JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Matt Grantham on April 22, 2018, 03:49:55 PM
-
I believe Mark requested that we try not too have quite so many tangents away from the the given topic I must admit it has become confusing for me as well So I am taking up some of the discussion on the Dan Rather thread here
THREE pieces of skull found by none other than ASAIC FLOYD BORING during the "official" Secret Service limousine inspection late on 11/22/63(CD 80. p.3), four hours before the FBI did the same- this is seperate from the finding made by Kinney on the C-130 will en route to
Andrews AFB
Then we seem to have Young finding three more skull fragments and another bullet near the time of the autopsy Having a tough time finding exactly when Did the FBI investigation occur during the fl;ight We seem to have a manifesto of who was on board, but I do not have time to track it down at the moment
-
Type in " Notes on JFK's Skull Fragments " and read what Jackie Kennedy , SAIS Gerald A. Behn , Roy Kellerman , Clint Hill, Samuel A Kinney and others have to say about JFK Skull Fragments .
Jackie- And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull (sort of wedge shaped like that), and I remember it was flesh colored (with little ridges at the top.
Behn & Kellerman - Skull found in rear seat.
Clint Hill- Back of skull in rear seat.
Sam Kinney - Limo was in the C-130 transport plane during flight back to Washington . Sam Kinney finds a skull fragment under the jump seat where Connally had been seated and he also found a bullet fragment in the front seat between the drivers and passenger seat . He remarked that the bullet fragment looked like it hit the windshield frame above the windshield. " SA Kinney put on a radio patch to Presidential Physician Admiral Burkley to inform him that he had discovered the skull fragment.
In an interview with Vince Palamara ("The Third Alternative-Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and The JFK Murder" , pp 8-9 , 28, 55-56, 78-80, 81-82, 110-111 ) Sam told me twice that he saw the back of JFK's head come off immediately when the fatal shot struck the President's head. Kinney added: " It was a big piece-half his head was gone." When I pressed him on this point and asked him if he was sure of the skulls piece's orientation, he said " I don't know what else it could have been but the back of his head.
The Harper fragment" (found by Billy Harper 11-23-63) Dr. Jack Harper's nephew William "Billy ' Harper a medical student interviews with the HSCA (RIF#180-10093-10429 ) {see also pp.261-262 of "Killing Kennedy" by H.E.L.} " Dr. Harper said the consensus of the Doctors who view the skull fragment was that it was part of the Occipital region... Dr. .A.B. Cairns...said the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately two and a half to three inches above the spine area. He said it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area , specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull."
-
One wonders, given the magnitude of this crime, that they would want to know EXACTLY what type bullet, define EXACTLY the entry hole. and would thus would have taken the time to actually shave the hair and reconstruct the skull with as many pieces as were found, rather than just a photo of a hand holding some presumably piece of skull in place by gripping the hair.
Stlll NOT Clear that it is piece of skull separated and held in place or the hand is just gripping some hair. There is no clear single bullet hole visible, in this only ONE photo taken, which causes even more doubt, was to why they could not have shown such hole after removing all hair using some chemical, and then reconstruct just the bare skull. Hence, they get the Ida Dox "enhanced drawing" to make the hole "appear".
-
Mike Orr Thanks for the helpful links and information
The usual contradictions seem to appear In regard to the Kinney fragment is the story that it goes to Burkley and the FBI and then find its way to the autopsy Where are these fragments today?
As for Jackie supposedly holding a piece of JFK's skull at Parkland I have certainly heard that story tens of times on various YouTube clips but can find nothing about it on any on line searches
-
One wonders, given the magnitude of this crime, that they would want to know EXACTLY what type bullet, define EXACTLY the entry hole. and would thus would have taken the time to actually shave the hair and reconstruct the skull with as many pieces as were found, rather than just a photo of a hand holding some presumably piece of skull in place by gripping the hair.
Stlll NOT Clear that it is piece of skull separated and held in place or the hand is just gripping some hair. There is no clear single bullet hole visible, in this only ONE photo taken, which causes even more doubt, was to why they could not have shown such hole after removing all hair using some chemical, and then reconstruct just the bare skull. Hence, they get the Ida Dox "enhanced drawing" to make the hole "appear".
Have Never heard an explanation as to the purpose of the autopsy photo described above. That photo Hides/Conceals far more than it Reveals.
-
Thomas Robinson---Gawlers Funeral Home - Fox Autopsy Photographs --- After completing his four drawings of Head wounds and describing these wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox Photos: - Back of head (corresponds to B&W#s 15 & 16: Robinson said " You see , this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." When asked by the ARRB where the hole in the back of the head was in relation to this photograph, Robinson responded by placing his fingers in a circle just above the white spot in the hairline in the photograph, and said" The hole is right here, where I said it was in my drawing, but it just doesn't show up in this photo."
-Top of Head/Superior view of cranium ( corresponds to B&W #s 7-10): Robinson frowned, and said that the damage in this photograph was "what the Doctors did," and explained that they cut this scalp open and reflected it back in order to remove bullet fragments ( the fragments he had observed in a glass vial). ARRB staff members asked Robinson whether there was damage to the top of the head when he arrived at the morgue and before the brain was removed; he replied by saying that this area was "all broken" but that it was not open like the wound in the back of the head.
www.aarclibrary.org/public/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md180pdf
-
John Stringer : was the autopsy photographer. David Lifton interviewed Stringer, in part, as follows: Lifton: " When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back ?" Stringer, "In the back." Lifton: In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: " In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: " In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: Yes. In the back part. " Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no 5 inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: Oh , some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes , sure. " Lifton:" The top front was intact?" Right." Lifton unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked , as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, Yes."--as had McHugh.
-
Good stuff I suppose with so much evidence for the large wound in the back of JFK's skull kind of makes my question about the official accounts apparently showing fragments blowing off part of the top of the skull kind of irrelevant I guess I am just surprised how little explanation it is given
-
Good stuff I suppose with so much evidence for the large wound in the back of JFK's skull kind of makes my question about the official accounts apparently showing fragments blowing off part of the top of the skull kind of irrelevant I guess I am just surprised how little explanation it is given
The numerous Parkland Hospital Professionals that treated JFK saw a hole in the BACK of his head. External cardiac massage was applied to JFK at Parkland while he was on the gurney inside the ER. With each compression of JFK's chest, blood and brain matter was expelled out of the hole in the BACK of his head. The blood and brain matter then fell onto the gurney with some falling down onto the ER floor. This drew attention to the Hole in the BACK of his head.
-
I hope people understand what I am asking I have no doubt all the evidence that shows the large hole in the back of JFK's skull At the same time I feel it is important to expose the lies and absurdities of how the WC and HSCA lied and obscured evidence So my question about the handling of the skull fragments by said committees remains
Where the LN folks on this one surely they can support the clear evidence of the official story?
-
The Warren Commission put together their narrative of situations so as to point to Lee Harvey Oswald as being the lone gunman . What happened in Dallas was made to look like Lee Harvey Oswald was the man responsible for the killing of two people that day , JFK and JD Tippit . People are going to believe what they want and even in a court of law , some guilty people go free and some people are framed for something they didn't do and they use people on a jury to make that decision therefore letting the lawyers and the judges off the hook .
-
The Warren Commission put together their narrative of situations so as to point to Lee Harvey Oswald as being the lone gunman . What happened in Dallas was made to look like Lee Harvey Oswald was the man responsible for the killing of two people that day , JFK and JD Tippit . People are going to believe what they want and even in a court of law , some guilty people go free and some people are framed for something they didn't do and they use people on a jury to make that decision therefore letting the lawyers and the judges off the hook .
The reason investigations have focused on Oswald is because was the only one acting weird that day. Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying. Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day" and so decides to go get his pistol and go to a movie without paying, and then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald. It's not like people are ganging up on him.
-
The reason investigations have focused on Oswald is because was the only one acting weird that day. Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying. Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day" and so decides to go get his pistol and go to a movie without paying, and then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald. It's not like people are ganging up on him.
Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying.
If that's what actually happened
Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day"
If that's what actually happened
so decides to go get his pistol
Weird or not, but it seems in Texas it's not so uncommon to carry a weapon.
and go to a movie without paying,
If that's what actually happened
then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
If that's what actually happened
The point is that you assume all these things (except perhaps for the revolver) are factual, when in truth we've only been told that after the fact, by the people who were "investigating" an already dead suspect.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald.
Sure, which could exactly be the reason why we were told those things.....
-
The reason investigations have focused on Oswald is because was the only one acting weird that day. Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying. Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day" and so decides to go get his pistol and go to a movie without paying, and then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald. It's not like people are ganging up on him.
Mr Down, Please try to be an asset to this forum....Please don't present nonsense ideas that have been shown to be nonsense decades ago....
The reason investigations have focused on Oswald is because was the only one acting weird that day. The "investigators" have lead you to believe that Lee was acting "weird".... and you accept their tales.
Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying.
That didn't happen.... Lee didn't bring curtain rods to work...And he did NOT tell Fritz that Buell Frazier was lying.... Lee told Fritz that Buell must have been thinking of some other time.....
Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day" and so decides to go get his pistol and go to a movie
I guess it has escaped you...But, Lee was right...there was no more work accomplished in the TSBD that afternoon. And You simply can't prove that Lee got a pistol from his room before going to the movies...... The revolver first appeared in the hand of someone wearing a short sleeved shirt in the theater. .......
If you were going to set someone up as a patsy......What better way than to make it appear that the patsy was carrying a gun.
And here's some icing on the cake.....Tippit's killer was NOT using a S&W revolver. Several eye witnesses swore that the killer removed the spent shells from his revolver ONE SHELL AT A TIME.... That is NOT the way a S&W revolver is unloaded.... The S&W ejects the cartridges from all six chambers at once....
then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
Utter nonsense....Mr Down. You clearly believe that Lee Oswald Shot Tippit in the blink of an eye, without hesitation, when he thought Tippit was going to arrest him, and yet when Lee had a even better opportunity to shoot Mc Donald he didn't ....
-
decides to go get his pistol
If that's what actually happened
tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
There's no evidence of this whatsoever.
-
If that's what actually happened
There's no evidence of this whatsoever.
"tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater."
There's no evidence of this whatsoever.
Some folks believe that it was Lee Oswald who shot JD Tippit ( even though Mrs Roberts said that Lee was standing outside the rooming house just two minutes before Mrs Markham saw JD Tippit shot by the killer)...... And they believe that Lee was in a panic and responded by shooting Tippit in the blink of an eye, but he wasn't in a panic at all just minutes later when Officer Nick Mc Donald approached him in the theater..... Think about this improbability.....If Lee had been so irrational to shoot Tippit, he would have been even more panicky when Mc Donald approached and would have known that he was headed for the electric chair after shooting Tippit , he therefore would have known that he had nothing to lose if he could shoot McDonald and escape the theater.... The fact is...Lee showed no sign of being a cornered rat, who was ready to go down fighting.....
-
The reason investigations have focused on Oswald is because was the only one acting weird that day. Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying. Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day" and so decides to go get his pistol and go to a movie without paying, and then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald. It's not like people are ganging up on him.
'go get his pistol'
It's what boys do. Especially that day. There was a killer on the loose, after all. Who knows, maybe he would catch the killer himself and wind up being a somebody..
-
"tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater."
There's no evidence of this whatsoever.
Arresting police officer said so. I mean look at the pictures of him being dragged out of the theater, does that look like an innocent man?
-
Arresting police officer said so. I mean look at the pictures of him being dragged out of the theater, does that look like an innocent man?
How is an innocent man supposed to look, when he is being manhandled by several police officers?
Just how shallow can you get?
-
Brought "curtain rods" in to work, and then told Captain Fritz that Frazier was lying.
If that's what actually happened
Then Oswald decides that "there would be no more work done that day"
If that's what actually happened
so decides to go get his pistol
Weird or not, but it seems in Texas it's not so uncommon to carry a weapon.
and go to a movie without paying,
If that's what actually happened
then tries to shoot a police office that asks him to stand up inside the movie theater.
If that's what actually happened
The point is that you assume all these things (except perhaps for the revolver) are factual, when in truth we've only been told that after the fact, by the people who were "investigating" an already dead suspect.
I mean, you can kinda see why the investigations focus on Oswald.
Sure, which could exactly be the reason why we were told those things.....
Who: 1. Kills a POTUS, (2) Then travels cross town to get a hand gun, (3) Then sneaks into a movie theater, and (4) Then takes a seat inside the theater ?? A guy that has been double crossed, that's who!
-
The affidavit of Johnny Brewer makes no mention of Oswald having a gun, let alone trying to shoot an officer with one. Strange detail to leave out of an affidavit?
Johnny Brewer's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/
-
The affidavit of Johnny Brewer makes no mention of Oswald having a gun, let alone trying to shoot an officer with one. Strange detail to leave out of an affidavit?
Johnny Brewer's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339626/m1/1/
Notice that Brewer's affidavit is dated December 6 , 1963..... Two weeks after the event.... That affidavit isn't worth spit.
However Brewer did make a couple of interesting statements in his affidavit.... He said that he followed the man up the street to the Texas Theater....This is in sharp contradiction to his testimony.....in which he said he saw the man go out of sight in the foyer of the theater and then he went back into his shoe store ....In reality Brewer could not have known if the man had actually entered the theater ......Another glaring cntradiction is he said that he had heard on the radio at 1:30 that a police officer had been shot. He made that up.... Because there were no radio reports of the Tippit shooting as early as 1:30.
Brewer said that he saw a man (LHO) at the rear of the theater stand up when the lights in the theater came on and the man remained standing until officer Nick Mc Donald approached ....
Brewers last sentence says that he noticed the man looking in the window of his shoe shop was because he was nervous and therefore he thought the man might have been the man who shot the policeman. This last sentence is pure BS.... Brewer never knew about Tippit being shot at the time the man was looking in his shop window.
-
I believe the later date for the affidavit makes it even more interesting that old Johnny doesn't mention seeing a gun of any kind.
As far as knowing about the Tippet shooting, I believe I remember him saying in an interview that he had his radio on and heard about a policeman being shot near his store.
-
I believe the later date for the affidavit makes it even more interesting that old Johnny doesn't mention seeing a gun of any kind.
As far as knowing about the Tippet shooting, I believe I remember him saying in an interview that he had his radio on and heard about a policeman being shot near his store.
There were no radio broadcasts of the Tippit shooting prior to 1:30..... The news of the ambush of JFK was taking complete precedence .....
-
I'm just repeating what I heard from Mr. Brewer. Tippet was shot and killed at 1:06 according to their chief witness and verified by others.
-
Arresting police officer said so.
Which arresting police officer said so?
-
Another glaring cntradiction is he said that he had heard on the radio at 1:30 that a police officer had been shot. He made that up.... Because there were no radio reports of the Tippit shooting as early as 1:30.
At least none that anybody has been able to find.
-
I'm just repeating what I heard from Mr. Brewer. Tippet was shot and killed at 1:06 according to their chief witness and verified by others.
And I'm telling you that researchers have searched for any radio report of the Tippit shooting prior to 1:30...and Nobody has found any broadcast of Tippit's murder prior to 1:30. And I could be wrong but as I recall Brewer said that he was listening to Radio station KLIF ..... And a search of the records revealed no broadcast about a policeman being shot in Oakcliff. As a matter of fact, If I recall correctly, Johnny Brewer is on record as saying that he didn't know that a policeman had been shot at the time that he saw the police car speeding past his store with the siren wailing.
In Nov of 1996 Ian Griggs interviewed Brewer and Griggs published the interview in his book "No Case To Answer".... It's obvious that by 96 ( 33 years) that Brewer had plenty of time to embellish and fill in information that he should have presented in his affidavit in December of 63.
And In 96 he told Griggs that he saw Lee Oswald pull out a pistol and attempt to shoot McDonald. ...As you Mr Kania have pointed out It damned strange that Brewer never mentioned this very startling and riveting action in his affidavit. IMO Brewer was lying to Griggs.....He never saw Lee pull a gun on Mc Donald....As a matter of fact I believe the official tale has Lee reaching for his waist band and McDonald grabbing him..... I believe a movie goer said that the pistol first appeared in the hand of someone who was wearing a short sleeve shirt.
-
At least none that anybody has been able to find.
In his conversation with Ian Griggs Brewer said that he heard that there were shots fired in the President's motorcade.....and then;
Quote..." I also--- Now that that was just a few block away. But I'd heard that there was a shooting in the Oak Clif area. Now they didn't say anything about who it was. I don't recall that they said that there was a policeman down., or what, but I do recall hearing something about a shooting in the Oak Cliff area. And just very shortly after that the sirens of all of the cars converging on Zangs and Jefferson or just going to it"....unquote
-
Mr. Brewer is obviously lying about seeing the gun.
Oswald also explained to Capt. Fritz why he struck the police officer, but Friz never reveals the reason why. Interesting! I guess it didn't fit their narrative.
-
I believe the later date for the affidavit makes it even more interesting that old Johnny doesn't mention seeing a gun of any kind.
As far as knowing about the Tippet shooting, I believe I remember him saying in an interview that he had his radio on and heard about a policeman being shot near his store.
'On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald' John Brewer
-
I believe a movie goer said that the pistol first appeared in the hand of someone who was wearing a short sleeve shirt.
Applin.
-
Oswald also explained to Capt. Fritz why he struck the police officer, but Friz never reveals the reason why. Interesting! I guess it didn't fit their narrative.
Cite?
-
What was I suppose to learn from the trial testimony? Still doesn't explain why Brewer doesn't mention seeing a gun in his affidavit testimony, which was a pretty big detail to overlook.
-
'On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald' John Brewer
Thak you, thank you, thank you..... You've just shot yerself in the leg Mr Quick Draw Chapman.....
Listen to da Bug at the 1:25 point as he asks John Brewer to acknowledge that at 1:15 he ( Brewer ) had heard that a police office had been shot. Brewer acknowledges that that what Bug had just said was true....
Damned Liars!!...... There most certainly had been no broadcast about the Tippit shooting at 1:15......
-
Are we really discussing whether Oswald owned/possessed a handgun? How often does someone owning a Rifle NOT own a handgun? Plus, Oswald was ex-military.
-
I can't remember where I read it. But Oswald said to Fritz, (paraphrased), if you want to charge me for hitting the police officer, then go ahead, but I told you why I hit him. But Fritz never revealed what Oswald said, regarding why he hit the officer. I looked back at Fritz's notes but couldn't find it. So not sure where I read it, but sure I did?
-
Thak you, thank you, thank you..... You've just shot yerself in the leg Mr Quick Draw Chapman.....
Listen to da Bug at the 1:25 point as he asks John Brewer to acknowledge that at 1:15 he ( Brewer ) had heard that a police office had been shot. Brewer acknowledges that that what Bug had just said was true....
Damned Liars!!...... There most certainly had been no broadcast about the Tippit shooting at 1:15......
'You've just shot yerself in the leg'
>I've not heard that particular expression before.
In any case, my leg is fine, but you might want to check your foot:
Cite the time of the broadcast and the radio station where Brewer heard about the patrolman being shot.
-
'You've just shot yerself in the leg'
>I've not heard that particular expression before.
In any case, my leg is fine, but you might want to check your foot.
Oh, yeah.. cite the time of the broadcast, (and the radio station) Brewer heard about the patrolman being shot.
Brewer never heard any radio broadcast that said a police officer had been shot in Oak Cliff....Because there was no broadcast prior to 1:30...and after 1:30 he was at the Texas Theater.....
-
Brewer never heard any radio broadcast that said a police officer had been shot in Oak Cliff....Because there was no broadcast prior to 1:30...and after 1:30 he was at the Texas Theater.....
Cite that or you've just gotten yourself yet another fabrication, sport.
-
Cite that or you've just gotten yourself yet another fabrication, sport.
No need to cite anything for an honest intelligent person who is honest with himself.....It is a FACT that the shooting of Tippit was not broadcast before 1:30.
-
I don't believe he owned a rifle.
-
Thak you, thank you, thank you..... You've just shot yerself in the leg Mr Quick Draw Chapman.....
Listen to da Bug at the 1:25 point as he asks John Brewer to acknowledge that at 1:15 he ( Brewer ) had heard that a police office had been shot. Brewer acknowledges that that what Bug had just said was true....
Damned Liars!!...... There most certainly had been no broadcast about the Tippit shooting at 1:15......
Tune in and LISTEN..... Here's The hero of the LN contingent ( Bugliousi ) presenting an obvious damned lie to John Brewer for Brewer's confirmation. This is a blatant case of a damned liar belching a lie and another liar swearing that the lie is true.... LISTEN at 1:25 as Bugliosi belches a ridiculous lie that there was a radio broadcast at 1:15 pm that announced the shooting of a police officer in Oak Cliff.
-
No need to cite anything for an honest intelligent person who is honest with himself.....It is a FACT that the shooting of Tippit was not broadcast before 1:30.
Stop babbling and tell us at what time the news about the shooting of the patrolman was broadcast.
-
Myers surmises that it was KBOX, but that's only because KBOX's audio is the only major radio station for which audio of the broadcasts is not available and the others have been ruled out. Brewer told Ian Griggs in 1996 that he had a feeling that it may have been KLIF, but he didn't know.
-
Myers surmises that it was KBOX, but that's only because KBOX's audio is the only major radio station for which audio of the broadcasts is not available and the others have been ruled out. Brewer told Ian Griggs in 1996 that he had a feeling that it may have been KLIF, but he didn't know.
Whatever station Brewer was listening to ( if he was in fact listening to a radio ??) No public radio could have broadcast the information about the policeman being shot in Oakcliff at 1:15 as Bugaliousi (SP) spewed in the mock trial video. The LNer's maintain that Tippit was shot at 1:16.... so Bugaliousi in his lie has the radio broadcast occurring before the murder. How crazy is that? !!!
-
Myers surmises that it was KBOX, but that's only because KBOX's audio is the only major radio station for which audio of the broadcasts is not available and the others have been ruled out. Brewer told Ian Griggs in 1996 that he had a feeling that it may have been KLIF, but he didn't know.
Was KLIF a leading radio station?? IOW.... Did KLIF have a crack crew of reporters that were often the first to report some newsworthy event.?? Or was KLIF primarily a music and entertainment station? I truly don't know....but maybe someone in Dallas can answer that question.
-
One wonders, given the magnitude of this crime, that they would want to know EXACTLY what type bullet, define EXACTLY the entry hole. and would thus would have taken the time to actually shave the hair and reconstruct the skull with as many pieces as were found, rather than just a photo of a hand holding some presumably piece of skull in place by gripping the hair.
Stlll NOT Clear that it is piece of skull separated and held in place or the hand is just gripping some hair. There is no clear single bullet hole visible, in this only ONE photo taken, which causes even more doubt, was to why they could not have shown such hole after removing all hair using some chemical, and then reconstruct just the bare skull. Hence, they get the Ida Dox "enhanced drawing" to make the hole "appear".
They prob didn't want to shave the hair out of respect to the family. This was no ordinary man afterall. He was the President. And they prob wanted to keep the body intact for a public viewing of the body.