The Fundamental Problem

[Oscar Navarro]

Given that this letter doesn't say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them" or anything even remotely similar to that, it must not be the same letter she's talking about.

I'm asking you how you know that Amador is talking about anybody coming to Silvia's apartment on the 26th or 27th of September, 1963 (since the letter says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground), and your only answer is that he must be talking about that because she brought the letter to the interview.  So what?  That tells you nothing about what Amador was referring to.  Maybe she just brought the wrong letter.

Brought the wrong letter  That wouldn't bode well for Silvia Odio's credibility if that was the case as it would further add to the doubts about her emotional instability. The letter and translation was placed as evidence and made a Commission exhibit for anyone to see. It was there during the HSCA hearings and available to uber CTer Gaeton Fonzi who made Odio one of his major star witnesses for the HSCA and a major character in his book The Last Investigation. You think they wouldn't have noticed it was the wrong letter? IMHO, too much reliance was placed on Silvia's testimony about the contents of the letter and not enough on what Amador actually wrote. Silvia Odio's credibility as a witness has suffered one more hit and should join Antonio Veciana in the "I met Lee Harvey Oswald" fantasy club.

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe they should have subpeonaed Amador if they wanted to know what his letter meant.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You want Odio to be both credible and not credible at the same time.

Amador's letter still says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground.

[Oscar Navarro]

Amador was limited to writing everything he could on just one side of the letter and Silvia's introduction of this letter as proof of her allegation should suffice even the most ardent critic that both Amador and Silvia are referring to the same incident. But you're not an ardent critic but a court jester whose only purpose is to entertain yourself with ridiculous remarks. I'm done with you. So long, sucker.

[Brent Moldenhauer]

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

No one suggests an autopsy facesheet should be absolutely nailed on in terms of accuracy but it should be at least anatomically correct. How hard would it have been for a qualified pathologist to put the dot depicting the non fatal wound slightly higher up to somewhere approximating where the the autopsy report states the wound was?

Up until publication of the Warren Report there was no mention of a wound in the base of JFKs neck. The holes in JFKs shirt and jacket are consistent with the positioning of the wound in the face sheet. Then there is the death certificate drawn up by Burkley that puts the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertabrae. The recreation carried out by Arlen Specter show a mark on the JFK stand in at this point also. At the autopsy all the talk is of a wound in the shoulder or the soft part beneath the shoulder. SSA Glenn Bennett said he saw the President get hit in the back about 4 inches below the collar. SSA Clint Hill's statement said he examined the body after the autopsy and, "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column"

Now there is a lot of good evidence and testimony to suggest that the wound in JFks rear was not in the base of the neck. Could one person make a mistake? Of course they could. Could they all be wrong despite pretty much corroborating each other? Highly unlikely.

I wonder why the holes in Connally's garments line up where his wounds are but one of the best tailored men in the world had a jacket and shirt that would ride up 5 inches

[Ray Mitcham]

No one suggests an autopsy facesheet should be absolutely nailed on in terms of accuracy but it should be at least anatomically correct. How hard would it have been for a qualified pathologist to put the dot depicting the non fatal wound slightly higher up to somewhere approximating where the the autopsy report states the wound was?

Up until publication of the Warren Report there was no mention of a wound in the base of JFKs neck. The holes in JFKs shirt and jacket are consistent with the positioning of the wound in the face sheet. Then there is the death certificate drawn up by Burkley that puts the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertabrae. The recreation carried out by Arlen Specter show a mark on the JFK stand in at this point also. At the autopsy all the talk is of a wound in the shoulder or the soft part beneath the shoulder. SSA Glenn Bennett said he saw the President get hit in the back about 4 inches below the collar. SSA Clint Hill's statement said he examined the body after the autopsy and, "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column"

Now there is a lot of good evidence and testimony to suggest that the wound in JFks rear was not in the base of the neck. Could one person make a mistake? Of course they could. Could they all be wrong despite pretty much corroborating each other? Highly unlikely.

I wonder why the holes in Connally's garments line up where his wounds are but one of the best tailored men in the world had a jacket and shirt that would ride up 5 inches

Magic clothes to match the magic bullet, Brent.

[Walt Cakebread]

Can you find anything at all prior to the publication of the Warren Report that suggests the wound in JFKs torso was in the neck/base of the neck/lower neck?

Is there any film or photo taken in or around the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs jacker and shirt bunched right up?

All the evidence and testimony points to a wound lower in the back.

Unfortunately, the autopsy notes and first draft of the autopsy were destroyed coincidently just after Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. I wonder what they contained! And just how did Humes get blood on that first draft when he was sat in his own study? Still he later said it was because it had spelling errors....OK doc. But as the jacket and shirt also had blood on them but werent burned it makes you wonder what was so special about the notes.

Even if a jacket bunched up it doesnt follow that a shirt that would be tucked in to the pants and fastened at the neck would also ride up. The holes in the shirt and jacket are just a 1/4 of an inch different different from each other. To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent.

"To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent."

Welcome to the circus, Brent....  I perceive  that you're going to be an asset for our team.   ( Can you throw the Hail Mary.... or a monkey wrench into the LNer's machinery?)   

[John Iacoletti]

Amador was limited to writing everything he could on just one side of the letter and Silvia's introduction of this letter as proof of her allegation should suffice even the most ardent critic that both Amador and Silvia are referring to the same incident.

It's amazing how you got all that just from "Tell me who this is who says he is my friend-be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name".  Somehow this is obvious code language for 3 people coming to Silvia's apartment on a certain date and talking about recruiting for the Cuban underground.  Must have lost something in the translation...

But you're not an ardent critic but a court jester whose only purpose is to entertain yourself with ridiculous remarks. I'm done with you. So long, sucker.

In other words, you're right just because you're right, dammit!

How compelling.