Setting The Record Straight: Correcting A Few "Reclaiming History" Errors
David Von Pein
WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES GREGORY AND JOHN
CONNALLY'S WRIST FRAGMENTS......
================================================
I've taken note of a series of mistakes made by author Vincent
Bugliosi (VB) in the Endnotes section of his 2007 book "Reclaiming
History" regarding the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles F.
Gregory of Parkland Hospital (as his testimony relates to the various
bullet fragments associated with injured Texas Governor John B.
Connally).
I've already talked about one of VB's Gregory-related mistakes in Part
2 of my 3-part book review for "Reclaiming History", which is
discussed at the link below (about halfway down the page). At least
I'm nearly certain I can label it a "mistake" on Mr. Bugliosi's part:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200860
And in addition to the "CE690/CE691" X-ray snafu talked about at the
above webpage, I've found a couple of other related errors that appear
in the "RH" Endnotes (on the CD that comes with the book).
These discrepancies are quite small overall, and don't really affect
the bottom-line "Oswald Killed JFK And Acted Alone" conclusion reached
by Mr. Bugliosi in his stellar book in any way at all.
But, just for the record, I thought I'd point out these discrepancies
anyway, because they do deal with the fairly-important matter of the
bullet fragments that were found inside Governor Connally in 1963.
Also: These mistakes, when corrected, certainly tend to buttress the
overall "lone assassin" scenario even more, in my opinion (vs. these
topics remaining unaddressed and left "as is" in VB's book). .....
On Pages 439 and 440 of "Reclaiming History's" Endnotes, Mr. Bugliosi
says this.....
"How many fragments were removed from Connally's wrist? Dr.
Gregory, who performed the surgery on Connally's wrist, is dead, and
the record he left behind to answer this question is contradictory.
"In his Parkland Memorial Hospital "Operative Record," prepared
on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he writes in fractured and
confusing syntax: "Small bits of metal were encountered at various
levels throughout the wound [to the right wrist] and these were
wherever they were identified and could be picked up were picked up
and have been submitted to the Pathology department for identification
and examination" (CE 392, 17 H 18).
"So no specific number of fragments is mentioned. In his Warren
Commission testimony on April 21, 1964, Gregory said that "there were
two fragments retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound
[right wrist] surgically...I thought I had retrieved two of them" (4 H
123). There's no other reference in his testimony, or that of Dr.
Robert Shaw (who operated on Connally's chest), or of Dr. Tom Shires
(who operated on Connally's thigh), that any other bullet fragments
were removed.
"Dr. Gregory's recollection of removing only two fragments
conflicts, of course, with Dr. Vincent Guinn's testimony that he
subjected THREE bullet fragments from Connally's wrist to NAA.
"The likelihood is that Gregory removed three fragments on
November 22, 1963, and five months later in his testimony he forgot
the exact number." -- VB; "RH"; Pages 439-440 of Endnotes
============
Now, Vince is definitely mistaken when he says this in the above "RH"
excerpt: "There's no other reference in his {Gregory's}
testimony...that any other bullet fragments {above and beyond a total
of two} were removed."
Because I've found a reference in Gregory's first Warren Commission
session of March 23, 1964 (a session that VB has apparently overlooked
entirely, since Vince only cites Gregory's April 21, 1964, testimony,
which was Gregory's second WC session), which has Gregory saying that
he retrieved "two or three" metal fragments from Connally's wrist
during surgery. .....
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as
bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that
there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which
cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm.
Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
appropriate authorities for further disposition."
MR. SPECTER -- "Approximately how large were those fragments, Dr.
Gregory?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge that they were first--flat, rather thin,
and that their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth
of an inch. They were very small."
(The above 03/23/64 testimony can be found on Page 98 of WC Volume #6,
linked below.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0054b.htm
============
And there's another error that also appears on the "RH" Endnotes CD,
dealing with "fragments" that were visible on two of Governor
Connally's pre-operative X-rays (CE690 and CE691). .....
"If 2.4 grains was lost from the stretcher bullet, and the three
fragments that were reportedly removed from Connally's wrist
collectively weighed 0.5 grain, did the seven or eight (4 H 119-120,
WCT Dr. Charles F. Gregory) fragments REMAINING in Connally's body
weigh more than 1.9 grains? Since they were never removed, we cannot
be categorical in our answer, but the available evidence strongly
suggests they did not." -- VB; "RH"; Page 443 of Endnotes
============
The above VB quote could probably be categorized as more of an
understandable "misinterpretation" of Dr. Gregory's testimony on Mr.
Bugliosi's part, because Vince obviously thinks Gregory is talking
about "bullet" fragments in the WC passage reprinted above. But
Gregory is definitely NOT talking about "seven or eight" BULLET
fragments being visible on Connally's pre-operative X-rays in his
testimony on page 120 of WC Volume 4.
Instead, Gregory was actually referring to "seven or eight" BONE
fragments in that portion of his testimony, which (to me) is quite
obvious, because his "seven or eight" remark comes right on the heels
of talking about the "comminuted" fracture of Connally's wrist, and
not about any "metal" fragments at that point.
Plus, it's further obvious that Gregory is not talking about
"bullet" (or "metal") fragments there when he said "seven or eight",
because in Arlen Specter's VERY NEXT question, he switches gears and
asks "Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows with respect
to metallic fragments, if any?", which must mean that Gregory's
previous remarks a couple of seconds earlier were not referring to
anything relating to "metallic" fragments seen on the Governor's X-
rays.
Here are the pertinent portions of Dr. Gregory's testimony (via Pages
119 and 120 of WC Volume #4, also linked below):
DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "Let the record show that "A" stands for the
anteroposterior view, Exhibit No. 691, and "B" stands for the lateral
view, Exhibit No. 690, of the right wrist and forearm. "A" then
demonstrates a comminuted fracture of the wrist with three fragments."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What do you mean by comminuted?"
DR. GREGORY -- "Comminuted refers to shattering, to break into more
than two pieces, specifically many pieces, and if I may, I can point
out there is a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, a
fragment here, and there are several smaller fragments lying in the
center of these three larger ones.
MR. SPECTER -- "How many fragments are there in total, sir, in your
opinion?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge from this view that counting each
isolated fragment there are fully seven or eight, and experience has
taught that when these things are dismantled directly under direct
vision that there very obviously may be more than that."
MR. SPECTER -- "Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows
with respect to metallic fragments, if any?"
DR. GREGORY -- "Three shadows are identified as representing metallic
fragments. There are other light shadows in this film which are
identified or interpreted as being artifacts."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0064b.htm
============
Well, nobody's perfect. And I guess nobody should really expect any
book the size of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" to be
completely error-free. But the very few mistakes that crop up within
VB's exemplary JFK book (and CD) are not nearly significant enough in
nature, in my view, to warrant the dismissal of Mr. Bugliosi's
ultimate "Lone Assassin" determination.
A conspiracy theorist's mileage with respect to my last remark will,
of course, vary.
David Von Pein
December 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2
aeffects
> SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (OR AT LEAST A LITTLE STRAIGHTER ANYWAY)
> WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES GREGORY AND JOHN
> CONNALLY'S WRIST FRAGMENTS......
A few? rotflmfao!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
It would be interesting if the Bugliosi Fan Club President could explain why
Bugliosi refused to deal with the 16 smoking guns, despite clearly knowing about
them.
Lying and saying that he did, with no ability to cite *WHERE*, won't convince
anyone.
aeffects
> In article <d599e686-7c61-4b55-81d7-91a1d1d70...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 13, 10:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (OR AT LEAST A LITTLE STRAIGHTER ANYWAY)
> >> WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES GREGORY AND JOHN
> >> CONNALLY'S WRIST FRAGMENTS......
>
> >A few? rotflmfao!
>
> It would be interesting if the Bugliosi Fan Club President could explain why
> Bugliosi refused to deal with the 16 smoking guns, despite clearly knowing about
> them.
that would require more than Lone Nut cutting and pasting....
unfortunately, our very own David Von Pein, is not capable of anything
else. Nor, I doubt, is he authorized to do anything but cut-n-paste
nonsense....
David Von Pein
Spoken by one of our resident Super-Kooks as if my thread-starting
post above is merely a "copy-&-paste" job.
Healy evidently thinks that all of that stuff in my Post #1 is C&P'ed.
(Go figure kooks.) ~shrug~
In point of fact, it took me hours assembling and confirming that info
for the thread-starting post in this thread (albeit, granted, as I
said earlier, it's all relatively unimportant stuff and is not hugely
significant in the long run, but I wanted to post it "for the record",
so to speak).
In defense of Mr. Bugliosi, however, with respect to Dr. Gregory's
testimony -- I will say that I, too, was a little confused when
digging a deeper into Gregory's two separate WC sessions (in March and
then in April of 1964), especially the way his testimony is published
in a reverse, out-of-order fashion in the WC's 26 volumes, plus the
way Gregory's testimony is laid out on the John McAdams page below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
On that McAdams page, it would seem logical to assume that the
testimony marked "Gregory WC Tesimony [sic] 1" should be the earlier
(March) session with Dr. Gregory. But it's not. "1" is the longer
April session, while "2" on that page is Gregory's earlier testimony
from Parkland.
All of Gregory's testimony is, indeed, represented on that webpage;
it's just a bit confusing (chronologically) until you get deeper into
the testimony itself.
But I'm guessing that the above-linked McAdams "Testimony" page is
merely laid out in a way that follows the WC's own volume numbers,
which are also backward, chronologically, with respect to Dr. Gregory.
Gregory's first (shorter) Warren Commission session (or "deposition",
as Arlen Specter refers to it in Gregory's later session in April)
took place at Parkland Hospital in March, and that was published by
the WC in Volume #6. Whereas Gregory's later April testimony is
published in an earlier volume (#4).
I can't quite figure out why the WC wouldn't have published both of
Gregory's sessions together in the same volume? Seems odd.
Of course, if the WC had done that and kept all of Gregory's testimony
together in the same volume, then it's doubtful that Vince Bugliosi
would have made at least one of the errors that I mentioned earlier
(when VB says that Gregory never testified to recovering any more than
"two" metal fragments from Connally's wrist, when, in fact, Gregory
said he recovered "two or three" wrist fragments in his March WC
session).
Obviously, though, VB probably still should have been able to easily
find Gregory's other WC testimony in Volume 6, because it is right
there in B&W too....but apparently he never saw that testimony at all
(from what I can gather), instead thinking that Gregory only testified
once, in April. ~shrug~
REPLAY.......
>>> "Nor, I doubt, is he {DVP} authorized to do anything but cut-n-paste nonsense." <<<
So, I guess Healy The Mega-Loon also thinks that all of those mile-
long forum messages that I've posted in recent weeks in late 2007
while arguing the case with another conspiracy-loving Super-Kook named
"Robcap" (plus other CTers who post stuff at Amazon.com) are also
merely composed of nothing but previously-written, rehashed "copy-&-
paste" material....huh Healy-Kook?
That's a riot....because the post linked below, in fact, took me
approx. ten hours to put together (as I totally destroy several
different idiotic notions that were posted at Amazon by someone named
"C. Chow" recently).
Is all of this supposedly "C&P'ed", Healy-Idiot (other than the
obvious fact that it was posted at Amazon first, and then "copied"
seconds later to add to a post here at alt.conspiracy.jfk)?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5d384fd048c73bc8
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e9435df15760fee6
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9571a95278f6b1/932542f222f02a12
>>> "It would be interesting if the Bugliosi Fan Club President could explain why Bugliosi refused to deal with the 16 smoking guns, despite clearly knowing about them." <<<
I think I summed things up pretty well in August 2007 with respect to
this stupid "Smoking Guns" topic.....
"There is no possible (human) way that two kooks (Healy, Holmes)
can be this stupid. Not possible.
"Just because the "16 guns" aren't dealt with in a separate "16
Guns" chapter, these kooks seem to think VB has not "dealt" with ANY
of them in any portion of his book.
"But, of course, Vince has. Every one. Without a shred of a
doubt. I've read the entire book, and all of Fetzer's nonsense is
dealt with in "RH" (with appropriate source notes, among the 10,000+
such citations).
"If you think I'm going to dig through the whole book to satisfy
eternally-unsatisifiable "16 Guns" kooks like H&H, you're nuts. Go
look them up yourself. Which you won't do, of course...because you
don't want to admit that VB has dealt with every CT assertion you
claim he has not addressed.
"What a life it must be, being a conspiracy-loving kook. And
what a motto to live by too -- "ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER!" " -- DVP;
08/22/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8fd02961de44e52a
========
To repeat......
Vincent Bugliosi, throughout his book ("Reclaiming History"), has
dealt with all of Fetzer's lame-ass so-called "Guns". And Ben's poking
his kooky head through the fence every month or so to claim that VB
"refused to deal" with these issues won't make Ben's claims any truer,
of course.
But Ben, being the "ABO" Mega-Kook and occasional liar that we all
know he is, will continue to state that Vince hasn't addressed a
single one of the conspiracy-tinged issues brought up by Fetzer.
Go figure.
(I wonder why Ben can't read? For if he could, he'd know that his
statements about VB are patently false.)
>>> "Lying and saying that he did, with no ability to cite *WHERE*, won't convince anyone." <<<
<chuckles>
If a kook named Benjamin would just open "Reclaiming History" and READ
some of it, instead of griping about what he THINKS isn't in it (but
really is in it), maybe he'd be able to find the passages within VB's
book that amply destroy Fetzer's "16 Smokers".
BTW, many of those "Guns" are just downright stupid and hilarious, and
can be easily demolished via just ordinary common sense and a
rudimentary knowledge of the case. Such as these nine idiotic "Guns"
of Fetzer's:
>>> "Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have fired the bullets that killed the president." <<<
"Not even a rifle"??? I guess perhaps JFK was killed by a bow-and-
arrow instead, huh? Or maybe a "slinky"? Those things are deadly when
well-aimed, I understand:
http://www.allmylifeforsale.com/images/Prssphoto/images/slinky_jpg.jpg
>>> "Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the explosive damage." <<<
The above bullshit was proven 100% wrong by Olivier's Army tests for
the WC, and by Lattimer's tests later on.
ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission
Exhibit 861, move its admission into evidence, and ask you to state
what that depicts."
DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER -- "This is the {test} skull in question, the
same one from which the fragments marked Exhibit 857 were recovered."
CE861:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm
SPECTER -- "And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?"
OLIVIER -- "It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away."
SPECTER -- "How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on
President Kennedy?"
OLIVIER -- "Very similar. I think they stated the length of the
defect, the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember
correctly. .... In this {test} case, it is greater, but you don't have
the limiting scalp holding the pieces in, so you would expect it to
fly a little more; but it is essentially a similar type wound."
SPECTER -- "Does the human scalp work to hold in the human skull in
such circumstances to a greater extent than the simulated matters
used?"
OLIVIER -- "Yes; we take this into account." ....
SPECTER -- "Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based
on the tests on firing at the skull?"
OLIVIER -- "We found that this bullet...could make the type of wound
that the President received. Also, that the recovered fragments were
very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor
of the car. This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from
the bullet that wounded the President in the head."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
========
VIA DR. JOHN K. LATTIMER'S SKULL TESTS:
http://i9.tinypic.com/2zjkks2.jpg
========
So, as we can see via the above two "Smoking" examples, Fetzer is
loading his "Smoking Guns" with nothing but blanks (and outright
lies), it would appear. The lengths to which CT-Kooks like Fetzer (et
al) will go in order to prop up their make-believe conspiracies and
"cover-ups" is just fascinating to watch. Despicable...but
fascinating.
>>> "Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple." <<<
100% wrong (yet again). The metallic fragments in JFK's head were
positively confined to the RIGHT hemisphere of the head. Fetzer is
nuts.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/apxray.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0055b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0037a.htm
>>> "Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the x-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways." <<<
Dead-wrong, yet again.
Of course, Fetzer now has to believe that not only was the WC full of
rotten liars and cover-uppers (in addition to the autopsy doctors
being outright liars too), but Fetzer must also believe that a
separate batch of MANY different people comprising the HSCA's
photographic panel were ALSO liars and cover-up agents. Because the
HSCA said this about the X-rays of President Kennedy.....
"The committee...subject{ed} the autopsy photographs and X-rays
to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's
consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations.
The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were
authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy
personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the
medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm
All lies, right Mr. Fetzer?
>>> "Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK." <<<
This "Gun" was put in here by Fetzer probably just for the huge laugh
it elicits whenever it's read by a reasonable (non-kooky) person.
The "second brain" nonsense is a theory that's so incredibly stupid,
only a complete moron could begin to believe it. But Jim Fetzer and
Doug Horne are on board, complete with a "fake" brain that's WAY TOO
BIG to be JFK's real brain!
Great plot there. Once more, this intricate "Cover-Up The Truth" plot
that is imagined by people like Fetzer and Horne (and many other
kooks) was apparently being carried out by people with a combined IQ
in single digits.
>>> "Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited using highly-sophisticated techniques." <<<
Great. A kook thinks something has been "faked" and/or "extensively
edited". What a shocker.
But the moron plotters (who, in this "Z-Film" instance, have a group
IQ of "2") decided it was wise to LEAVE THE REAR HEAD SNAP IN THE
"EDITED" FILM.
Go figure. (And then go laugh your head off, because Fetzer's idiocy
is calling for it.)
>>> "Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front." <<<
And Fetzer uses the very early, confused reports about the shooting to
try and load this particular "Gun" with something other than his usual
blank cartridges. But he fails, as usual.
The witnesses who stated that JFK was shot in the "temple" were
obviously referring to the location where they saw the largest amount
of blood on Kennedy's head--which was, of course, at the "right
temple" of the head.
But to think that the witnesses, who couldn't possibly have been able
to discern any "entry" holes on Kennedy's body in those fleeting
seconds when they observed the President being shot, could have had
the slightest idea where exactly the "inshoot" and "outshoot" holes on
JFK's body were located is just....dumb.
But common sense never stopped a good conspiracy-flavored batch of
nonsense, right Mr. Fetzer?
>>> "Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit eyewitness reports." <<<
Here we have a kook in all his make-believe "faked" glory, with lots
of references to stuff that's been "fabricated", "altered", and
"edited". Lovely.
Is ANYthing in this case "UNaltered" per the kooks (except for perhaps
the testimony of pro-CT witnesses like Jean Hill, Ed Hoffman, and
Skinny Holland, et al)? Doubtful, huh?
>>> "Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed." <<<
Total bullshit (as per the James H. Fetzer norm). If the motorcade
route was "changed at the last minute", then Fetzer has to believe
that it was "changed" TWICE after November 18, 1963, with the latter
of those two changes perfectly mirroring the exact motorcade route
that the two Dallas newspapers had already reported on Tuesday,
November 19th. More.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
========
All of Jimmy Fetzer's "Smoking Guns" insanity can be seen (and laughed
at) here:
www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
========
And, as previously stated, every single one of Mr. Fetzer's "16 Guns"
is tackled at some point in VB's 2007 JFK book, too.
But, for some reason, Ben thinks that he can just utter a nice, neat
blanket statement like: "None of the 16 Smoking Guns are refuted by
Bugliosi", and then Ben The Kook thinks he's off the hook.
Well, Ben isn't off the hook that easily, because Vince has debunked
all of Fetzer's silliness within the many chapters of "Reclaiming
History", whether Ben The Kook wants to believe they've been addressed
by VB or not.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e9435df1...
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9571a952...
>
> >>> "It would be interesting if the Bugliosi Fan Club President could explain why Bugliosi refused to deal with the 16 smoking guns, despite clearly knowing about them." <<<
>
> I think I summed things up pretty well in August 2007 with respect to
> this stupid "Smoking Guns" topic.....
notice that the only smart folks are David Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes)
and Vin daBugliosi -- they can't sell books, but dey be smaht!
<snip the nonsense>
Gil Jesus
Then he goes on to "correct" them. What an ego.
ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
If 'dey be smaht' - why can't they respond to the 16 smoking guns?
aeffects
> Then he goes on to "correct" them. What an ego.
>
> ROFLMAO
yep, quotes himself, then goes on to correct his misleading quote of
himself!
aeffects
> In article <edf7ab41-758c-4257-8364-4193936d1...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
they can't find them, perhaps?????
David Von Pein
Whatever the hell that means. ~shrug~