Jackie's Altered Testimony
Michael T. Griffith
(NOTICE: I do not browse through this newsgroup very often. If you comment
on this message and want to be sure that I see your remarks, please e-mail me
a copy of your reply. Thanks.)
We are all familiar with the fact that in the published version of
Jackie Kennedy's WC testimony the Commission omitted the part
where she mentioned having to hold the back of her husband's head
together. What some people aren't familiar with is the fact that
the WC actually ALTERED a crucial point of Jackie's testimony.
The official account reported that Jackie said that if she had
pulled her husband down after the first shot, the second shot "would
not have hit him" (7 H 178, 180). However, the original transcript
reveals that Mrs. Kennedy actually said that if she had pulled her
husband down, the second shot "WOULD HAVE GOT GOVERNOR CONNALLY"
(Henry Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 26). Someone on the WC, probably
one of the staffers, must have realized the problems her statement
presented, and decided to take the illegal step of altering it.
It is not surprising to learn that several witnesses complained that
the published versions of their WC testimony were inaccurate.
Equally disturbing is the fact that, according to one analysis of WC
documents, at least 60 witnesses charged that the FBI had altered
what they had reported (Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 26).
Mike Griffith
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Griffith. Check out my Real Issues Home Page,
where you'll find web pages on the LDS Church, on the JFK
assassination, and on the creation vs. evolution debate.
My home page's URL is as follows:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As
nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more
need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Freedom belongs only to people who are morally
responsible. It is not possible for a people
to be corrupt and still remain free. To have
a good country we have to build a nation of
good people." -- W. Cleon Skousen
-------------------------------------------------------------
R2JUDGE
Most witnesses stated there was a several second pause between the first
and second shots. Then two shots bunched together at the time JFK
was shot in the head. If that is the case, after the first shot, both men
were
already wounded.
It would be wrong, though, for the Commission to rewrite someone's
testimony.
As for the FBI altering what 60 people said, is it altering or misquoting.
Helen Markham was misquoted as saying the Tippet shooter was short and
fat.
Ron Judge
Pearl Gladstone
Welcome, occasional visitor-Interesting comments- In addition to altering
testimony of witnesses, they killed at lot too.
John McAdams
In article <0ed73084118...@csi.com>,
Michael T. Griffith <MGrif...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>It is not surprising to learn that several witnesses complained that
>the published versions of their WC testimony were inaccurate.
>Equally disturbing is the fact that, according to one analysis of WC
>documents, at least 60 witnesses charged that the FBI had altered
>what they had reported (Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 26).
>
Mike, this is an entirely unsourced and unsupported assertion made by
Hurt. There is no footnote, nor is there a list of such witnesses.
If you think this is true, then you should post the list of "60 witnesses"
who said the FBI had altered their testimony.
The only ones I know about are obvious crackpots (like Julia Ann Mercer).
Who do you have?
.John
Bill Michel
Why are the hundreds(yes, hundreds) of people who witnessed events
contrary to the Warren Report all labeled crackpots? Was Lee Bowers a
crackpot? How about all of the witnesses and police who are on film
charging up the Grassy Knoll in pursuit of a gunman? They must be
crackpots too. I suppose all of the nurses and doctors at Parkland, and
the orderlies at Betrhesda who all saw an exit wound in the back of
Kennedy's head and described an entry wound in the throat are all nuts.
The reason the Warren Report is a whitewash is that no contrary testimony
appears on its pages. The WC was no rush to judgement, it was a cover up
of the highest order.
jack white
REGARDING ALTERED TESTIMONY...WAIT TILL YOU SEE A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN
DOCUMENT JUST UNCOVERED BY JOHN ARMSTRONG. IT IS A COVER-YOUR-ASS MEMO
WRITTEN BY A STAFF WC LAWYER ADVISING AGAINST ALTERING AFFIDAVITS AND
TESTIMONY AS HE OBSERVED WAS BEING DONE, SAYING IT WAS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL
BUT **DANGEROUS** IF DISCOVERED. I WILL ASK JOHN IF I CAN POST IT. IT IS A
BOMBSHELL. JOHN IS BUYING COPIES OF HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS DAILY FROM THE
ARCHIVES, MOST OF WHICH ARE PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN. HE IS FINDING STUFF WHICH
WILL CHANGE THE COURSE OF ASSASSINATION STUDY. HE BROUGHT ME ABOUT 70 OF
THE NEW DOCUMENTS TODAY TO SHOOT SLIDES OF.
as usual, .john is trying to refute Bill*s accurate observations. we don*t
buy it, .john!
JACK
John McAdams
Bill Michel <bmi...@icon.com> wrote:
: John McAdams wrote:
: >
: > In article <0ed73084118...@csi.com>,
: > Michael T. Griffith <MGrif...@compuserve.com> wrote:
: > >
: > >It is not surprising to learn that several witnesses complained that
: > >the published versions of their WC testimony were inaccurate.
: > >Equally disturbing is the fact that, according to one analysis of WC
: > >documents, at least 60 witnesses charged that the FBI had altered
: > >what they had reported (Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 26).
: > >
: >
: > Mike, this is an entirely unsourced and unsupported assertion made by
: > Hurt. There is no footnote, nor is there a list of such witnesses.
: >
: > If you think this is true, then you should post the list of "60 witnesses"
: > who said the FBI had altered their testimony.
: >
: > The only ones I know about are obvious crackpots (like Julia Ann Mercer).
: > Who do you have?
: Why are the hundreds(yes, hundreds) of people who witnessed events
: contrary to the Warren Report all labeled crackpots?
Sashay(tm)!
The question was the claim that "60 witnesses" claimed the FBI had altered
their testimony.
I asked for a list. Hurt asserts this, but doesn't provide a citation.
It sounds like a made up number to me. That's not to say Hurt made it up.
He may have heard it somewhere.
Bill, can you support the "60 witnesses" claim? Want to provide a list,
and citations?
: Was Lee Bowers a
: crackpot?
I think his notion that cars driving around behind the Stockade Fence was
somehow sinister is a bit crackpotish.
But I think his WC testimony is truthful. Remember, he's the guy could
*could* have seen a GK shooter -- being in perfect position -- but did
not.
: How about all of the witnesses and police who are on film
: charging up the Grassy Knoll in pursuit of a gunman? They must be
: crackpots too.
Herd instinct. I just watched the video TWO MEN IN DALLAS again tonight,
and in it Roger Craig explicitly says that he got into Dealey Plaza after
the shooting, and when he saw Haygood run up to the fence *assumed* that
he must be chasing a shooter.
So he ran after him.
: I suppose all of the nurses and doctors at Parkland, and
: the orderlies at Betrhesda who all saw an exit wound in the back of
: Kennedy's head and described an entry wound in the throat are all nuts.
Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
back of JFK's head.
ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds all the time.
.John
JvonH
>: I suppose all of the nurses and doctors at Parkland, and
>: the orderlies at Betrhesda who all saw an exit wound in the back of
>: Kennedy's head and described an entry wound in the throat are all nuts.
>
>Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
>back of JFK's head.
>
>ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds all the time.
>
>.John
Yikes I don't believe that ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds
all the time, chiefly because an entrance is small, with it's edges
turned inward and the exit is a considerably larger hole, some
contents blasted out and the edge of the skin are turned outward. I
can buy mixing up eye color, but not wound descriptions!
JvonH
Greg Jaynes
Remember they were not aware of the backwound.
It only makes sense that they would think the
shot came from the only direction they could see
the wound from. ie; The front.
Greg
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com
>>>ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds all the time.
<study of ER staffs misinterpreting wounds>
>.John
Perhaps.
But not this time. Not in Dallas.
Every American over age five at the time of the assassination remembers
where he/she was upon hearing the news of JFK's death. How much brighter
the memories must burn for those in Dallas who directly witnessed (and
touched)President Kennedy's wounds.
To sweep away their observations as "errors" because they don't seem to
match other "evidence," is not sound judgment. MJ
JvonH
On 26 May 1997 17:40:04 -0500, Greg Jaynes <jay...@flash.net> wrote:
<snipped>
>> >
>> >Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
>> >back of JFK's head.
>> >
>> >ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds all the time.
>> >
>> >.John
>>
>> Yikes I don't believe that ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds
>> all the time, chiefly because an entrance is small, with it's edges
>> turned inward and the exit is a considerably larger hole, some
>> contents blasted out and the edge of the skin are turned outward. I
>> can buy mixing up eye color, but not wound descriptions!
>> JvonH
>
>
>Remember they were not aware of the backwound.
>It only makes sense that they would think the
>shot came from the only direction they could see
>the wound from. ie; The front.
>
>Greg
>
This is from the Warren Report itself.
Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet wound in the front lower
neck, and an extensive
wound in the President's head where a sizable portion of the skull was
missing. He observed
shredded brain tissue and "considerable slow oozing" from the latter
wound, followed by "more
profuse bleeding" after some circulation was established. Dr. Carrico
felt the President's back and
determined that there was no large wound there which would be an
immediate threat to life.
Observing the serious problems presented by the head wound and
inadequate respiration, Dr.
Carrico directed his attention to improving the President's breathing.
He noted contusions,
hematoma to the right of the larynx, which was deviated slightly to
the left, and also ragged tissue
which indicated a tracheal injury. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed
endotracheal tube past the injury,
inflated the cuff, and connected it to a Bennett machine to assist in
respiration....
Dr. Carrico himself witnessed a sizable portion of the President's
skull was missing, so much so it was 'oozing' brain matter.
JvonH
Bill Michel
> >>Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
Check out the photographs of the doctors, nurses, and orderlies
describing the head wound in "The Killing of a President" By Richard
Groden. They ALL describe an exit wound in the back of the head. There
are in fact, photos of a number of them deshowing the position of the
wound with their hands. Boswell's sketch even depicts the occipital bone
as missing, and the Harper fragment is th missing occipital bone that
was blown 30 feet to the rear of the limo. All of the parkland doctors
being wrong - I don't think so. These were highly experienced
professionals, not the amateurs that were lined up at the bogus and
illegal autopsy at Bethesda. The NAvy doctors had never done an autopsy
Just as a sidelight, the autopsy, by law was to have been conducted in
Dallas. The secret service, which had performed so poorly guarding the
President took the President's body out of Parkland with guns drawn.
This is a key element of the conspiracy. The body and the wounds are the
roadmap to finding the locations of the snipers. The conspirators HAD to
have control of the body, or their whole charade would fall apart. Why
did the Secret Service abduct the body at gun point? Because LBJ would
not allow Air Force One to leave without it. These events are all
documented. BTW, in any trial of Oswald, the autopsy would have been
thrown out because it broke the chain of evidence, as did the shells at
the Tippett site, and the "magic bullet".
John McAdams
JvonH <jv...@cp.duluth.mn.us> wrote:
: On 26 May 1997 17:40:04 -0500, Greg Jaynes <jay...@flash.net> wrote:
: This is from the Warren Report itself.
: Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet wound in the front lower
: neck, and an extensive
: wound in the President's head where a sizable portion of the skull was
: missing. He observed
: shredded brain tissue and "considerable slow oozing" from the latter
: wound, followed by "more
: profuse bleeding" after some circulation was established. Dr. Carrico
: felt the President's back and
: determined that there was no large wound there which would be an
: immediate threat to life.
: Observing the serious problems presented by the head wound and
: inadequate respiration, Dr.
: Carrico directed his attention to improving the President's breathing.
: He noted contusions,
: hematoma to the right of the larynx, which was deviated slightly to
: the left, and also ragged tissue
: which indicated a tracheal injury. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed
: endotracheal tube past the injury,
: inflated the cuff, and connected it to a Bennett machine to assist in
: respiration....
: Dr. Carrico himself witnessed a sizable portion of the President's
: skull was missing, so much so it was 'oozing' brain matter.
: JvonH
No doubt he did. But what he almost certainly could not see was the back
of JFK's head. McClelland admitted that the doctors didn't want to move
JFK, and didn't lift up the head to look at the back. The only exception
is Kemp Clark, who claimed to have examined it.
As for the "entrance wound in the back" issue, it's important.
The buff books will endlessly push the doctors impression that the wound
in the neck might have been one of entry, but will not tell you about
*all* the speculation the doctors engaged in.
For example, the doctors speculated that a fragment from the head shot
had *exited* from Kennedy's throat.
Let me quote Josiah Thompson:
Frazier's suggestion that the throat wound might have been caused
by a fragment (possibly bone) has already been made by one of the
Parkland doctors who helped Perry make his trachetomy incision.
Only three hours after the assassination, Dr. Robert N. McClelland
had written an "admission note" in which he had remarked: "The
President was at this time comatose from a massive gunshot wound
of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea (WCR, p. 526).
As another Parkland doctor pointed out in his testimony, the idea
of such a fragment driver downward and out the throat by the head
impact had been discussed at Parkland Hospital on that Friday
afternoon. (SSID, p. 53
Thompson references Carrico's testimony on this latter point (6H5):
Mr. Specter: Was there any discussion among the doctors who
attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the neck wound?
Dr. Carrico: Yes; after that afternoon.
Mr. Specter: And what conversations were there?
Dr. Carrico: As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after
-- later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened,
and we were not aware of the missle wound to the back, and
postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a
fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an
exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.
Mr. Specter: Was the wound in the neck consistent with being
either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?
Dr. Carrico: Yes.
Thompson further quotes several sources that echoed this same
speculation:
This same hypothesis was put forward by various government
spokesmen in December, 1963. Citing governmental sources,
NEWSWEEK (Dec. 30, 1963), TIME (Dec. 27, 1963), and the WASHINGTON
POST (Dec. 18, 1963) all carried stories asserting that the
autopsy had produced evidence that a fragment from the second
bullet (the head shot) had been deflected downward and had pased
out through the throat. THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (Jan. 4, 1964) reported that "a small fragment of this
bullet [the head shot] angled down and passed out through
Kennedy's throat. (SSID, p. 53)
So what have the buff authors been doing with this testimony? They have
been *suppressing* the doctors' speculation that the throat wound was the
exit wound of a fragment, and *pushing* the doctors speculation that the
wound was an entrance wound.
The conspiracy authors put the former speculation down the Memory Hole,
since if people knew about it, they might understand how uncertain and
confused the Dallas doctors were, and might doubt that the wound was
"clearly" one of entry.
Had the doctors known about the back wound, they might well have put two
and two together and decided that the bullet that entered in the upper
back exited the throat.
.John
John McAdams
Bill Michel <bmi...@icon.com> wrote:
: > >>Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
: Check out the photographs of the doctors, nurses, and orderlies
: describing the head wound in "The Killing of a President" By Richard
: Groden. They ALL describe an exit wound in the back of the head.
Of course they ALL do, since those are the ones Groden chose to show you!
You really need to understand the nonsense Groden is giving you. Just to
take a few examples:
1. He has Beverly Oliver in his photo spread. But she wasn't *in* Dealey
Plaza to see the wound.
2. He has Phil Willis in his photo spread--showing the wound on the back
of the head. But in 1963-64, Willis was saying that he didn't *see* the
head shot hit Kennedy, and he was insisting that all the shots came from
the TSBD.
3. He has Ed Hoffman there. But it's extremely unlikely that Hoffman
ever saw the head wound. It's also the case that a mere year before
Hoffman did his routine for Groden's video, he showed the location of the
head wound in the video BEYOND JFK. In BEYOND JFK he put it on the top of
the head. It seems his story has changed.
4. He has McClelland. But McClelland admitted to the WC that he never
lifted JFK's head up to look at the back. And in TMWKK, he gives a very
different version of the wound. There, he draws a picture of pretty much
the entire right side of Kennedy's head blasted off.
5. He has Crenshaw. He's the fellow who said that LBJ called Parkland
while they were trying to save Oswald, and demanded a confession be
extracted from Oswald. A fellow who looked like Oliver Hardy was
supposedly standing in the ER, ready to take the confession.
6. He has a bunch of bit-players, some of whom are clearly wrong on
important matters. For example, Paul O'Connor is "Mr. Body Bag" because
of his mistaken testimony to Lifton that JFK's body arrived in a body bag.
7. He fails to show you people who put the wound at the top of the head.
Pepper Jenkins, for example. You have to get the NOVA documentary to see
him.
: There
: are in fact, photos of a number of them deshowing the position of the
: wound with their hands. Boswell's sketch even depicts the occipital bone
: as missing,
Boswell's sketch shows the wound extending forward to the coronal suture.
But none of Groden's "hand to the head" folks show the wound this far
anterior.
It seems you are quoting sources that contradict each other.
: and the Harper fragment is th missing occipital bone that
: was blown 30 feet to the rear of the limo.
It wasn't found to the rear of the limo, and it's not occipital bone.
On the "occipital" question, chech out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
: All of the parkland doctors
: being wrong - I don't think so. These were highly experienced
: professionals, not the amateurs that were lined up at the bogus and
: illegal autopsy at Bethesda. The NAvy doctors had never done an autopsy
: Just as a sidelight, the autopsy, by law was to have been conducted in
: Dallas.
The study I posted, from the JAMA, showed "highly experienced
professionals" making very frequent errors about wound trajectory.
The simple fact is that ER people, no matter how good, are not expert in
making *forensic* judgments. That's not their job.
: The secret service, which had performed so poorly guarding the
: President took the President's body out of Parkland with guns drawn.
: This is a key element of the conspiracy. The body and the wounds are the
: roadmap to finding the locations of the snipers. The conspirators HAD to
: have control of the body, or their whole charade would fall apart. Why
: did the Secret Service abduct the body at gun point? Because LBJ would
: not allow Air Force One to leave without it.
OK, you think LBJ and the Secret Service were in in it, right?
Was Jackie? She was the one who wasn't going to leave Dallas without
John's body.
: These events are all
: documented. BTW, in any trial of Oswald, the autopsy would have been
: thrown out because it broke the chain of evidence, as did the shells at
: the Tippett site, and the "magic bullet".
No, I've posted some plantiff motions from the OJ trial. The chain of
evidence for all the key pieces of evidence was intact. The prosecution
could have put on the witness stand each and every person who handled
them. That would have been quite satisfactory.
.John
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com
In article <5mic0g$5...@nntp02.primenet.com>, John says...
John, John, John...
The Dallas doctors were so certain the neck wound was an entrance
and the head wound was an exit that they were considering the "fragment
theory" in an effort to rectify the two. Your post is evidence FOR
the doctor's degree of certainty in their original observations.
The dallas doctors only began to cave after being told they'd missed
the back wound (which no one in Dallas saw because it wasn't there).
The autopsy docter (Humes) faced a similiar dilema in that he missed
the throat wound due to the trach.
Net result: both sets of doctors come away confused as to the wounds.
You can continue to quote Warren Commission scripture til hell freezes
over and it does nothing but protect the murderers of JFK.
The reason? The wounds changed between Dallas and Bethesda --
something the WC never reported because they never looked close enough.
Your case (and theirs) is built on bogus evidence. Proven bogus. And once
proven that the wounds were changed, you have U.S. Gov involvement.
Officials in your government killed your president John.
Defend them if you like.
MJ
Pamela McElwain
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
(snip of info not addressed)
>Don't forget they took away the limo as evidence too. The argument (false)
>for taking the body was "because he's the president," and supposedly
>the aides "were emotional" and wanted the body "home" in Washington.
>What's the reason for taking the limo which, as the rolling crime scene,
>was the next best evidence after JFK and JBC?
>Correct - there is no good reason.
>MJ
Absolutely. The car should have been held untouched at Parkland as
the most important evidence next to the body of JFK. Instead it was
washed (outside to remove debris from the windshield as well as
perhaps inside) prior to being driven to Love Field.
Pamela
JBK Warren Commission testimony, gif of the Altgens windshield, JFK Library letter, photo of SS100X at Henry Ford Museum, Ford press release on SS100X published.
Also, info on "The Illuminati and Their Assassination of JFK," a manuscript by Brad Back.
Visit my JFK website at http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
For music buffs, link to Mozart page with my photos of relevant Paris and Salzburg sites.
Pamela McElwain
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
>In article <5mk2i4$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, pam...@primenet.com says...
>>
>>Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
>>
>>(snip of info not addressed)
>>
>>>Don't forget they took away the limo as evidence too. The argument (false)
>>>for taking the body was "because he's the president," and supposedly
>>>the aides "were emotional" and wanted the body "home" in Washington.
>>>What's the reason for taking the limo which, as the rolling crime scene,
>>>was the next best evidence after JFK and JBC?
>>>Correct - there is no good reason.
>>>MJ
>>
>>Absolutely. The car should have been held untouched at Parkland as
>>the most important evidence next to the body of JFK. Instead it was
>>washed (outside to remove debris from the windshield as well as
>>perhaps inside) prior to being driven to Love Field.
>>
>>Pamela
>(from the Book: "JFK: As We Remember Him")
>According to Tom Wicker, head of the Washington bureau of the New
>York Times in Nov. 1963 who was covering the president's Dallas trip:
> "It was a very short drive to the hospital. There the first thing
>we saw, of course, was the President's car. There was a bucket
>of bloody water beside it -- apparently somebody had been scrubbing
>the leather upholstery."
>This "somebody" had to have been a secret service agent(s). For what
>reason would you alter a crime scene to this degree? Certainly not
>to save the upholstery. Certainly not to hide the grusomeness from
>spectators (they re-installed the six-piece top on the limo shortly
>after arrival at Parkland).
>Think about it. Who of us would be so eager to clean up blood -- any blood
>-- let alone a president's we'd failed to protect. The "cleaning" is
>evidence of just how desperate a SS agent was to change that crime scene.
>Why?
>MJ
Mike,
Thank you for this information. There is also a photo (I have a
copy, not the original, so am not sure of the date) from Life magazine of
the bucket beside the car at Parkland. This photo is also included in Dr.
Fetzer's video "JFK... and Beyond" from MPI Video. To me, it touches the
heart as a sad commentary on the events of that day.
Bill Michel
List of people who describe the rear exit wound:
Credit to Robert Groden "The Killing of a President"
Beverly Oliver - next to limo in DP
Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Parkland doctor who was on operating team
Phillip Willis - witness in DP
Dr . Ronald Jones - Parkland
Marilyn Willis - Witness in DP
Dr Charles Carrico - Parkland
Dr Richard Dulany - Parkland
Ed Hoffman - Witness in DP
Dr Richard Dulany - Parkland
Dr. Robert Mclelland - Parkland
Dr. Paul Peters - Parkland
Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland
Dr. Kenneth Salyer - Parkland
Theran Ward - Justice of the Peace who released JFK's body
Aubrey Rike -
Jerrol Custer - Bethesda x-ray technician
Paul O'Connor - Bethesda lab technician
Floyd Riebe - Medical photographer at Bethesda
Frank O'Neill - FBI Agent
Who says that the head wound was an entry wound?
Dr. JJ Humes - US Navy
DR. J. Thornton Boswell - US Navy
Any others not in the military? I haven't been able to find any.
Bill Michel
any of the photos. And, You don't have to lift up the head to see the
general nature of the wound. They could all clearly see the top of the
head, but not one of the doctors mentioned places the wound there.
Tony Pitman
I notice an X-Ray technician from Parkland here. What X-Rays were taken
at Parkland and where are they? Anyone know?
Tony
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com
Bill Michel
The question here is who to trust. Do we trust the witnesses at parkland
who had no reason to lie, and were trained specialists, or do we trust
the military doctors at bethesda, performing an illegal autopsy on a
body that was taken from parkland at gunpoint, who had never performed
an autopsy, who burned their original notes, were directed during the
autopsy by pentagon brass not to examine certain wounds, and were sworn
to secrecy?. This seems pretty obvious to me.
ritchie linton
Greg Jaynes wrote:
>
> JvonH wrote:
> >
> > >: I suppose all of the nurses and doctors at Parkland, and
> > >: the orderlies at Betrhesda who all saw an exit wound in the back of
> > >: Kennedy's head and described an entry wound in the throat are all nuts.
> > >
> > >back of JFK's head.
> > >
> > >
> > >.John
> >
> > Yikes I don't believe that ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds
> > all the time, chiefly because an entrance is small, with it's edges
> > turned inward and the exit is a considerably larger hole, some
> > contents blasted out and the edge of the skin are turned outward. I
> > can buy mixing up eye color, but not wound descriptions!
> > JvonH
>
> Remember they were not aware of the backwound.
> It only makes sense that they would think the
> shot came from the only direction they could see
> the wound from. ie; The front.
>
> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, remember that.At Parkland, Carrico ran his hands up the
back, and detected nothing.Fallible, certainly, if taken in isolation, but
9 men, two fingers,a probe, and the reluctanly released photos of the
clothes all placed it lower in the back than would allow for transit
through the throat.Kennedy's own doctor, a Rear Admiral and a friend,
"verified" the location, something that someone on the WC. felt compelled
to remove before the diagram was published.That a bullet at something
exceeding 2,000 feet per second could make a non-transiting wound was a
thoght so disturbing that Bethesda felt compelled to call Dallas and
inquire about "the opening in the back".
Ritchie
Gary
In article <coh-300597...@jenkintown8.access1.dh.i-2000.net>,
c...@i-2000.com (Chuck Henderson) wrote:
> In article <33848A...@icon.com>, bmi...@icon.com wrote:
>
> > John McAdams wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <0ed73084118...@csi.com>,
> > > Michael T. Griffith <MGrif...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >It is not surprising to learn that several witnesses complained that
> > > >the published versions of their WC testimony were inaccurate.
> > > >Equally disturbing is the fact that, according to one analysis of WC
> > > >documents, at least 60 witnesses charged that the FBI had altered
> > > >what they had reported (Hurt, REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 26).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Mike, this is an entirely unsourced and unsupported assertion made by
> > > Hurt. There is no footnote, nor is there a list of such witnesses.
> > >
> > > If you think this is true, then you should post the list of "60 witnesses"
> > > who said the FBI had altered their testimony.
> > >
> > > The only ones I know about are obvious crackpots (like Julia Ann Mercer).
> > > Who do you have?
> > >
> > > .John
>
> Hey, John. You said the same thing about Julia Mercer months ago, but you
> didn't say why. And now you're doing it again. Just what is it that makes
> her a crackpot in your opinion?
Whether or not Mercer is a crackpot misses the heart of McAdams point that
the claim in Reasonable Doubt is unsourced and unsupported. Students of
the assassination should understand the difference between evidence and
allegation. But then, allegations are much more titillating, huh?
--
gg
John McAdams
: > John McAdams wrote:
: > >
: > > If you think this is true, then you should post the list of "60 witnesses"
: > > who said the FBI had altered their testimony.
: > >
: > > The only ones I know about are obvious crackpots (like Julia Ann Mercer).
: > > Who do you have?
: > >
: > > .John
: Hey, John. You said the same thing about Julia Mercer months ago, but you
: didn't say why. And now you're doing it again. Just what is it that makes
: her a crackpot in your opinion? She hasn't spent any time in a looney bin,
: she's not an alcoholic or a drug addict, and she doesn't display any other
: form of socially aberrant behavior. *Except* for the fact that she became
: entangled in a web of bent law enforcement, obstruction of justice,
: falsification of evidence and forgery of sworn statements, through no
: fault of her own.
Chuck, you are begging the question here, *assuming* a "web of bent law
enforcement." But the evidence you have of all this stuff, is Mercer's
own testimony!
: This woman was shown a photo of Jack Ruby and positively identified him as
: the driver of a pickup truck she saw parked near the knoll hours before
: the assassination.
But we only have her word on that, don't we?
Can to post any corroborating evidence?
: She observed a man get out of the truck, remove a long
: package from the rear, and proceed up the knoll. She contacted the police
: on her own, and was taken to see the FBI. Asked if she could identify the
: driver of the truck, she was shown a series of photos, including a shot of
: *Jack Ruby*. This occurred on Saturday, *before* Ruby murdered Oswald. Her
: statement was altered to indicate a *failure* to positively identify, and
: her signature was forged and *notarized* to this falsified document, even
: though there was no notary public present at the fixing of her true
: signature.
Chuck, all this is based on Mercer's statements. I'm sure if you accept
what she says at face value, you'll conclude that she is a perfectly
reliable witness, and everybody else is lying and forging evidence.
: Whew! Good thing she's a "crackpot", huh? Otherwise we'd have to question
: the whole damn Report.
Chuck, check out the following URL:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#mercer
It's virtually the entire paper trail on Mercer. There are a few things
about her you should consider.
1. Her story is vastly implausible. It implies The Conspiracy had a plan
to get a gun on the GK by stopping a pickup truck right on the parade
route, between the TU and the Stemmons, right under the noses of DPD
officers.
Remember, Bowers' testimony? You could apparently just drive around
behind the SF. Why attract the cops attention by stopping right on the
parade route?
2. An investigation turned up one of the officers who had been with the
stalled truck. It was a truck from a construction company, not Conspiracy
Central. See the document below, from CD 205.
3. Mercer's story got better as the years passed. For example, in the
1980s, talking to Henry Hurt, she added a new twist. The man who took the
"gun case" out of the back of the truck was Lee Harvey Oswald! See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mercer7.txt
All this stuff was debunked by Tink Thomson in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS in
1967. So why is it still going the rounds?
.John
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DL 100-10461
LMK:mam
1
The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER
and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:
JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department,
Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the
Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At
approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street
between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name
of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property
of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and
Akard in Dallas.
There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one
to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving
the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along
with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade,
the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck,
and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.
MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the
one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime
prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the
stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood
raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on
it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the
back.
MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had
taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He
stated these persons were under observation all during the period they
were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved
prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible
for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of
President KENNEDY.
- 320 -
Tony Pitman
In article <5mdcd0$t...@nntp02.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>In article <3386cd63...@news.computerpro.com>,
>JvonH <jv...@cp.duluth.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Nobody at Parkland -- with the exception of Kemp Clark -- could see the
>>>back of JFK's head.
>>>
>>>ER staffs mix up entrance and exit wounds all the time.
>>>
>>
>>all the time, chiefly because an entrance is small, with it's edges
>>turned inward and the exit is a considerably larger hole, some
>>contents blasted out and the edge of the skin are turned outward. I
>>can buy mixing up eye color, but not wound descriptions!
>
>
>
>
>The following is from the JAMA, April 28, 1993, page 2058.
>
> CLINICIANS' FORENSIC INTERPRETATIONS OF FATAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS OFTEN
> MISS THE MARK.
>
> The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain
> fatal gunshot wound are no better than the flip of a coin,
> according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The
> study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot
> wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists
> made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the
> entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets
> that struck the victim.
>
> Investigators at the Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest
> University, Winston-Salem, NC, compared the postmortem findings of
> a board-certified forensic pathologist with the medical records of
> emergency medicine physicians, trauma surgeons, and neurosurgeons.
> The study is the first to quantify the forensic acumen of these
> specialists, says Vincent DiMaio, MD, a forensic pathologist and
> editor of THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY.
>
> The study's coauthors . . . investigated the fatal gunshot wounds
> treated by trauma specialists at the hospital between January 1987
> and June 1992. They excluded single penetrating (nonexiting)
> gunshot wounds from the study.
>
> Of the 46 cases identified, 24 had been misinterpreted by the
> trauma specialists. These included 16 errors in differentiating
> the exit and entrance wound, and 15 errors in determining the
> number of bullets. In seven cases, the clinician had made both
> types of errors.
>
> As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often
> misinterpreted--74% of the time. Of the single, perforating
> gunshot wounds, 37% had been misclassified.
>
> The researchers presented their results at the recent annual
> meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Boston,
> Mass.
>
>Of course, Kennedy would fall in the "multiple" gunshot wound
>category.
>
>..John
"AS EXPECTED" . Sounds a bit like the WC doesn't it. The fact that
the researchers specifically selected only 46 cases for there survey out
of all the gunshot victims between Jan 87 and June 92 begs the question
of," why those particular cases only?"
"AS EXPECTED" smacks of making the facts fit the theory even without
all this selectivity.
Tony
WCAKE
Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
>Why?
>MJ
Mike,
Thank you for this information. There is also a photo (I have a
copy, not the original, so am not sure of the date) from Life magazine of
the bucket beside the car at Parkland. This photo is also included in Dr.
Fetzer's video "JFK... and Beyond" from MPI Video. To me, it touches the
heart as a sad commentary on the events of that day.
Pamela
JBK Warren Commission testimony, gif of the Altgens windshield, JFK
Library
letter, photo of SS100X at Henry Ford Museum, Ford press release on SS100X
published.
Also, info on "The Illuminati and Their Assassination of JFK," a
manuscript
by Brad Back.
Visit my JFK website at http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
For music buffs, link to Mozart page with my photos of relevant Paris and
Salzburg sites.
I don't see any sinister intentions in the cleaning of the Limo. (though
it is possible) I believe it was probably done innocently and foolishly,
as the result of someone giving the order to get the mess cleaned up. The
motor cycle cop who appears to have been cleaning the exterior surfaces
may simply have took it upon himself to clean the car, not realizing that
he may have been destroying vital evidence.
Bonnie Ray Williams did the same thing when he brushed the debris from his
hair. Jarman and Norman both told him to leave it there as evidence, but
he brushed it out anyway. Little did he know that he had destroyed some of
the most important evidence in the Crime of the Century.
The cleaning of the Limo appears to have been only on the outside and
rather superficial, because there are photos ( CE 353 ) available that
show the gory interior of the car including the bullet hole in the rear
seat back rest, as it was parked in the basement garage in Washington D.C.
on the night of the murder. In the corner of the back seat there is a
small stuffed animal or hand puppet that is probably the "little dog" that
Jean Hill saw and the object that the FBI used make her appear irrational.
I don't believe the Limo was "cleaned" at Parkland to destroy evidence and
I don't believe B.R. Williams brushed the debris out of his hair to
destroy evidence. It just happened.
Walt Cakebread
ritchie linton
Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
> > From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
> > Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
> > Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
> > From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
> > Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
> > Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
> >
> > Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <5mk2i4$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, pam...@primenet.com says...
> > >>
> > >>Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>(snip of info not addressed)
> > >>
> > >>>Don't forget they took away the limo as evidence too.
PLEASE SEE BELOW, where my short comment is made about this part of the
evidence.
RJ
HERE is my comment. These statements are not in conflict. Innocent and
foolish were the people who followed the order, something that cannot be
said for that person who issued it
Ritchie(that is all, from me, on ths one)
The
> > motor cycle cop who appears to have been cleaning the exterior surfaces
> > may simply have took it upon himself to clean the car, not realizing that
> > he may have been destroying vital evidence.
> >
> > Bonnie Ray Williams did the same thing when he brushed the debris from his
> > hair. Jarman and Norman both told him to leave it there as evidence, but
> > he brushed it out anyway. Little did he know that he had destroyed some of
> > the most important evidence in the Crime of the Century.
> >
> > The cleaning of the Limo appears to have been only on the outside and
> > rather superficial, because there are photos ( CE 353 ) available that
> > show the gory interior of the car including the bullet hole in the rear
> > seat back rest, as it was parked in the basement garage in Washington D.C.
> > on the night of the murder. In the corner of the back seat there is a
> > small stuffed animal or hand puppet that is probably the "little dog" that
> > Jean Hill saw and the object that the FBI used make her appear irrational.
> >
> > I don't believe the Limo was "cleaned" at Parkland to destroy evidence and
> > I don't believe B.R. Williams brushed the debris out of his hair to
> > destroy evidence. It just happened.
> >
> > Walt Cakebread
> >
>
> Au contraire, mon frere. Someone was ordered to clean the limo and
> specifically wash out the inside. They did not do a completely thorough
> job. There are more Stoughton photos in Pictures of the Pain, and I some
> discussion of the cleaning on page 406.
>
> Someone was also shooting film footage of the same scene at Parkland. And
> Burroughs supposedly got some shots of their cleaning out the back seat,
> but I don't remember seeing them.
>
> As far as I can tell there was no intent to destroy evidence, but it may
> have anyway.
>
> Anthony Marsh
> The Puzzle Palace
> http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace
Pamela McElwain
wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
>From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
>Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
>Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
>From: pam...@primenet.com (Pamela McElwain)
>Date: 29 May 1997 14:10:37 -0500
>Message-ID: <5mkhch$8...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
>>In article <5mk2i4$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, pam...@primenet.com says...
>>>
>>>Mike.J...@drn.zippo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip of info not addressed)
>>>
>>>>Don't forget they took away the limo as evidence too. The argument (false)
>>Why?
>>MJ
>Pamela
Walt says:
>I don't see any sinister intentions in the cleaning of the Limo. (though
>it is possible) I believe it was probably done innocently and foolishly,
>as the result of someone giving the order to get the mess cleaned up. The
>motor cycle cop who appears to have been cleaning the exterior surfaces
>may simply have took it upon himself to clean the car, not realizing that
>he may have been destroying vital evidence.
>Bonnie Ray Williams did the same thing when he brushed the debris from his
>hair. Jarman and Norman both told him to leave it there as evidence, but
>he brushed it out anyway. Little did he know that he had destroyed some of
>the most important evidence in the Crime of the Century.
>The cleaning of the Limo appears to have been only on the outside and
>rather superficial, because there are photos ( CE 353 ) available that
>show the gory interior of the car including the bullet hole in the rear
>seat back rest, as it was parked in the basement garage in Washington D.C.
>on the night of the murder. In the corner of the back seat there is a
>small stuffed animal or hand puppet that is probably the "little dog" that
>Jean Hill saw and the object that the FBI used make her appear irrational.
>
>I don't believe the Limo was "cleaned" at Parkland to destroy evidence and
>I don't believe B.R. Williams brushed the debris out of his hair to
>destroy evidence. It just happened.
>Walt Cakebread
Walt,
In my opinion, whoever made the decision that the limo would be
"driven" anywhere once it reached Parkland is responsible here for a
great deal of what happened afterward. Whether or not there was
destruction of evidence (I believe there was) the car should have been
cordoned off, covered with a tarp, and put on a flatbed. Thus,
whatever accommodations that may have( "innocently" or not )been made
to drive it back to Love were in error simply because the concept
should not have been relevant. That the limo was spirited away after
it had been washed is indication to me, as with the President's body,
that there were really powerful reasons for doing this, reasons that
took precence over chain of evidence. While I can accept what
happened to the limo at Parkland, I am unable to make excuses for
anybody who did anything to the car.
In addition, although the photos taken in the WH garage do show some
of the destruction that took place there that day, I sincerely doubt
that they show anything like the hell that Clint Hill and those who
viewed the back of the car immediately on its arrival at Parkland saw
that afternoon.
Pamela
Limo at Parkland with bucket photo, JBK Warren Commission testimony, gif of
the Altgens windshield, JFK Library letter, photo of SS100X at Henry Ford
Museum, Ford press release on SS100X published.Also, info on "The Illuminati
and Their Assassination of JFK," a manuscript by Brad Back.Visit my JFK
WCAKE
> JBK Warren Commission testimony, gif of the Altgens windshield, JFK
> Library
> letter, photo of SS100X at Henry Ford Museum, Ford press release on
SS100X
> published.
> Also, info on "The Illuminati and Their Assassination of JFK," a
> manuscript
> by Brad Back.
> Visit my JFK website at http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
> For music buffs, link to Mozart page with my photos of relevant Paris
and
> Salzburg sites.
>
>
Au contraire, mon frere. Someone was ordered to clean the limo and
specifically wash out the inside. They did not do a completely thorough
job. There are more Stoughton photos in Pictures of the Pain, and I some
discussion of the cleaning on page 406.
Someone was also shooting film footage of the same scene at Parkland. And
Burroughs supposedly got some shots of their cleaning out the back seat,
but I don't remember seeing them.
>Burrough's Photo appears in the Nov. 1983 issue of LIFE magazine. It is
easy to see how he got the impression that the Limo was be cleaned,
because there is a stainless steel bucket sitting on the ground next to
the open left hand rear door with a man in a suit leaning inside securing
the removable top. A photo ( CE 353 ) that was taken in the basement
garage in Washington on the night of the murder makes it very clear that
there has been no attempt to clean the rear seat before that photo was
taken <
As far as I can tell there was no intent to destroy evidence, but it may
have anyway.
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace
http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace
Hey Marsh,
What's the deal here, do you have instant access to postings?? Can
you explain how
your asinine reply to my post appears BEFORE my post?? Does the agency
want you to
intercept and discredit any true info before it can be broadcast ?
As usual you're wrong again about the cleaning of the back seat of the
Limo.
I have an 8 X 10 colored copy of CE 353 which shows all the gory details
of the back seat of the Limo as it was parked in the basement garage on
the night of the murder. There is no doubt that CE 353 was taken in the
basement garage because the yellow and black stripped parking cone can be
seen on the floor of the garage. One look at that photo and you'll know
that no one has attempted to clean it. There is heavy clotted blood, and
what appears to be pieces of brain tissue, on the seat and floor.
The little grey stuffed animal (mouse ?) with the yellow and lavender
dress can be seen in the corner of the seat.
It would be prudent of you to take a little more time and check things
before you say
things like "Au Contraire Mon Frere, someone was ordered to clean the
Limo
and was specifically ordered to wash out the inside" Because unless you
can
show that to be a fact, by presenting written documents, and you have a
photo that shows that back seat is washed clean before it left Parkland,
and then explain how it got covered with gory again when it was
photographed that night, you are going to be dining on Crow and Humble
Pie, once again.
If Crow was poisonous, People who make statements that are easily proved
false would soon cease to be a pain in the ........
Walt Cakebread
Anthony Marsh
It's cute the way you tried to label me as being a CIA agent. They will get
a
big laugh out of that back at HDQS. As I have often said, I do not work for
the CIA, I do not work against the CIA, I work AROUND the CIA. It reminds me
of that bumper sticker that says, "Either lead or follow, or get the HELL
out of my way."
If you have not been following my messages to others, I had problems with my
old ISP and tried a new one. It seems be working pretty efficiently.
> As usual you're wrong again about the cleaning of the back seat of the
> Limo.
> I have an 8 X 10 colored copy of CE 353 which shows all the gory details
> of the back seat of the Limo as it was parked in the basement garage on
> the night of the murder. There is no doubt that CE 353 was taken in the
> basement garage because the yellow and black stripped parking cone can be
> seen on the floor of the garage. One look at that photo and you'll know
> that no one has attempted to clean it. There is heavy clotted blood, and
> what appears to be pieces of brain tissue, on the seat and floor.
>
> The little grey stuffed animal (mouse ?) with the yellow and lavender
> dress can be seen in the corner of the seat.
Again, you guess and you are wrong. That little object in the corner of the
seat is not Lambchop. It is a bunch of chrysanthemums. And yes I have the
document to prove it. I have posted it here several times. You can get your
own copy from NA. Remember that you can get up to 100 pages free of any JFK
assassination documents from the National Archives.
>
> It would be prudent of you to take a little more time and check things
> before you say
> things like "Au Contraire Mon Frere, someone was ordered to clean the
> Limo
> and was specifically ordered to wash out the inside" Because unless you
> can
> show that to be a fact, by presenting written documents, and you have a
> photo that shows that back seat is washed clean before it left Parkland,
> and then explain how it got covered with gory again when it was
> photographed that night, you are going to be dining on Crow and Humble
> Pie, once again.
>
I did not say that the back seat was washed out thoroughly. As a matter of
fact, I particularly pointed out that the cleaning job was not thorough. I
have the same photos you have, plus more.
I checked Pictures of the Pain and Best Evidence, but neither had a complete
rendition of the cleaning out of the limo. It might be in the HSCA. I'll
check and if I have it on my HD, I will try to upload it. I am not going to
type in complete books for you. If I cite a reference such as the one in
Pictures of the Pain, I expect you to look them up on your own time. You do
have that book, don't you?
> If Crow was poisonous, People who make statements that are easily proved
> false would soon cease to be a pain in the ........
>
> Walt Cakebread
>
>
>
j.p.
Walt Cakebread wrote:
<snip>
> > > I don't believe the Limo was "cleaned" at Parkland to destroy evidence and
> > > I don't believe B.R. Williams brushed the debris out of his hair to
> > > destroy evidence. It just happened.
> > >
> > > Walt Cakebread
> > >
Bonnie Ray Williams was not a police officer. Even a motorcycle cop
knows the rules of evidence, Williams could not be expected to treat
debris in his hair as evidence of the crime. Pigeons flying off the
roof could have sent debris on his head, whatever, but blood all over
the limo was direct irrefutable physical evidence. If that cop (anybody
know the guy's name?) wasn't fired, or at least brought up on charges
possibly dismissed by his 'only trying to help' attitude, then somebody
must have told him to clean the scene rather than secure it.
I can understand disallowing rubbernecking photography of the limo out
of respect for the president, but washing even the outside of the car
would be inexcusable (for instance, we wouldn't be looking at the Z-film
to see which direction gore was sprayed, would we? The blood on the
outside of the limo could be even more important than that inside.)
jesse prentiss
pre...@pitt.edu
WCAKE
> The little grey stuffed animal (mouse ?) with the yellow and lavender
> dress can be seen in the corner of the seat.
Again, you guess and you are wrong. That little object in the corner of
the
seat is not Lambchop. It is a bunch of chrysanthemums. And yes I have the
document to prove it. I have posted it here several times. You can get
your
own copy from NA. Remember that you can get up to 100 pages free of any
JFK
assassination documents from the National Archives.
CHRYSANTHEMUMS ??? You need your eyes ( or head ) examined!!
Tony, Don't you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself??
Unfortunately I doubt that many readers have an 8 X 10 Colored copy of CE
353 but those that do will know that you are simply attempting to
discredit Robert Harris's discovery of the stuffed animal. ( Lamb chop )
Actually the stuffed animal is a little grey mouse.
Keep your phoney documents and stick em where the sun don't shine. I have
seen some of your phoney documents before. I know what I see and I see
that the back seat as NOT be washed. I know you'll probably want me to
produce a document stating that but I guess I can't expect rational logic
from a irrational person.
Walt Cakebread
[ Moderator's note: NOTE TO MODERATOR regarding
propagation snipped ..zim ]
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> > The little grey stuffed animal (mouse ?) with the yellow and lavender
> > dress can be seen in the corner of the seat.
>
> Again, you guess and you are wrong. That little object in the corner of
> the
> seat is not Lambchop. It is a bunch of chrysanthemums. And yes I have the
> document to prove it. I have posted it here several times. You can get
> your
> own copy from NA. Remember that you can get up to 100 pages free of any
> JFK
> assassination documents from the National Archives.
>
> CHRYSANTHEMUMS ??? You need your eyes ( or head ) examined!!
>
> Tony, Don't you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself??
> Unfortunately I doubt that many readers have an 8 X 10 Colored copy of CE
> 353 but those that do will know that you are simply attempting to
> discredit Robert Harris's discovery of the stuffed animal. ( Lamb chop )
> Actually the stuffed animal is a little grey mouse.
>
> Keep your phoney documents and stick em where the sun don't shine. I have
> seen some of your phoney documents before. I know what I see and I see
> that the back seat as NOT be washed. I know you'll probably want me to
> produce a document stating that but I guess I can't expect rational logic
> from a irrational person.
>
> Walt Cakebread
>
> [ Moderator's note: NOTE TO MODERATOR regarding
> propagation snipped ..zim ]
>
Nice to see the moderator's note (real?) which verifies that this newest
level to which you have sunk will be the official policy. I am not going to
sink down to your level and tell you what I think of you and your bizarre
theories. You have never produced ANY documentation to back up anything that
you say. We always have to take your word on what you claim that you can
see. Well, let's test YOUR eyesight, buddy. Take a look at the cover of the
book Four Days. It has a picture of the limo as they are getting ready to
leave Love Field. Look at ALL the flowers in the back seat and tell us what
types of flowers they are. Do you even know what Chrysanthemums look like? I
didn't think so. I guess I'll have to upload a copy of that picture AND a
picture of Chrysanthemums to my website so that other people can also see
what they look like.
What "phoney" [sic] documents are you talking about? You have made a very
serious slander and you'd better be ready to back it up.
You and your little coterie seem to have no respect for anything. Not for
real researchers, not for real documents, not for real photographs, not for
real evidence.
You are a very disturbed individual who contributes nothing to this
moderated
newsgroup. I would suggest that you take your bizarre ideas over to the
unmoderated newsgroup.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
[ Moderator's note: Personal attacks, which I inadvertently approved
have been snipped. Additionally, the quoted portion of the article has
been shortened by removing duplicated text.
The quoted text, below, was printed twice. Duplicated text
snipped ..zim ]
> > The little grey stuffed animal (mouse ?) with the yellow and lavender
> > dress can be seen in the corner of the seat.
>
> Again, you guess and you are wrong. That little object in the corner of
> the
> seat is not Lambchop. It is a bunch of chrysanthemums. And yes I have the
> document to prove it. I have posted it here several times. You can get
> your
> own copy from NA. Remember that you can get up to 100 pages free of any
> JFK
> assassination documents from the National Archives.
>
> CHRYSANTHEMUMS ??? [...]
>
> Tony, [...]
> Unfortunately I doubt that many readers have an 8 X 10 Colored copy of CE
> 353 but those that do will know that you are simply attempting to
> discredit Robert Harris's discovery of the stuffed animal. ( Lamb chop )
> Actually the stuffed animal is a little grey mouse.
>
> [...]
> I know what I see and I see
> that the back seat as NOT be washed. I know you'll probably want me to
> produce a document stating that but I guess I can't expect rational logic
> from a irrational person.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Well, just for you I have uploaded 3 pictures to my website.
The first is a rather poor quality copy of the photo from which the cropped
photo on the cover of the book Four Days was taken. Please see the original
photo on the cover of the book Four Days for the best quality on this photo.
http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/4DaysCov.gif
As you look at the photo notice the flowers that are just next to JFK's left
hand. Those are mums, specifically Chrysanthemums. I have 3 copies of the
book Four Days and in each the color of the cover photograph is slightly
different. On one copy the mums appear to be off-white, slightly purplish.
Now, don't let the actual color fool you. Mums come in many colors, but they
share the same shape characteristics. Those petals can be individually
discerned as being mum petals. In case you have never seen mums and don't
know what the petals look like, I have uploaded an example photo of what
mums look like. Again, don't be fooled by the example photo by complaining
that they are a different color. The mums in the example photo appear
orangish. These are not the same mums which were in the back seat of the
limo. This example is only to show you the shape characteristics for
comparison.
http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/mums2.gif
You cited CE 353 and lamented the fact that many readers do not have the
colored copy. Unfortunately I have not had the color copy scanned in yet. I
will have to mail it to someone to scan it in. However, I do have the WC B&W
exhibit so that people can see what object you are talking about and where
it
is. Its location is exactly where the FBI examiners noted that there was a
bunch of Chrysanthemums.
http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/CE353.GIF
When you use the word "actually" it sounds as though you are trying to state
something as a fact. Proponents of the Lambchop theory will be amused at
your efforts to tell them that the stuffed animal is actually a little grey
mouse. You are the first and only person in the world to make that claim and
you have the nerve to state it as a fact. Please share your insight with
Wallace Milam. I am sure that he will get a big chuckle out it.
This is typical of the problem with you and your gang. You look at
poor-quality photos and see things that are NOT there, yet you can not see
things that ARE there. You never do any actual research. You just let your
imaginations run wild and post your bizarre ideas as if they were facts.
Lurker's Note:
You will notice that *I* am the only person here posting these original
photos so that you can see the evidence for yourself. And you will notice
that I am the ONLY person who can actually back up his claims with hard
evidence.
WCAKE
Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:19:06 GMT
Message-ID: <33a4fd5d....@netnews.voicenet.com>
jesse prentiss
pre...@pitt.edu
Jesse,
Since (Burroughs?) said he saw a bucket of "bloody water" near the
Limo when it was parked at Parkland I assume someone washed something
bloody in that water. I am certain the back seat wasn't washed but it's
possible that the dash and steering wheel was washed simply to facilitate
the driving of the car. We can't attach a sinister motive to everything
that happened. If you do that You should ask Why the nurse cut JFK's tie
right where a bullet had nicked it, Or why the doctor obliterated the
small bullet wound in JFK's throat. Was this part of the plot to destroy
evidence?? I doubt it, and I doubt that anyone cleaned a little of the
blood from the Limo with sinister intentions. For all we know Burroughs
may have been mistaken about the water being bloody, or being a reporter
he may not have seen any harm in embellishing and saying the water was
bloody.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:56:12 GMT
Message-ID: <33a85316....@netnews.voicenet.com>
> Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
Au contraire, mon frere. Someone was ordered to clean the limo and
specifically wash out the inside. They did not do a completely thorough
job. There are more Stoughton photos in Pictures of the Pain, and I some
discussion of the cleaning on page 406.
Someone was also shooting film footage of the same scene at Parkland. And
Burroughs supposedly got some shots of their cleaning out the back seat,
but I don't remember seeing them.
As far as I can tell there was no intent to destroy evidence, but it may
have anyway.
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace
http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace
Hey Heidelberg,
How about posting the documentation that verifys that "someone
ordered the Limo to be cleaned and specifically wash out the inside".
You're the guy that's always ranting about DOCUMENTATION, so lets have
this documentation and also tell me where I can see the Burroughs photos
of the back seat being cleaned.
Walt Cakebread
Anthony Marsh
Pamela already did that for me. Thanks, Pamela.
I also am looking for the Burroughs photo. Let me know when you find it.
Notice that you did not admit that you were totally wrong in calling the
1983 LIFE photo Burroughs' when it was actually Stoughton's. What's the
matter, don't you have any Tabasco (rt) sauce for that crow?
Pamela McElwain
wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
>jesse prentiss
>pre...@pitt.edu
>Walt Cakebread
Walt,
It seems to me the primary issue is the fact that ANYTHING was
washed.
The car should have been cordoned off, covered, put on a flatbed and
taken to Love Field. There was no excuse for it to have been driven
and/or washing done to facilitate that. Even washing the "dash and
steering wheel" is destruction of evidence, and do we have a statement
that there was blood there? Did it go through Greer?
To me, the sinister motive was touching the car in any way after it
pulled into Parkland.
Pamela
Limo at Parkland with bucket photo, JBK Warren Commission testimony, gif of
the Altgens windshield, JFK Library letter, photo of SS100X at Henry Ford
Museum, Ford press release on SS100X published.Also, info on "The Illuminati
and Their Assassination of JFK," a manuscript by Brad Back.Visit my JFK
WCAKE
Subject: Re: Limo washed inside at Parkland
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 03:01:29 GMT
Message-ID: <33b769d3....@netnews.voicenet.com>
wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>jesse prentiss
>pre...@pitt.edu
>Walt Cakebread
Pamela
Hi Pam,
I don't know if there was any part of the limo washed at Parkland. The
reporter Stroughton or Burroughs said the water in the bucket was bloody.
Which indicates some of it may have been washed. I agreethat it should
not have been done if it was but I really don't think we can attach any
sinister motive to that action. You've seen the colored photo of the back
seat I think it's very clear that the back seat certainly was NOT cleaned
at all. Since it looks like blood splattered on the Drivers side of the
windshield i assume the steer wheel and dash was also bloody. Someone may
have cleaned that so the car could be driven. Dumb ?? YES Sinister ??
NO
Walt Cakebread