy? I can think of no good reason
for Stringer to have taken a photo of that nature at all. A photo like
that would have served about the same purpose as having a picture of
Dr. Humes inserting his finger into JFK's back wound.

In other words, such "partial probe" photography would be essentially
worthless (and useless).

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

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

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


DVP'S "BACK-OF-THE-HEAD" ARCHIVE:


THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5

MORE "BOH" TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5856e761c980873
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a94f08867e7542e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/206d901e1d772b00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bd2d6afd533d2c63
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed6f679852c2c6b4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3068cd0dca637ae6


A VERY IMPORTANT X-RAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6

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


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 10:16:35 PM2/3/10
to
On 2/3/2010 1:10 PM, John Canal wrote:
> Whether or not they probed the back wound has never been an issue I was
> all that interested in.......until last night when Fiorentino evidently
> tried to discredit Dr. Karnei as a witness (surely because Karnei was
> supportive of an artcle I mailed him) by pointing out Karnei had said he
> saw photos of the autopsists probing the back wound.....which Fiorentino
> said never existed.
>

How do we know the photos never existed? Just because Fiorentino said so?
Please. That is silly. We already know the ARRB found and had developed
several photos which we thought had been destroyed. The mere fact that we
proved that someone had TRIED to destroy evidence in this case suggests
that they might have also been successful in destroying evidence.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 10:31:40 PM2/3/10
to
On 2/3/2010 4:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the
> ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe
> inserted
> into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in
> evidence."<<<
>
>
>
>
> How could there possibly be a photograph of something that never
> happened in the first place (i.e., a picture of a probe IN THE BODY of
> John F. Kennedy)?
>

You are confusing the issue intentionally. There could be a photograph
of the ATTEMPT to probe the wound, not a photograph of a successful
probe of the wound.

> Quoting Dr. Boswell:
>
> "We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of
> probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and
> the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you
> COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr.
> J. Thornton Boswell; February 26, 1996; Page 75 of Dr. Boswell's ARRB
> deposition
>

That is not the proper way to document a wound.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0039a.htm
>
> -----------
>
> But even if a photo DID exist that showed a "probe" somewhere in the
> picture -- so what? Dr. Boswell stated in his 1996 ARRB deposition
> that President Kennedy's upper-back wound WAS, indeed, probed with
> "all sorts of probes", but the probes would not go through the body
> due to JFK's muscles having "closed", prohibiting any probe or any
> other object from going through the President's body.
>
> So we know that some type of "probe" was utilized by the autopsists at
> JFK's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963. Dr. Boswell certainly
> wasn't hiding that fact during the ARRB excerpt I cited above.
>
> Is it the contention of certain conspiracy theorists (and possibly
> John Canal too) that a picture was taken during the autopsy that
> supposedly depicts a probe going ALL THE WAY THROUGH John F. Kennedy's
> body?
>

I certainly hope not.
Maybe the janitor.

> But, since we know from the various testimony sessions of autopsy
> doctors Boswell and Humes that no such "all the way through the body"
> probing was done at JFK's autopsy, then (obviously) no such photograph
> like that could exist in the first place.
>
> And I'm trying to figure out why photographer John Stringer would have
> wanted to take a picture of a probe that had been placed only a small
> distance into JFK's upper-back wound (with the probe obviously not
> going very far into the body, per Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony).
>

To prove that the bullet only penetrated an inch or so.

> What purpose would a "partial probe" photograph have served in the
> overall documentation of JFK's autopsy? I can think of no good reason
> for Stringer to have taken a photo of that nature at all. A photo like
> that would have served about the same purpose as having a picture of
> Dr. Humes inserting his finger into JFK's back wound.
>

To prove that Humes wasn't a total idiot.

John Canal

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 11:03:07 PM2/3/10
to
>Is it the contention of certain conspiracy theorists (and possibly
>John Canal too) that a picture was taken during the autopsy that
>supposedly depicts a probe going ALL THE WAY THROUGH John F. Kennedy's
>body?

I'm trying the "cut n' paste" technique that is the signature posting
method of DVP. Kind of neat....you pick and chose what you want to respond
to and simply cut everything else.....Wouldn't work too well in an open
forum, e.g. in front of an audience, though....unless there was a trap
door under the podium to slip away through when a question you don't like
is posed.

Anyway, you haven't been keeping up. Fiorentino was suggesting that,
because Karnei said he recalled them probing the back wound and pictures
being taken of that event....and there were no such pictures in the
inventory, he must have a credibility problem.

In Karnei's defense, I recalled at least one other witness who said they
saw one of the prosectors (Finck?) probing the back wound and photos of
that probing being taken.

Barb said there were others and she was correct.

How far the probe went in is not under debate...it's whether or not they
tried and if their attempts were photographed.

Got it?

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 4:29:49 PM2/4/10
to

>>> "How far the probe went in is not under debate...it's whether or not they tried and if their attempts were photographed." <<<

Ask Stringer.

John Canal

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 5:45:01 PM2/4/10
to
In article <9640f5bd-bfc6-4208...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd says...

Yeuhd,

Thanks. BTW, the Finck to JAMA citation had unexpected useful results. I simply
Googled "Dennis L. Breo" and "Part III" and, incredibly, a link to the JAMA
archives came up and, for free, let me download a pdf of JAMA's interview with
Finck.

John Canal

>On Feb 3, 1:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Whether or not they probed the back wound has never been an issue I was
>> all that interested in.......until last night when Fiorentino evidently
>> tried to discredit Dr. Karnei as a witness (surely because Karnei was
>> supportive of an artcle I mailed him) by pointing out Karnei had said he
>> saw photos of the autopsists probing the back wound.....which Fiorentino
>> said never existed.
>>

>> While I knew there was at least one other witness who had said they probe=


>d
>> the back wound, I didn't realize there were several until Barb mentioned
>> the names of some "probe winesses". (thanks again Barb).
>>
>> Anyway, I found several related citations but couldn't find where Captain
>> Stover (Barb had mentioned him) said anything about the wound being
>> probed...can anyone help me out on that?
>
>
>1. Assassination Records Review Board, Medical Deposition 26,
>Memorandum, Andy Purdy to Jim Kelly and Kenneth Klein, August 17,
>1977, Notes of interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, p. 6.

>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md26/html/Image00=


>.htm
>
>2. Assassination Records Review Board, Medical Deposition 44, FBI

>Report of O=92Neill and Sibert, November 26, 1963, p. 4.
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image0.=
>htm
>
>3. Dennis L. Breo, =93JFK=92s Death, Part III,=94 Journal of the American


>Medical Association, vol. 268, p. 1750, October 7, 1992.
>


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 7:06:41 PM2/4/10
to

>>> "[Stringer might have taken a "partial probe" photo] To prove that the

bullet only penetrated an inch or so." <<<

But such a picture would "prove" no such thing.

Why?

Because of these words spoken by Dr. Boswell in 1996:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes
and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles
were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you COULDN'T GET A

FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr. J.T. Boswell

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:50:53 AM2/5/10
to

It most certainly would prove it if a 10 inch probe is shown only going
in one or two inches.

markusp

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 10:23:26 PM2/5/10
to

In that particular portion of the male anatomy, do we expect the muscles
in a cadaver to be "so big and strong" as to prevent probing? Does rigor
mortis do this? I looked up rigor mortis, and it begins 3 hours after
death, and reaches maximum rigidity in 12 hours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
Respectfully,
~Mark

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 10:10:39 AM2/6/10
to

>>> "In that particular portion of the male anatomy, do we expect the muscles in a cadaver to be "so big and strong" as to prevent probing?" <<<

Evidently so. Boswell said so.

Let me guess -- Boswell is lying scum. Right?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:14:03 PM2/6/10
to


Why yes, yes he is.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif

Do YOU believe the entrance wound was really where Boswell put the X?
If not, then you must admit that Boswell is a liar.
And you are proud of him for lying.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 6, 2010, 8:36:16 PM2/6/10
to


You are on the track. I don't think they ever suggested that rigor mortis
was the cause. I think their point was that the position of the victim had
changed since he was shot and the muscles had shifted so that the wound
path was no longer continuous.

Doesn't matter anyway because The Three Stooges thought that the bullet
had only gone in an inch or so and then fell out.


0 new messages