Since none of it appears to be based on first-hand knowledge and none is corroborated by other independent evidence, I am not sure what his account is or what could conceivably validate his account.
HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he
saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition. Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.
When Captain Osborne's HSCA interviewer challenged his account with the argument that the only bullet in evidence was found at Parkland Hospital and sent to Washington, Osborne insisted that he had held the bullet in his hands. By any definition, Captain Osborne's account was based on "first-hand knowledge."
Osborne said the bullet was "copper clad" and "fully intact," adding that it had no blood on it when he handled it.
The HSCA interview report admitted that Osborne specified that the missile was not a fragment:
Osborne emphasized that the slug was a fully intact missile and not a fragment. (Outside Contact Report, HSCA, 6/20/1978, p. 3, ARRB MD 66 document)When Osborne was interviewed shortly after the HSCA volumes were published, it became clear that the HSCA FPP report's claim that Osborne had expressed uncertainty about his account "upon further inquiry" was false. In fact, as mentioned, when the HSCA interviewer, Mark Flanagan, challenged Osborne about his account, Osborne did not back down one bit:
I told them [HSCA investigators] that this was the way I remembered it, and they said, “Well, it must be wrong, because the Secret Service testified that the bullet was found in the hospital at Parkland, and brought back to Washington.”
And so I said, “Well, if that’s true, then they brought it back to the morgue because I had that bullet in my hand, and looked at it." (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis," 2024, p. 351)The "major discrepancy" exists only in your [Michael Capasse's] own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that.
Oh, hogwash. I challenge you, just as I've challenged the clueless John Corbett, to find me one FBI document -- or any other official investigative document -- that uses the term "missile" to describe two or more very small fragments that constitute less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it.
As I discussed in a previous reply, in their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy,
Sibert and O'Neill themselves used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover,
they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:
The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm as fragments, not as a "missile":
. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . . An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)In referring to the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4)Not once did Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullet fragments. They certainly would not have done so to describe two very small fragments that had a combined weight of only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet.
As I also discussed in a previous reply, the word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).
Notice that the FPP distinguished between missiles and missile fragments. Gee, why do you suppose they did that? Maybe because they understood that missiles and missile fragments are two different things?! Ya think?!
-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times,
and never once to describe bullet fragments.-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).
Not once was the word "missile" used to describe fragments.
-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).
Not once did they use the term "missile" as a synonym for bullet fragments.
-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.
Here, too, not once was the word "missile" used to describe bullet fragments.
Sheesh, this is just so pathetic. You guys can't even admit that no competent, rational person would (willingly) use the term "missile" to refer to two small fragments whose combined weight was only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet.
But this is the kind of abject nonsense you must float because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit that a bullet was found in the limo and/or was seen at the autopsy.
It is also pathetic that you guys can't admit that Dr. Young was a highly credible source and that his account is solid and compelling by any objective measurement. If you guys had an anti-conspiracy account from an equally credible source and the account were corroborated by two credible first-hand witnesses, you'd be jumping for joy and would justifiably criticize anyone who refused to accept the account.
