Download e-book Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel) book. Happy reading Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Innocence (A Malcolm Connally Novel) Pocket Guide.

No bullets. No cartridge cases. Nothing tangible. Those who believe there was a conspiracy involving the Dallas police force have maintained that the meeting between Oswald and Tippit was not an accident, that Tippit may have been looking for Oswald or vice versa. They say Tippit should not have been where he was and should not have been alone in the squad car. Eddie Barker talked to police radio dispatcher, Murray Jackson:. Eddie Barker: Officer Jackson, a lot of critics of the Warren Report have made quite a thing out of the fact that Officer Tippit was not in his district when he was killed.

Could you tell us how he happened to be out of his district? Murray Jackson: Yes, sir. I have heard this several times since the incident occurred. He was where he was because I had assigned him to be where he was in the central Oak Cliff area. There was the shooting involving the President, and we immediately dispatched every available unit to the triple underpass where the shot was reported to have come from. As I was driving down the street, I seen this police car, was sitting here, and the officer was getting out of the car, and apparently he'd been talking to the man that was standing by the car.

The policeman got out of the car, and as he walked past the windshield of the car, where it's kind of lined up over the hood of the car, where this other man shot him. And, of course, he was reaching for his gun. And so, I was standing there, you know, I mean sitting there in the truck, and not in no big hurry to get out because I was sitting there watching everything. This man turned from the car then, and took a couple of steps, and as he turned to walk away I believe he was unloading his gun, and he took the shells up in his hand, and as he took off, he threw them in the bushes more or less like nothing really, trying to get rid of them.

I guess he didn't figure he'd get caught anyway, so he just threw them in the bushes. In the free and easy atmosphere that seemed to characterize the boom city, Ruby was also a hanger - on of the police, entertaining off - duty officers in his strip joints, often carrying sandwiches over to the Police Building for his on-duty friends. These are some of the people of Jack Ruby's world - his roommate, a competing nightclub owner, and two of Jack Ruby's girls.

Barney Weinstein: I think it was on the spur of the moment, that he really wanted to make himself look like a big man. And he thought that would make him above everybody else, that the people would come up and thank him for it, that people would come around and want to meet him and want to know him, "This is the man that shot the man that shot the President. Jack Ruby was convicted of the murder of Oswald, but the conviction was reversed by an Appeals Court which held that an alleged confession should not have been admitted.

Ruby died six months ago of cancer, maintaining to the last that he was no conspirator, that he had killed Oswald out of anger and a desire to shield Jacqueline Kennedy from the ordeal of a trial at which she would have had to appear as a witness. In a sense he picked up where the Warren Commission had left off.

Who Was the Umbrella Man? - JFK Assassination Documentary - The New York Times

Warren investigators questioned a number of people in New Orleans after the assassination, and they failed to implicate any of them. But the more Garrison went back over old ground, apparently, the more fascinated he became with the possibility that a plot to kill President Kennedy actually began in New Orleans.

By the time the story of his investigation broke four months ago, he seemed supremely confident that he could make a case, that he had solved the assassination. Jim Garrison: Because I certainly wouldn't say with confidence that we would make arrests and have convictions afterwards if I did not know that we had solved the assassination of President Kennedy beyond any shadow of a doubt. I can't imagine that people would think that - that I would guess and say something like that rashly. There's no question about it.

We know what cities were involved, we know how it was done in - in the essential respects. We know the key individuals involved. And we're in the process of developing evidence now. I thought I made that clear days ago. Garrison's charge was that Shaw had conspired with two other men to plot the assassination of President Kennedy. Garrison said Shaw had known David Ferrie, an eccentric former airline pilot who was found dead a week before Garrison had planned to arrest him.

Incidentally, the coroner said Ferrie died of natural causes. But Garrison called it suicide. Clay Shaw said it was all fantastic. Clay Shaw: I am completely innocent of any such charges. I have not conspired with anyone, at any time, or any place, to murder our late and esteemed President John F. Kennedy, or any other individual. I have always had only the highest and utmost respect and admiration for Mr. The charges filed against me have no foundation in fact or in law. I have not been apprised of the basis of these fantastic charges, and assume that in due course I will be furnished with this information, and will be afforded an opportunity to prove my innocence.

I did not know Harvey Lee Oswald, nor did I ever see or talk with him, or anyone who knew him at any time in my life. Mike Wallace: A preliminary hearing for Shaw was held two weeks after his arrest. The hearing was complete with a surprise mystery witness, Perry Raymond Russo, twenty-five-year-old insurance salesman, and friend of the late David Ferrie. Through three days of intense cross-examination Russo held doggedly to his story, that he himself had been present when Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald plotted the Kennedy assassination.

Russo admitted at the hearing that he had been hypnotized three times by Garrison men Garrison says Jack Ruby's unlisted telephone number in appears in code in address books belonging to Shaw and Oswald. He says both books note the Dallas Post Office box number Ruby's unlisted phone number was WHitehall He says the CIA is concealing both the names and the whereabouts of the Cubans. The reason for Officer Tippit's murder is simply this: It was necessary for them to get rid of the decoy in the case - Lee Oswald Lee Oswald.

Now, in order to get rid of him - so that he would not later describe the people involved in this, they had what I think is a rather clever plan. It's well known that police officers react violently to the murder of a police officer. All they did was arrange for an officer to be sent out to Tenth Street, and when Officer Tippit arrived there he was murdered, with no other reason than that. Now, after he was murdered, Oswald was pointed to, sitting in the back of the Texas Theater where he'd been told to wait, obviously.

Now, the idea was, quite apparently, that Oswald would be killed in the Texas Theater when he arrived, because he'd killed a "bluecoat. The Dallas police, apparently, at least the arresting police officers, had more humanity in them than the planners had in mind. And this is the first point at which the plan did not work completely. So Oswald was not killed there. He was arrested. This left a problem, because if Lee Oswald stayed alive long enough, obviously he would name names and talk about this thing that he'd been drawn into.

It was necessary to kill him. Tonight we've asked if there was a conspiracy involving perhaps Officer Tippit, Jack Ruby, or others On the basis of the evidence now at hand at least, we still can find no convincing indication of such a conspiracy. It is too much to expect that the critics of the Warren Report will be satisfied with the conclusions CBS News has reached, any more than they were satisfied with the conclusions the Commission reached.

Concerning the events of November 22nd, , in Dealey Plaza, the report of the Warren Commission is probably as close as we can ever come now to the truth. I think the evidence indicates - of course, the car came down Main, up here, and down to Elm Street, and was approximately here when the first shot was fired.

The first shot struck the President in the back of the right shoulder, according to the FBI report, and indicates therefore that it came from some place in the rear - which includes the possibility of it coming from the Book Depository building. The second bullet struck the President in the throat from the front, came from behind this wooden fence, high up on a grassy knoll. Two more bullets were fired. One struck the Elm - the Main Street curb, and caused some concrete, or lead, to scatter up and strike a spectator named James Tague in the face.

Another bullet, fired from the rear, struck Governor Connally in the back. As the limousine moved up to approximately this point, another bullet was fired from the right front, struck the President in the head, drove him - his body, to the left and to the rear, and drove a portion of his skull backward, to the left and to the rear. Five bullets, fired from at least two different directions, the result of a conspiracy.

Now, what happened there was that the Kennedy motorcade coming down there, the Kennedy limousine - there were shots from the rear, from either the Dallas School Book Depository building, or the Dell Mart, or the courthouse; and there were shots from the grassy knoll. This is triangulation.

There is no escape from it, if it's properly executed. I think that the massive head wound, where the President's head was literally blown apart, came from a quartering angle on the grassy knoll. The bullet was a low velocity dum-dum mercury fulminate hollow-nose, which were outlawed by The Hague Convention, but which are used by paramilitary groups. And that the whole reaction is very consistent to this kind of weapon.

That he was struck and his head - doesn't go directly back this way but it goes back and over this way, which would be consistent with the shot from that direction, and Newton's Law of Motion. Now, I feel also that the escape was very simple. Number one using a revolver or a pistol, the shells do not eject, they don't even have to bother to pick up their discharged shells.

Number two, they can slip - put the gun under their coat, and when everybody comes surging up there they can just say, "He went that-a-away". Very simple. In fact, it's so simple that it probably happened that way. I'm contented with the basic finding of the Warren Commission, that the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired at. I am not content with the findings on Oswald's possible connections with government agencies, particularly with the CIA. I'm not totally convinced that at some earlier time, unconnected with the assassination, that Oswald may have had more connections than we've been told about, or that have been shown.

I'm not totally convinced about the single-bullet theory. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary to the final conclusion of the Warren Commission Report. I would have liked more questioning, a more thorough going into Marina Oswald's background. But as to the basic conclusion, I agree. There was one conclusion, one basic conclusion that the Commission reached, I think, which can be supported by the. But, of course, that took place on television.

It would have been very difficult to deny that. But, outside of that there's not an important conclusion which can be supported by the facts and - and this is the problem. And what the Commission was thinking and what they were doing is still hidden from us, of course. The minutes of the Commission meetings are locked up in the National Archives, and no one can see them. A vast amount of the evidence, FBI reports, CIA reports, which may be directly related to the information we should have, are also locked up in the Archives.

No one can see that. The photographs and X-rays of the President's body, taken at the autopsy in Bethesda, Maryland, taken just before the autopsy was begun, taken by Naval technicians, which in and of themselves might resolve the whole question as to whether or not there was a conspiracy, cannot be seen by anyone today, and in fact, not one member of the Warren Commission ever saw the most important documents in the case, the photographs and the X-rays.

And not one lawyer for the Commission ever saw - was curious enough to examine the most important evidence. Well, there were three, I think, levels of complaint. The first one was the institutional, you might say: the general problem that a government has when it searches for truth. The problem of trying to have an autonomous investigation, free from political interference, and at the same time, it's dealing by its very nature with a political problem.

The second level might be called the organizational level of - was the Warren Commission organized in a way that prevented it from finding facts? And here my findings were that by using a part time staff and by the Commission's detaching themselves from the investigation - in other words, not actively partaking in the investigation - it raised some problems as to whether the Warren Commission's investigation went deep enough, so that if there was evidence of a conspiracy, they would have in fact found it. The third level of my criticism concerned the evidence itself, and this concerned the problem of when the Warren Commission was come - confronted with a very complex problem.

For example, the contradiction between the FBI summary report on the autopsy and the autopsy report they had in hand - how they solved this problem, whether they simply glossed over it or whether they called witnesses, and - and this - this, of course, brought up the questions of - of a second assassin.

And for this he had to pick seven very respectable men, men who would lend their name and lend probity to the report. And so that the problem was, in any seven men he picked of this sort, they would have very little time for the investigation. They would also have two purposes. One purpose would be to find the truth, all the facts. The other purpose would be to allay rumors, to dispel conspiracy theories and material of that sort.

Arlen Specter: My view is that there is absolutely no foundation for that type of a charge. When the President selected the commissioners, he chose men of unblemished reputation and very high standing. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would have no reason whatsoever to be expedient or to search for political truths. Nor would Alien W. Dulles, the former head of the CIA, nor would John McCloy, with his distinguished service in government, nor would the Congressional or Senatorial representatives. The Commission had before it the hard fact that Oswald's notebook contained the name, phone number, and license plate number of Dallas FBI agent, James Hosty.

The FBI's explanation was that Hosty had asked Ruth Paine, with whom Marina Oswald was living, to let him know where Oswald was staying, that he jotted down his phone number, and that Marina, under prior instructions from her husband, also copied down Hosty's license plate. Almost from the day the Warren Commission published its report, its decision to omit those vital X-rays and photographs has been under attack.

Only that physical evidence, say the critics, can finally resolve the debate over how many bullets struck the President, where they came from, and where they went - the central questions in the argument over how many assassins opened fire in Dealey Plaza. More than one critic has charged that the autopsy record in the Warren Report is not the original autopsy, but has been changed to conform with the Commission's theories For the Kennedy family, which had possession of the autopsy pictures, agreed last year to donate them to the National Archives, but only with the stipulation that the pictures be locked away for five years - with only certain authorized government personnel allowed to see them.

Now, no one would propose that those grim and tragic relics be made generally available, to be flashed across television screens and newspaper pages. But in view of their crucial bearing on the entire assassination we believe that those films should now be made available for independent examination by expert pathologists, with the high qualifications of Captain Humes - but without his status as a principal in the case. There is one further piece of evidence which we feel must now be made available to the entire public: Abraham's Zapruder's film of the actual assassination.

The original is now the private property of Life magazine. A Life executive refused CBS News permission to show you that film at any price, on the grounds that it is "an invaluable asset of Time, Inc. Life's decision means you cannot see the Zapruder film in its proper form, as motion picture film. We believe that the Zapruder film is an invaluable asset, not of Time, Inc. There have been a number of suggestions that the Commission, for example, was only motivated by a desire to put - to make things quiet, so as to give comfort to the Administration, or give comfort to the people of the country, that there was nothing vicious about this.

Well, that wasn't the attitude that we had at all. I know what my attitude, when I first went down, I was convinced that there was something phony between the Ruby and the Oswald affair, that forty-eight hours after the assassination, here's this man shot in the police station.

  • Sunday School Lessons of Moses?
  • The Journey of Khalil Islam, the Man Who Didn't Shoot Malcolm X -- New York Magazine - Nymag.
  • Follow the author.
  • Le Lean Manufacturing : Les Secrets de la Réussite de Votre Entreprise grâce au Lean Management (French Edition).
  • Follow the Author.
  • Where to find Matthew Moseman online.

I was pretty skeptical about that. But as time went on and we heard witnesses and weighed the witnesses - but just think how silly this charge is. Here we were seven men, I think five of us were Republicans. We weren't beholden to any Administration. Besides that, we - we had our own integrity to think of. A lot of people have said that you can rely upon the distinguished character of the Commission. You don't need to rely on the distinguished character of the Commission.

Maybe it was distinguished, and maybe it wasn't. But you can rely on common sense. And you know that seven men aren't going to get together, of that character, and concoct a conspiracy, with all of the members of the staff we had, with all of the investigative agencies - it would have been a conspiracy of a character so mammoth and so vast that it transcends any - even some of the distorted charges of conspiracy on the part of Oswald. I think that if there's one thing I would do over again, I would insist on those photographs and the X-rays having been produced before us.

In the one respect, and only one respect there, I think we were perhaps a little oversensitive to what we understand was the sensitivities of the Kennedy family against the production of colored photographs of the body, and so forth. But those exist. They're there. We had the best evidence in regard to that-the pathology in respect to the President's wounds. It was our own choice that we didn't subpoena these photographs, which were then in the hands of the Kennedy family.

I say, I wish-I don't think we'd have subpoenaed them. We could have gotten - Mr. Justice Warren was talking to the Kennedy family about that at that time. I thought that he was really going to see them, but it turned out that he hadn't. Breach of Trust. Hear No Evil. Assassination of John F. Kennedy Encyclopedia. That particular morning three or four of us were standing by the window, and Oswald came over, and he said, "What's everybody looking at, and what's everybody excited about?

Did Oswald own a rifle? He did. Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository building? Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? In the building, on the sixth floor. Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? It was. How many shots were fired? How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? Fast enough.

What was the time span of the shots? Seven or eight seconds. CBS News concludes that he did. I couldn't say then, at that time, that it came from the Book Depository book store. It was excised with an elliptical incision. Doctors often describe a wound at the beginning of a report with a term based on info only subsequently acquired. A classic example. Once again, Jean, do you think Dr. Shaw was lying when he later described the wound as being 1.

We have a huge problem in getting the bullet through Kennedy in the first place, as neither the back wound, nor the neck wound can be connected as the result of the same bullet. The back wound being a shallow wound of entry, was not tracked any further than the length of a finger at the autopsy. The throat wound of Kennedy was considered on the day of the assassination to be a wound of entry by the attending physicians at Parkland.

The Warren Commission apologists will complain that the only proper way to assess whether a wound is one of entry or exit is by post mortem examination at autopsy. In the case of a legitimate autopsy this would certainly be the case. However, we are all aware of the fact that this postmortem examination of both the throat and back wounds of JFK were NOT properly performed, but were dispensed with all together. As this thread is again addressing the Magic Bullet, and the wounds allegedly caused by it, we must again expand into all of the issues around this bullet: Origin, chain of custody, as well as the ballistics.

I shall address some of these issues as the conversation proceeds. The only evidence is two FBI agents observing Humes attempting to probe the wound with his little finger, and not getting past the first knuckle. Unless Humes had hands like a four year old girl, is anyone really surprised he was unable to probe the wound up to his third knuckle? Except that human flesh, muscle tissue, etc. True Bob. The 6. A lot of penetration ability more than enough to go through a man but not as much tissue damage as desired. That is why they changed to the 7. It was not as stable and was more lethal.

No, not the only evidence. But why do you doubt them? It is strange that the wound could not be probed — IF it was created by a Carcano bullet. The permanent paths of destruction created by such bullets and those similar striking at the reported fps are not hard to probe. That wound was very close to the spine — where the muscles are attached, muscles in an area that is not much affected by arm movement.

Why would Jean Davison rely on MacPherson et al without first checking out what they say? This data is available to any serious researcher. She not only relies on secondary and even tertiary sources, she quotes sources that distort the facts to sell the Warren Report. Jean, was MacPherson present in the emergency room? Is that not the definition of a primary source, one who has first hand experience i. MacPherson glommed on to data he was not particularly interested in, and by all accounts the info came to him from secondary sources.

I will propose here and now, that there is not a single mention of CE in this book. If Ms Davison wishes to prove me wrong she is going to have to serve such crow with specific quotes and page numbers. If MacPherson DID understand that there was controversy on the size of the entrance wound, and that Dr Shaw himself cleared up that controversy as early as his testimony before the Warren Commission; MacPherson fails to address this, and therefor fails in making a complete and compelling case for those reasons. MacP: Probably not. The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets.

He was a wound ballistics expert and wrote a book on the subject:. So Jean,. I therefore assert that MacPherson did NOT study the original sources, and the original record to reach his conclusions; but relied on the spurious assertions of Lattimer — which are counter-factual to that known record. I see this as proud and purposeful ignorance, and an unworthy mindset for a serious person. Do you believe in magic? That was one magical projectile all right. I never understood the true extent of those supernatural powers until this day. Frank, Jean is correct here, but not in the way that she thinks.

It had yet to begin tumbling when it broke skin. Internal evidence; Bullet wound channels contract after the bullet passed. I have said many times that bullets do some very strange things when they strike bone and muscle. Nothing much would surprise me anymore. This would include the medical evidence of the bullet wounds. Thank you Willy but I am familiar with internal, external and terminal ballistics. I have more than a little experience with all three. It looks like the goons who got the original Zapruder film fudged up on frame Proving that when you lie or attempt to cover something up, all it takes is one little shred of evidence to muck up your lie.

If a bullet is travelling sideways it will make a big hole when entering a body, if it is tumbling it is impossible to know what size of hole it will make, other than it will not be smaller than the diameter of the bullet, and not much bigger than the length of the bullet. The size of the hole looks like an area of cover up, but does the size of the hole kill the SBT? Stand a piece of plywood up at yards so the flat side is facing you and fire a bullet at it.

Now, turn the plywood so that it is almost parallel to the path of the bullet, or edge on to the shooter, with only a small view of the flat side presented to the shooter. Connally was not shot on the flat of his back. The bullet hit the side of his rib cage, and that surface was almost parallel to the path of the bullet.

The bullet more than likely hit more on its side than it did on its nose. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Dr. In fact, technically, the entrance wound was not actually a back wound at all but, rather, a tangential wound striking the right side of his chest, almost parallel, in its path, to the rib it struck. In other words, it was a glancing blow. If you place your hand on the extreme outside of your right rib cage, just under your right arm, this is where the bullet contacted his 5th rib. It also explains the oval shape of the entrance wound, as the bullet did not hit squarely.

The bullet followed the 5th rib for 10 cm. After entering at the mid axillary line and following the 5th rib downward for 10 cm. In other words, the bullet entered at the extreme right side of his chest, and exited to the LEFT of his right nipple. To receive a wound of this nature, Connally would have to be turned quite a ways to his right. Testimony Of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw to the Warren Commission. SHAW — This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter.

It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the auxiliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade. SHAW — Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit. Yes, Willy. I maintain the entrance wound was elliptical on the horizontal plane, and was that way because the bullet entered a surface that was not perpendicular to the path of the bullet but, rather, almost parallel to the path of the bullet. Bob, thanks for explaining the path of the bullet along the rib, again.

Thanks also. Take a look at what she posted at on March 23, and compare it with expert testimony. He wrote this book, e. The 3cm figure started with Dr. When he first described the wound, starting about line , he described it as 3 cm:. On the next page near the end he describes cleaning and enlarging the wound, but he gives no size there at all:. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is lying, Ms. Can we take it from there without animosity on the part of any of us here?

Let us try that. Of course I accept that Shaw testified that the entrance wound was 1. Yes I do, and I consider his amendment in testimony to the WC as 1. He entered the surgery room after the other doctors had done emergency procedures, as has been gone over ad nauseam already on this thread. Shaw included the following : The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] as indicated in one of the operative notes. There can be many other explanations depending on trajectory and the angle of materials a missile may go through. Yes there is. You see, at this point, the bullet was almost travelling parallel to the 5th rib.

JFK Facts » What’s the story with Governor Connally’s wound?

Now, Jean, you are preaching to the choir if you think you can teach me anything about how a FMJ bullet sheds lead out of its base, similar to toothpaste out of a tube. What you are forgetting is that the FMJ bullet will also shed this extruded lead in little flakes that inevitably get left behind in the wound, and can be seen in x-rays as a trail of tiny flakes.

Could you show us anything in Dr. I believe this would account for any flattening of a bullet, and subsequent shedding of lead particles from its base. Whether that was a rib or the wrist bone, I dunno. I know his x-ray showed flakes only in his wrist and thigh. Maybe you were talking to someone else and I misunderstood? If my education background is correct, there are 2. Can you think of a reason why Dr. Shaw would lie about the size of the entrance wound, and change its size from 3 cm. Of course not. Surely one or the other number is wrong, conceivably even both of them! In other words, it is almost a certainty the wound was originally 1.

Or do you think a 3 cm. If my math is correct, 3 cm is 1. I am confused as to how this could difference could happen? As I said in my post to Ms. It may well be that the smaller number Shaw testified to is correct, but where did that number come from, I wonder? They mostly keep repeating their same old arguments against the SBT. I agree with you.

I am going on the same testimony that everyone else is and the same problem that had dogged this investigation from is still in place today. People said one thing in 63, and then through the years stories change and then change again. It really is like a house of mirrors. There has to be a reason. I have no idea what it is. Someone, somewhere is not telling the truth.

We do have Connally, but that has been hard to figure out due to changing stories. The limo, if I remember correctly, was never sealed off as a crime scene that it was, the blood and other material were scrubbed off at Parkland, and then it was loaded on to Air Force One, and then I have no idea who or what did the investigating from there. There could have been—again, only my opinion—evidence in that limo of other ammo used in the assassination. However, we will never know. I do know that I have viewed the limo in the Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

Simply eerie to stand that close to a car where a man died. Yes we have agreed on a viable alternative; that being that there were other shooters in Dealey plaza and that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. Is that not so Jean? Now, all of us here are aware of the underlying desperation of the WC defenders to protect the Magic Bullet story.

If the full absurdity of this story is highlighted and revealed, your whole case falls like the house of marked cards that it is. And if those same people who are physics-savvy also happen to know a few basic facts about the incident and its aftermath, SBT is outright impossible!!!! So… Someone decides to place only three spent bullets in the patsy nest, and all kinds of agents, operatives, scientists, WC members and their handlers, politicians, investigators, mockingbird journalists and authors end up spending years trying to forge together the SBT.

They simply had to. They had no choice. Not to mention that there is absolutely no valid evidence produced so far that directly ties LHO to the shootings of the president or Tippit, whether it was with three bullets or thirty three. Just pick one! The so-called CT community might not necessarily agree on an explanation in the absence of access to documents, evidence and witnesses while multiple parties actively try to derail, mislead and run out the clock until all directly involved conspirators and witnesses die away … But, they certainly disagree with the very silly SBT.

Which our Government, yours and mine, reached in I think most would agree too that this fact means LHO was not a lone nut. Look at these Google search results, e. I agree that someone was wrong about this wound size but no one was necessarily lying about it. It would be impossible, imo, to collect many thousands of documents and testimony from hundreds of people all of them fallible and not get numerous errors and contradictions, especially when many witnesses were interviewed 15 or more years later.

There is none, so far as I know. For instance, when JFK was x-rayed at Bethesda no bullets were found anywhere in his torso. A bullet transiting his body explains that. How do you explain it? A shot of a low powered bullet that hit Kennedy in the back which was worked out as the physicians at Parkland desperately pounded on his chest attempting to resuscitate him. This could be the pointed hunting bullet found later in the hallway, that later magically transformed into the Carcano CE, during that break in the chain of custody.

Do you realize that a bullet so underpowered would have a trajectory more similar to the indirect fire of a mortar? It would have been impossible to hit anything with such a bullet. Can you name some of these people? Was the frontal throat wound caused by another low-powered bullet? What might have happened to that one? In your theory, was the bullet that hit Connally from a second or a third gunman? How many bullets hit Connally and where did they go? Please continue, Willy. Most government agencies have three levels of security clearances: Confidential, Secret and Top Secret.

They are categories of classified information, some of which have extra need-to-know restrictions or require special access authorizations. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. I will point out that some bullets are simply duds, there are misfires, there are bullets that are loaded with faulty gun powder that do not perform as advertised. There are long shots that loose power and velocity. Many factors can come into play, and all of these are infinitely more plausible than the Magic Bullet story. But all of his buddies doing the same job as Oswald had a confidential security clearance.

Just like Oswald. Yes, this is true but I have never seen these bullets you describe hit any place close to the target.

Have you? Did you understand my point about indirect mortar fire? Yes, this is true too. That bullet would be described as short range. The throat wound was caused by a bullet that had gone first through the windshield of the limousine. That was enough to slow it down. How many shooters? Crossfire at least three teams with spotters both in the plaza and some next to shooters. I think Connally was hit by two bullets, one from the back from DalTex this one is the one that took out his rib.

Another from another angle hit him in the wrist and deflected from there into his thigh. It may also have went through the leaves of a tree and slowed down. How long do you guys want to play this game of trivia? The bullet found in Parkland was a pointed tipped unjacketed hunting round, probably a McKnight wrote in Breach of Trust p. Regardless, his primary training was radar operation, a position requiring a security clearance.

But yes, it does seem odd. Perhaps the chatter was kept in the barracks or in private with fellow enlisted men. For my investigation to get a Secret classification we were finger printed and these were no doubt ran , neighbors in my old neighborhood were interviewed by the FBI and my university was questioned.

So these investigation are much more that simply shuffling some paper work. David, If I remember correctly, Oswald never got above the rank of PFC and his security clearance was about as low as it got. He was more careful about what he said around officers, apparently. Oswald discussed politics with Thornley and Delgado, but his crew boss Donovan said:. Did you hear him express sympathy for Castro specifically? Yes—but, on the other hand, so did Time Magazine at that time. Shaw told Petty the wound was not 3 cm, then diagramed it to scale at 1. See Figure 1.

It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination i. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm. Only a conspiracy advocate would consider the opinions recorded nearly 15 years after an event to be superior to written documents dictated 15 minutes after the event. The testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw taken at 6 p. Only the disingenuous would fail to mention this common and oft repeated information on the very same thread as this extant one here and now. Connally WHILE he was still in the hospital recovering from his wounds when he stated that he was hit by a different bullet than the one that struck JFK to write what became known as the biggest piece of myth trash, garbage, pack of lies in American history.

There is this little nugget from Mr. McCloy of the beloved WC and his wonderings about this bullet:. Note: the commas are not in the original. It has been perhaps the conclusion most criticized by conspiracy theorists. The document recently released by the U.

Assassination Records Review Board — which screens Kennedy assassination documents and releases those that will not endanger national security — also contains many other suggestions by McCloy on revising the draft report. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the commission. Nor did it revise other sections criticized by McCloy, dealing with the Kennedy and Connally wounds. Do you know why? For pardoning the second most corrupt president in the history of the United States, Mr. It also allows the hidden sins of Nixon to remain in the shadows forever.

FYI—if I remember correctly, Mr. Ford received the award from Ted Kennedy. Ever heard of Mary Jo Kopechne? Yet, his beliefs were later ignored by the WC buffoons. A frangible bullet would have also not transited the body. See the comments of Bob Prudhome elsewhere on this site or the eduforum. I have read page 63 and 64 several times. If i am wrong, I would welcome the help. He also described it as a round hole. Will you now turn to the front side of the coat and state what, if any, damage you observed on the body of the garment? Gerald D. McKnight is professor of history at Hood College, it is his opinion that Dr Dolce was indeed the expert and leading authority at Edgewood Arsenal at the time.

According to all the documents now housed at Hood College, historian Harold Weisberg is in agreement, as well as the HSCA that Dr Dolce was the expert he claimed to be, and that he was brought in by the Warren Commission itself as such an expert. You propose that they would waste time sending Fonzi down to tape record an interview with Dolce without checking on his position and the fact that the Warren Commission had originally brought him into the investigation?

He holds the rank,of an Army Colonel Reserves and still does consulting work for the Army. Dolce was called by the Warren Commission to serve. He was present when , Connally viewed the Zapruder film and helped question him He also suggested the types and structures of the tests: which; the Commission did on the bullets. He was questioned by staff counsels of the Warren Commission but he does not know and has never seen the commission documents relating to his questioning.

I spoke with Dr. Dolce about information he may have about the nature of the wounds of Kennedy and Connally.

Spartacus Educational

Dolce would like to meet with us to relate the information he has and give us access to the write-up. Dolce would like a written indication of:our interest:. Arnaldo, how about giving an example of a case where bullet wounds were actually dissected out in the manner that you claim was so common? No incision of a wound is mentioned in either autopsy. There is no mention of actual wound dissection. For Mr. Whitten: Thank you.

I felt like a man alone in a raft, beating off a shark. I suppose I should just let Photon be Photon. But we do know that they were both entrance wounds. This whole discussion is based on a falicy-that it was common to dissect out bullet wounds post-mortem. In actuality it was rarely done, and almost always to recover a bullet for evidence purposes. In the context of the issue at hand a dissection of the bullet paths were obviously necessary, and were not done for obviously nefarious reasons. What is reasonable in post-mortem examinations will necessarily depend on the details of the specific case.

His wounds should have been dissected. This should have been medical science at its finest. It was NOT. Absolutely hilarious, Arnaldo. Thanks for making my point. In this area, you have NO point to make. The litany of the uniformed. The autopsy was good enough to withstand the test of time. Every forensic pathologist save Wecht who has reviewed the data and stated an opinion agrees with the findings of the autopsy team-two shots from behind and above.

No shots from anywhere else. A world renowned bullet wound expert was part of the team; CTers tend to forget that.

Product details

Why after 50 years has your side been unable to produce a single forensic pathologist aside from Wecht to disagree with the Bethesda conclusions? Could it possibly be that despite all of the criticism they were entirely correct in their conclusions? We have been over these false assertions too many times on other threads to revisit it again. No you did not. See my response from PM. Are you now claiming that these tyros were following standard forensic pathology techniques after all and that all of the criticism of them related to inexperience is unwarranted?

Not really, Arnaldo. The bullet wound through Dr. Well surprise surprise Jean, the other case you site of not dissection of a bullet wound is none other than Martin Luther King, whom a jury determined in a court of law was killed by government snipers. Quite a coincidence. It seemed extremely probable then that the bullet entered where there was an entrance and ended up where it was found, beneath the skin on his back, if I recall. With JFK they had what appeared to be an entrance wound on his throat, and a large wound on his head.

The purpose of the autopsy was to 1 find bullets, and 2 find out if these wounds were connected, as presumed by the Dallas doctors, or separate. And no amount of spin can change that. As I hope to get into the chain of custody again soon, I want to post this information that was never acknowledged in the previous threat it was posted in:. Crime Scene Protocol It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in up until the s to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.

In such cases, the person converts a nonunique object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals. I consider the 1. Shaw gave his testimony to the WC under oath, and corrected his operative report. I consider Crime Scene Protocol for settled as well. This would apply to the other bullets and shells found in the TBTB as well. And it applies to the Carcano rifle itself. Whether our adversaries wish to waffle on the point, I consider this a legal case, to be judged by legal standards.

Therefore his opinion on the pristine condition of the Magic Bullet being impossible trumps the opinions of Olivier and Dziemian. See my comments on this page at: March 31, at pm April 1, at am March 31, at pm. It is not the other way around. So coming back to the issue of Dr Dolce, there is more evidence that he was involved with the ballistics inquiry, actually brought in by the commission itself, than there is of even a scintilla of proof for the Magic Bullet.

You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib — from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings. On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission.

He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted. Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood. Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.

Do not forget Jean, that Joannides was in charge of what evidence would and would not be admissible; and he was running interference for CIA. That is why information for Dolce and those who interviewed him and the pictures and manuscripts from the Edgewood tests were squelched by the hidden hand of Joannides during the HSCA. This is a very insignificant factor, though. It will be removed. SHAW: Before he goes to the recovery room. Those who promote the theory have to prove that it is; and this has not been done. Photon April 1, at pm Only a conspiracy advocate would consider the opinions recorded nearly 15 years after an event to be superior to written documents dictated 15 minutes after the event.

You are hilarious, Photon. Did Clint Hill dictate an operative report on Nov. If not your comment has no relevance to the current discussion. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.

Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. Because the Magic Bullet thesis is absurd, any who defend it must resort to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation.

Photon, you just resorted to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation yet one more time. Kennedy was shot just as the he was disappearing behind the sign. These frames are just prior to Kennedy going behind the sign. Therefore, Connally could not possibly be reacting to a hit from that bullet. You do have to explain why you insist "the simultaneous actions of JFK and Connolly upon being hit," because this is clearly not the case.

And you cannot prove the trajectory of the bullet that hit Connally in the back. It most certainly was not from the 6th floor of the TBDB. And you have to accept that it was only 1. But who is buried in the garden? And why is the brain missing? You should remember that from our college seminars. Voltaire, a critic of this idea, used the concept in his story Candide, a satire on how this idea of Leibniz would actually work out in the real world of human beings.

Bottom line, it is original as a quote of Leibniz. It was banned as sacreligious in many areas, increasing its appeal. But much more interesting is the ignorance of the book itself by the posters, including an attorney. It is generally considered one of the classics of Western literature. You simply cannot admit to even the most blatant of mistakes can you Photon? Your lack of sincerity is such a bore. So what gives here? GWL was the math and philosophy father of Bertrand Russell, though years separated them. It has about 30 chapters. This was a report given to the Warren Commission on Jan.

Edgar Hoover of the FBI. I highly recommend Page 26 of the visual aid brochure. At the time this report was written, the FBI still believed in three shots and three hit; first shot hits JFK in the back, second shot hits Connally in the back, third shot hits JFK in the head. Where the throat wound on JFK came from was uncertain, although it was believed by some that a bullet fragment from the head shot had exited via the throat.

The site the FBI chose for the second hit Connally back was within three feet of the position the limo is seen occupying in the Zapruder film at frame z, in which the explosive JFK head shot is seen. Here is a question. If the FBI had access to and viewed the Zapruder film, how could they be so grossly mistaken about the location of the fatal head shot? It got the big picture right, not the details. To consider it anything but an incomplete preliminary report completed without all of the facts is to ignore history.

As part of my job I have contracted experts on a variety of issues. They can produce an expert report on anything in 2 weeks. They can even produce an expert report in 2 days if required. The FBI report does not contradict the autopsy. You accept a report prepared in 2 weeks with insufficient information over a comprehensive report from multiple sources over months? How long did it take to investigate the Boston bombing case? The Tate-LaBianca murders?

Maybe in Australia you can get an expert report in two weeks, but on what subject? It is virtually impossible to get one in this country on any subject. Legal matters are even more involved. They even did up a natty little diorama in that time. As Bob has pointed out the FBI had access to the Zapruder film in those 2 weeks but the shot sequence they have come up with disproves Zapruder, disproves the SBT and the autopsy findings. Are you really going to maintain that?

I have to ask you, in a time of national emergency you would not be able to produce a report in your field or field s of expertise in 2 weeks? Shaw was under considerable duress, following the operation on Gov. Connally, and might accidentally have written 3 cm. The FBI was making a rushed report of a crime scene with incomplete information, pressure from above and little mention of one of the victims of the crime. Shaw measured an entrance wound. He prepared an operative report, as he had done thousands of times. What pressure? Shaw was one of the most respected academic thoracic surgeons at the time.

How can you compare the two? I post answers just as fast as I can-as above. Please point out any factual errors that I have made in my responses. Remember our discussion a while back on PM? What do you think that is? You are going to get me something, right? I asked for a viable solution most CTs could agree on, Bob. Looks pretty close to me. Let us be serious here. The BI chose a location for the fatal head shot that shows the limo almost at the steps, a full 42 feet further down Elm St. If it was a simple matter of the measurement being wrong, that being feet, I could follow your argument.

However, the FBI model clearly shows the limo to not be in the position at z when the fatal head shot occurred. Therefore, IF the FBI viewed the Zapruder film in , which I am certain they did, certain conclusions can be drawn, but only one can be true:. The Z film has been altered, and the fatal head shot really did occur way down by the pergola steps, and not at the z position.

Possible reasons for this may include the fact that a shooter on the 6th floor might not have had a clear shot at JFK, with the SS agents standing on the follow up car in the way. This, of course, suggests a final shot from the front. The Zapruder film is unaltered, but was never intended to be shown to the public, and the FBI lied about the location of the fatal head shot.

Possible reasons for this may include that the shots were too close together to allow adequate recycling and aiming for a lone gunman with a bolt action rifle. If the limo was travelling at 10 mph, it can also be said it was moving Of course, the YouTube video of 6 shots from a Carcano in 5.

Taking careful aim and hitting a target is not quite the same thing as simply getting off 6 shots in 5. Thanks for confirming the validity of the session.

It can be done. Not possible. The Zapruder film is unaltered, but was never intended to be shown to the public, and the FBI lied about the location of the fatal head shot…. Nice try, Jean but, there are quite a number of methods that were available to anyone in the FBI, with any analytical skills whatsoever, to allow them to pinpoint the precise location of the limo at z Do you think FBI agents are infallible? Although all we really need to do is for people to provide photos and their real name and a genuine email address.

Charles Dolce said the official theorizing about that wrist wound was absolutely impossible. He did. He photographed the damaged bones and the bullets. Every one of those bullets was severely damaged, not left without a scratch as in the official mythology. Vincent P. Guinn] Hosty Chapter 8. I was 11 yrs. Old on 22 Nov, The official version and what really happened and our lack of tangible outrage probably bring us to the reason we are Treated like Chumps by our so called legitimate Government.. However, the day will come when those involved will have no more places to Hide!

And that ends this argument. Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE as we know it today, did not exist. Another highly detailed exposition on the lack of chains of evidence can be found in the following:. We have identified a large amount of possible evidence tampering and alteration. I believe that a reasonable judge would come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not met the basic test required for a case to go to a jury: Would a reasonable juror be able to make a finding that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think the prosecution would be unable to make any basic case. We have looked at the primary evidence identified by the Warren Commission. If you have questions, go to maryferrell. The Magic Bullet story is not a viable option. There is not a single bit of evidence to back it up. In fact all of the evidence at hand proves that it is false. It is as absurd as it sounds upon first reflection. There is only one viable answer, CE was a planted prop. Oswald was a patsy, just as he claimed. My quick summation above is brief, and I am fully aware that I did not link my final conclusion directly to what came before.

It would take article length comments to detail all of the issues already addressed by the parties in this current discussion. It is my firm opinion at this point. Not a single forensic pathologist familiar with the case agrees with that statement None. How could these bona fide experts who have done thousands of autopsies be wrong-and you right? For it to be an entrance wound the shooter would have to have been on the floor of the limo.

Something that I have always wondered. Why would a conspiracy plant a bullet with so little damage that it would immediately generate doubts about its authenticity? Why would they go through all of the trouble to plant a round that many experts would consider too intact to be capable of all of the wounds? Even the Edgewood wrist cadaver shots seemed to imply that the round was too undamaged.

The inherent stability of the 6. You neglect to mention that Shaw agreed with the possibility of the SBT, but he objected to being the cause because he was not familiar with the ballistic characteristics of the 6. Why plant a round that would obfuscate the SBT-at least until common misconceptions were overturned months later? All the Parkland doctors who viewed it considered the throat wound an entry and said so that day.

The key is still the non-dissected back wound. In , for instance, Posner argued in favor of the WC Report before a congressional subcommittee by claiming he had interviewed JFK autopsy doctors Humes and Boswell, who now placed that wound about 4 inches higher than stated in the autopsy report. Gary Aguilar called Humes and Boswell and both denied having told Posner about that change. Boswell even said he had never given an interview to Posner. The central point on the Magic Bullet cannot be lost sight of; that is that the chain of custody was broken, and the bullet found at Parkland was certainly not the Carcano round that eventually surfaced as CE As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.

At him? I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. KEMP CLARK- The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue. Since Photon sticks to his guns even twisting the case of a poor woman in India subject to wound dissection, which I thought it would be comparatively shocking in regard with a U. Actually your Medscape article makes no mention of dissecting out bullet wounds-did you read it? I do want to thank you for finding the two articles that describe cases of dissecting out bullet wounds.

Case reports are unusual presentations of medical issues,findings, outcomes and the procedures associated. The fact that these cases of bullet wound dissection were so unusual as to rise to the level of case reports confirms the fact that the procedure was unusual and required only in special cases. I understand that you are unfamiliar with medical literature and what tends to get published and what does not, but by having to resort to articles describing a procedure so unusual it merits a couple of case reports you have proven my position.

Having the body of a U. He apparently hopes you will assume those impossible conclusions also relate to the size of the holes. In fact, Frazier was talking about how pressing the material flattened it out so that the fibers along the edges no longer pointed in the direction the bullet was going. He did say the shirt material was weak to begin with and tore more readily than stronger material. As for folds, they can make holes larger, not smaller than they would have been without folds.

Specter: When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet ? Shaw: I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit Shaw: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. Part of the problem with interpreting Dr. What we have are the paraphrased comments of the interviewer, Dr.

It is curious that Dr. Petty mentioned that Many of Dr. After 14 years the 1. At any rate, there is no actual record of his interview and as such we have no idea if this wound issue was ever dealt with more than a brief mention. My personal opinion is that in his Warren testimony Dr. Shaw took strides to explain as easily as possible to layman what the medical findings were. He tried to use terminology that the lawyers on the committee could understand without being confused. At that time few outside of the medical and scientific communities knew or used the metric system.

Probably nobody on the committee knew exactly how large a centimeter was, or probably even how to pronounce it. As such, I believe it was Dr. Unfortunately nobody during the interview called him on it, nor requested any clarification. Had they this entire issue may have been cleared up, instead of being a factoid floating without independent confirmation.

Seriously Photon? Or is your latest comment a form of written glossolalia? Going to these drastic lengths in grasping at straws to rebuke the clear public record is extraordinary even for you. How could he? He never saw them prior to cleaning and pressing; as such he had no idea what they looked like originally.

But you do? Yes Milicent does, Fraizer did, I do, and anyone with a lick of sense knows that those whole did not look different in any meaningful way, other than which way the fibers might have been facing when looked at with a magnifying glass. We know the hole in the back was an entry hole of each garment, we know the hole in the front of each garment was the exit hole. What is at issue here is that the holes in these items match the size of the holes in the flesh of Connally.

All of your bickering is yet again a pointless stroll into the weeds. You are sure struggling lately. First, your beloved WC report cannot support your firm belief that Shaw believed it was a 1. So, the WC is not your go to, so you seem a little lost. Now you are worried about the holes and the pressing and cleaning.

At its largest. I notice that he did not say the fabric appeared to be stretched or otherwise deformed. So, which is it? I would imagine that is what happens when you tie your entire conclusion on one, single, flawed document. I wonder how I was able to predict where you would travel after the Shaw testimony did not go well for you?

Actually the Shaw testimony supports the single bullet theory and he stated as much ; his objection based on ignorance of the stability of the 6. Frazier in his testimony stated that they had; everyone here that claims that the bullet holes were exactly the same size as immediately after the shooting ignore that. You can make assumptions that they were, but the exact dimensions could have been altered and probably were by the process.

As stated previously I believe that Shaw went into the WC interview trying to make his testimony understandable to laymen; there are several instances of him explaining medical terms and off-the-record comments were he appears to clarify issues. I believe that he intended to state that the entrance wound was 1. In the heat of the moment he fell back to cm. A man writes 3 cm. He later clarifies that it was 1.