DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in
the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really
meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he
wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy'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. In this region there is an actual absence
of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
in greatest diameter."
If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above
paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy
photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8qLfNk-5hY/VhRD_qSOzRI/AAAAAAABHio/nwmGzdYQ8Gc/s700/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vnqprpvPSco/VhFrzSZFlSI/AAAAAAABHg8/f6fjsSoW_So/s700/Human-Skull.jpg
I'll also provide the following excerpts from the 1996 ARRB testimony of
two of JFK's autopsy surgeons, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton
Boswell, which is testimony that most certainly indicates that these two
autopsy physicians KNEW that there was no missing bone or scalp in the
OCCIPITAL portion of the President's head:
QUESTION -- "Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the
occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"
DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."
----------------
QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone
from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"
DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a
significant missing bone."
QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"
DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."
QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always
strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't
think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."
----------------
DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal
there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
this space is here."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
When did I ever deny that?
Answer -- Never.
Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see
for myself in the autopsy report?
I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the
Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm
correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word --
"FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he
looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T
use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....
DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal,
temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I am still looking for an LNer explanation as to how one can determine a
piece of evidence is real or planted to frame someone. Clearly you guys
have some kind of technique because you are quite sure that certain
disputed items are real evidence. I have offered my criteria, but all I
have from the LN side is:
1) Common sense.
and...
2) Any item of evidence can be challenged.
Neither of these answers explains anything. 1) is simply stupid and 2)
totally avoids the question.
So please tell us, LNers, how does one determine that evidence is genuine?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In my opinion, a big thing that indicates NONE of the evidence is fake is
the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence collected by MULTIPLE
organizations and in MULTIPLE locations (TSBD, Parkland Hospital, the
limousine, 10th & Patton, the parking lot behind the Texaco station, the
Texas Theater, Ruth Paine's garage, and Bethesda Naval Hospital).
If all that is fake evidence, it was a heck of a coordinated effort.
Plus, it would appear as if the various alleged evidence-fakers got the
person they were framing to cooperate with them as well, because Mr.
Oswald acted like anything BUT an "innocent patsy" immediately after the
assassination.
My question for conspiracy theorists would be --- Why would you think any
of the Oswald-incriminating evidence is fake when Lee Harvey Oswald
himself was acting so much like a guilty person on November 22, 1963?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And *ALL* of it went through just two places... the FBI, or the Secret
Service.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The DPD doesn't count at all, eh? They only collected all of the TSBD
evidence.
Most of the evidence also ended up being handled by the FBI, that's true
enough. (Probably all of it, in fact.) But the Dallas Police Department
did a lot of work with the evidence BEFORE the FBI ever got involved with
it. Take the Oswald palmprint on the rifle, for example. And the trigger
guard prints on the rifle. And the paraffin tests administered to Oswald.
And then there are the two "non-Poe" bullet shells at the Tippit murder
scene (the ones that were initially found by witnesses Barbara Davis and
Virginia Davis), which have the shortest chain of custody possible ---
from Davis to Dhority for one of them; and from Davis to Doughty for the
other....with each officer marking their respective shell. So HOW are
THOSE chains NOT complete and bona fide?
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is another piece of evidence that has the
shortest (or smallest) possible chain --- from Lieutenant J.C. Day of the
Dallas Police Department ... to .... NOBODY ELSE. Day is essentially THE
entire chain. (The entire chain that really matters, I mean.)
I.E., Lieutenant Day took possession of the rifle in the TSBD; he did not
hand it off to anybody else before he marked it; Day etched his name into
the butt of the gun [see photo below]; and Day retained possession of that
rifle all throughout Day 1 until the FBI took it at 11:45 PM CST on
November 22nd.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQ5f41GAWuE/VhSj3wHb-YI/AAAAAAABHi4/VKKUp-7RBGQ/s1600/JC-Day-Mark-On-C2766-Carcano-Rifle.jpg
So, REGARDLESS of who handled the C2766 rifle at the FBI, the gun is still
going to trace back to the FIRST PERSON who handled it---Lt. J.C. Day of
the DPD. So I can't really see why CTers think the Carcano rifle has a
poor chain of custody either....because it clearly does not have a poor
chain, because Lieutenant Day marked the gun on November 22 before he ever
turned it over to anybody else. Ergo, no matter who else handled the rifle
after J.C. Day, the C2766 rifle will forever still PROVABLY be the rifle
Lieutenant Day picked up off the floor of the TSBD's sixth floor on
11/22/63.
And I'm quite certain that the same kind of "one-man chain" can apply to
other pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case, too.
As Vincent Bugliosi told me in a letter in 2009 when we were discussing
the courtroom admissibility of Bullet CE399:
"The whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure
that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is
what they claim it to be." -- Vince Bugliosi; Letter to DVP; 8/22/09
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html
"NICKNAME" SAID:
And what is "acting guilty?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You don't think pulling a gun and trying to shoot a cop inside a movie
theater constitutes "acting guilty"?
You think such activity is more in line with "acting innocent"?
"NICKNAME" SAID:
There is no testimony to support a gun was drawn and no evidence that is
was.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Horse manure!
Johnny Brewer verifies it....
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html
Conspiracy theorists will do and say anything to keep Oswald blameless.
Don't CTers realize how utterly desperate they look when they keep pulling
this same "Fake Evidence / Lying Cops" trick out of their empty bag of
evidence?
At some point, don't you have to eventually TRUST SOMEBODY?