|
|
 February 01, 2012, 02:43:32 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3791
Well, somebody did it.
|
This came up recently,
also, Would the doctors at Parkland be allowed to be called as witnesses even without a complete autopsy report ?
-------------------------
-------------------------
LN; So how did it happen then ?
CT; I don't know, I only know that it didn't happen the way the evidence says.
LN; We should not use evidence in this case ?
CT; Correct.
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 03:00:21 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 152
|
The doctors could be called to testify. But here is another issue.
The defence could have said a legal autopsy was not done in Texas where the crime occurred. The body was taken away and we have no idea if it was in the same conduction as it was when he was shot.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 04:28:52 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
The doctors could be called to testify. But here is another issue.
The defence could have said a legal autopsy was not done in Texas where the crime occurred. The body was taken away and we have no idea if it was in the same conduction as it was when he was shot.
Aren't bodies kept in a morgue until they're examined. How secure was the morgue at Parkland in 1963? I suppose the autopsy would have been conducted immediately given the prominence of the victim, but some CTs seem to expect the President's body should have been treated like an ordinary case, subject to local laws and normal procedure. The body as it left Parkland arrived at Bethesda as wrapped in Parkland. It arrived in a closed coffin that could be accounted for every minute from Parkland to Bethesda. Probably as good a chain of evidence as if they had left the body at Parkland for Rose. If the autopsy had been done in Texas, Rose would have been an "incompetent" rube and the critics would be arguing that a POTUS deserved better. The Bethesda Naval Hospital had excellent modern facilities, they would moan, and Jackie had wanted the autopsy done there. But LBJ had it done in Texas where he could control things.
-------------------------
-------------------------
 "It's, uh, very heavy." — President Johnson on receiving the Warren Report in the Oval Office, Sept. 24, 1964
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 04:30:05 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3791
Well, somebody did it.
|
The doctors could be called to testify. But here is another issue.
The defence could have said a legal autopsy was not done in Texas where the crime occurred. The body was taken away and we have no idea if it was in the same conduction as it was when he was shot.
Couldn't the doctors at Parkland testify that the cause of death was that his brains were blown out ? And that along with all the brain and skull matter all over the car, his wife, the street and the motorcycle cops. I mean it was kind of obvious that he was shot, would the autopsy even be needed ?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 04:46:52 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 525
|
I guess one answer to this be would be to see if anyone was ever convicted of murder when there was no body, no body no autopsy, can you still convict ?
There is plenty of physical evidence in the President's murder. There is also an abundance of circumstantial evidence as well. Since the President's body was never left alone, (unless you are a David Lifton fan), the chain of evidence was never broken. The defense could tie up a trial over legalities, but the district attorney gave his blessing for the removal of the body. The same district attorney would be the lead prosecutor in any trial against Oswald. Eventually the autopsy question would have to be answered by the judge presiding over the trial. I'm sure Wade would have had a plan B if the autopsy was thrown out.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 09:17:25 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
Aren't bodies kept in a morgue until they're examined. How secure was the morgue at Parkland in 1963? I suppose the autopsy would have been conducted immediately given the prominence of the victim, but some CTs seem to expect the President's body should have been treated like an ordinary case, subject to local laws and normal procedure.
The body as it left Parkland arrived at Bethesda as wrapped in Parkland. It arrived in a closed coffin that could be accounted for every minute from Parkland to Bethesda. Probably as good a chain of evidence as if they had left the body at Parkland for Rose.
If the autopsy had been done in Texas, Rose would have been an "incompetent" rube and the critics would be arguing that a POTUS deserved better. The Bethesda Naval Hospital had excellent modern facilities, they would moan, and Jackie had wanted the autopsy done there. But LBJ had it done in Texas where he could control things.
I know, it's outrageous for citizens to expect the government to obey the law. How does the prominence of the victim come into this? How about the OJ Simpson case? Should we excuse mistakes made in that case because of Simpson's prominence? Is a rich person less entitled to a competent autopsy than a bowery bum?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
I know, it's outrageous for citizens to expect the government to obey the law.
How does the prominence of the victim come into this? How about the OJ Simpson case? Should we excuse mistakes made in that case because of Simpson's prominence? Is a rich person less entitled to a competent autopsy than a bowery bum?
Re: "prominence of the victim"That's why President Kennedy hasn't been exhumed. Not saying it would make any difference. My expectation is that it would confirm the LN theory while. at the same time, providing fodder and inroads for the critics to manipulate. Such has been the pattern over the years. The HSCA Forensic Panel thought there was sufficient evidence in the autopsy photos and X-rays to determine wound sites, and that an exhumation would yield nothing new.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 01, 2012, 09:04:21 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
I guess one answer to this be would be to see if anyone was ever convicted of murder when there was no body, no body no autopsy, can you still convict ?
Sure, no problem. The guy who used a wood chipper to dispose of his wife.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 02, 2012, 06:29:02 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 152
|
There is so much contradicting testimony on the wounds that JFK had. If there was a trial if they called Dr. McClellland and he said that he saw a wound to lower part of the head. Then they called Dr Humes and he saw a wound to the right side of JFK'S head. The Defence would raise heck saying wait judge we have one doctor saying one thing and another thing about the wounds to JFK.
Then they look at the Autopsy report and say this it was not done right, they would raise more heck.
The defence would say this judge the testimony is contradicting one another, the autopsy report is a joke. We want to exhume President and have another autopsy done.
The defence would be in their right to ask this and if the judge said no it could lead to a mistrial.
What would the goverment do then? Exhume President Kennedy?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 02, 2012, 08:26:37 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1417
|
There is so much contradicting testimony on the wounds that JFK had. If there was a trial if they called Dr. McClellland and he said that he saw a wound to lower part of the head. Then they called Dr Humes and he saw a wound to the right side of JFK'S head. The Defence would raise heck saying wait judge we have one doctor saying one thing and another thing about the wounds to JFK.
Then they look at the Autopsy report and say this it was not done right, they would raise more heck.
The defence would say this judge the testimony is contradicting one another, the autopsy report is a joke. We want to exhume President and have another autopsy done.
The defence would be in their right to ask this and if the judge said no it could lead to a mistrial.
What would the goverment do then? Exhume President Kennedy?
Mark, there actually is no need to exhume JFK - if all the photos and X rays and brain tissue samples have remained intact - ALL the evidence pointing to multiple gunman firing at the POTUS would be resident in the evidence already collected. Just you try and get "access" to those photos and X rays.  Despite nearly 50 years after the fact, full disclosure isn't coming out any time soon. Why? Remember the WC concluded - the killings and all wounding were the action of two independent LNers - LHO and JR. That is it really. Another investigation concluded that there may have been a conspiracy but the gunman didn't know each other and LHO caused the fatal shot so why bother anyway? Tony
-------------------------
-------------------------
Representative FORD - The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - The west, southwest corner.
Representative FORD - And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. ROWLAND - The east, southeast corner.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
