CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence

[Tim Nickerson]

The Sibert and O'Neill report was not flawed but accurately presented the pathologists' findings by the end of the exam phase of the autopsy, and we know from multiple sources that the no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report.

The Sibert and O'Neill report is seriously flawed. It does not accurately represent the findings of the autopsy pathologists.  We do not know from multiple credible sources that a no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report. There were no two first two versions of the autopsy report. There is the one and only autopsy report. It is not the third autopsy report. It is the only autopsy report that has ever existed on the autopsy of the body of President Kennedy done on Nov 22, 1963. The supplemental autopsy on the brain was done several days later.
 

We also know from Boswell himself and from Ebersole, among others, that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, which belies Humes's tale that he didn't learn of the throat wound until the following day.

The pathologists no doubt had a pretty good idea by the end of the autopsy that the wound in the throat was a bullet exit wound. But Humes needed it confirmed. That's why he phoned Dr. Perry.

We also know from multiple sources that the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that this was after the initial probing and after the chest organs had been removed.

Do we? Who were those multiple witnesses, and when did they testify under oath that they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity? 

Are you ever going to get around to addressing the main points of the OP, (1) the marked disparity between the FBI's shooting scenario and the WC's shooting scenario, and (2) the drastic contradiction between the FBI's locations for the limo for each shot and the extant Zapruder film?

The OP is flawed. The FBI's shooting scenario, as published in their 1/13/1964 report, was based on the seriously flawed Nov 26/63 FD-302 report of Sibert and O'Neill. The FBI had not read the actual autopsy report. Nor had they interviewed the autopsy pathologists.

Umm, the main problem with Manning's statement is that he said he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet when he interviewed him on Friday night, but Oswald's wallet had already been confiscated hours before Manning interviewed him, as Officer Bentley and Detective Sims confirmed.

The wallet had been removed from Oswald's possession by Bentley. Manning was afforded access to that wallet by the DPD. Oswald was being interviewed in the offices of the DPD. Manning was present during that interview. Oswald was asked by his interrogator about his possession of that Selective Service card. So, obviously, his wallet was there during that interview. When the interview was over, Manning examined the contents of the wallet.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I did address it, dumba$$. The FBI's initial finding was made just one month into the process and not surprising it was flawed. The WC continued to gather evidence throughout the process and correctly determined that a single bullet struck JFK and JBC between Z210 and Z225. Were they supposed to stick with a conclusion made just a month into the process even though they had better information? How stupid would that have been? MTG stupid.

What a total joke. The FBI's analysis of the timing of the shots was based on many hours of analyzing the Zapruder film, and it agreed with the conclusion of both of the WC's April evidence-analysis conferences that JFK and Connally were not hit by the same bullet.

It is just amazing that you keep repeating myths that were destroyed decades ago. As late as the end of April 1964, the WC was still assuming that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets, and this was after two lengthy conferences, on April 14 and April 21, when Rankin and Eisenberg and WC staffers met with five medical/ballistics experts, two FBI experts, and the Connallys, and reviewed the Zapruder film, as I have personally documented for you in another thread. We have the WC memos about those conferences -- you know that, right? 

The only thing that changed that conclusion was the WC's inability to continue to ignore the Tague wounding. Once the WC was forced to acknowledge the Tague wounding, then and only then did the SBT emerge as the final conclusion, and even then it was a close call because three of the WC members balked at the ridiculous theory.

I mean, this stuff has been known literally for decades. Harold Weisberg documented it in exhaustive detail in the late 1960s and 1970s. Subsequent disclosures have provided further confirmation that the SBT was cooked up out of desperation after the WC was forced to acknowledge the Tague wounding. Until the Tague wounding could no longer be ignored, the WC was all set to conclude that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.

Even if one trusts the final version of the autopsy report, that version does not tell us anything about the timing of the shots. As the FBI's analysis recognized, the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to his first wound long before Connally reacts to his wound. Even if we assume the FBI experts were unaware of the final version of the autopsy report, this in no way invalidates their shot-timing analysis. The HSCA's photographic experts likewise concluded that JFK was hit by no later than Z190, i.e., while the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limousine was obstructed by the oak tree. 

Since you are accusing others of dodging YOUR questions, how about you man up and provide a plausible alternative to the SBT, something I challenged you do in your thread about the throat wound. A plausible alternative would explain JFK's non fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. It would tell us where the shots were fired from and where they ended up. You've had over 62 years to come up with one. Why haven't you been able provide an explanation supported by evidence?

LOL! Oh my goodness. Umm, several plausible alternatives to the SBT have been offered, as I've explained to you before. You just keep repeating statements that you know are not true, or else you have a terrible memory.   

And let me school you in a point of basic logic: Even if no one had ever proposed an alternative explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, this would not automatically validate the SBT. You keep using the silly grade-school-level illogic that, gee, the SBT must be true because no one has come up with a better explanation (i.e., an explanation that you are willing to accept). Umm, no, that's not how it works. When a theory is proven to be impossible, or when a theory cannot be proved or disproved, no one but an ignorant juvenile will make the argument that the theory must be true anyway because there is no alternative.       

Amazing how your kneejerk response to every anomaly is to assume it is evidence of a conspiracy when human error is by far the more likely explanation. People make mistakes and cops are people.

No, what's amazing is how your ignorant mind keeps repeating the same idiotic arguments over and over and over. Not one of the experts whom the WC consulted said that CE 399 could have caused all of JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds. At the two April conferences, everyone but Specter could see in the Zapruder film that Connally clearly and obviously reacts to his wounding long after JFK reacts to his. Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, the guy who felt the "sharp blow" of the bullet's impact, was there to tell them he was certain he was not hit before Z231. Drs. Dolce and Light both told the conferees that there was no way CE 399 could have caused all of JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds and emerged in virtually undamaged condition. Even Humes and Finck told the WC the same thing. Etc., etc., etc.

I have documented all of these facts for you at least twice, but you just brush them aside and keep repeating the Warren Report's myths.

I have also proved to you beyond any rational doubt that the no-back-wound-exit finding was not a "preliminary" finding but the final finding, that it was the final finding at the end of the exam phase and the final finding at the end of the consultation phase, and that it was not changed until after Oswald was shot and Humes knew there would be no trial.

You keep repeating the myth that Humes didn't learn of the throat wound until he talked with Perry and that he didn't talk with Perry until Saturday, even though we know that Humes knew about the throat wound before the autopsy began (as Boswell himself confirmed to Levine, and as Manchester documented), and even though we know that Humes was in contact with the Dallas doctors by no later than 10:30 PM during the autopsy (as Dr. Ebersole informed the HSCA). But, you just brush aside all this evidence as "mistaken" and continue to repeat the throat-wound-ignorance myth.

When I presented you with multiple and independent eyewitness accounts that the final probing of the back wound established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point, your juvenile answer was that all of the witnesses were "mistaken." And, to further show how unserious and blindly biased you are, you threw in the additional silliness that those witnesses were the "least qualified"! Yeah, never mind those witnesses included a resident surgeon at Bethesda who assisted the autopsy doctors (Dr. Karnei), Boswell's medical technician (James Jenkins), the autopsy radiologist (Dr. Ebersole), military aide Richard Lipsey, and the two FBI agents who were there specifically to observe the autopsy and file a report about it (Sibert and O'Neill). Even though they all reported the same thing independently and were unaware of the other accounts, according to you that's just a big, whopping coincidence. They all had the same hallucination, right?!

[John Corbett]

What a total joke. The FBI's analysis of the timing of the shots was based on many hours of analyzing the Zapruder film, and it agreed with the conclusion of both of the WC's April evidence-analysis conferences that JFK and Connally were not hit by the same bullet.

And they still f-ed it up. Their analysis isn't remotely compatible with the Z-film. It would have been malpractice for the WC to have accepted it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Most WC critics, aka conspiracy theorists, have overlooked the full implications of the FBI's revealing and damning 1/20/1964 "visual aids brochure" (Commission Document 298) that was submitted as a visual aid supplement for its 99-page 1/13/1964 report on the assassination (Commission Document 107). Harold Weisberg zeroed in on CD 298 because it says JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. It says JFK was hit with the first of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots, Connally with the second shot, and JFK with the third shot.

This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy before they were removed in the final/altered version of the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. Given the known problems with the autopsy report, starting with the fact that it was substantially altered by Dr. Humes to remove key information, that excuse falls flat from the outset.

Moreover, the 1/13/1964 report it cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, which includes the main original findings of the autopsy before the autopsy report was altered to conceal those findings. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the important original autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy not given in the final/altered autopsy report.

Plus, when the conflict between the FBI's version of the shooting (JFK and Connally hit by separate non-fatal bullets) and the Warren Commission's version of the shooting (the single-bullet theory) became known in 1966, Hoover defended the FBI's version.

What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:

"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)

What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.

You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.

The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.

The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.

Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder film as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.

It's interesting and revealing to note that the FBI's Dealey Plaza model had the oak tree's foliage inaccurately reduced to the point that the sixth-floor gunman had an unobstructed view of JFK for the 167-foot first shot, i.e., at right around Z193.

Harrison Edward Livingstone was one of the first researchers to point out that the FBI's 1/20/1964 visual aid is strong evidence that the extant Zapruder film is not the original. Indeed, as mentioned, if the FBI analysts had been viewing the Zapruder film that we now have, they would have had to be shockingly, unbelievably incompetent to conclude that Connally was not hit until Z311 and that the explosive headshot occurred at Z318.

[John Corbett]

It's interesting and revealing to note that the FBI's Dealey Plaza model had the oak tree's foliage inaccurately reduced to the point that the sixth-floor gunman had an unobstructed view of JFK for the 167-foot first shot, i.e., at right around Z193.

Harrison Edward Livingstone was one of the first researchers to point out that the FBI's 1/20/1964 visual aid is strong evidence that the extant Zapruder film is not the original. Indeed, as mentioned, if the FBI analysts had been viewing the Zapruder film that we now have, they would have had to be shockingly, unbelievably incompetent to conclude that Connally was not hit until Z311 and that the explosive headshot occurred at Z318.

So why would you criticize the WC for not accepting the FBI's analysis.

The WCR is the Holy Grail of the JFKA. With minor exceptions they nailed the narrative. It has stood the test of time. Nothing has come close to taking its place. Bugliosi's Reclaiming History was a full-throated defense of the WCR. It did not stray from the fundamental findings of the WCR.