JFK Assassination Forum

I also noted that Ed Berger at the Ed Forum dialogued with Leslie Sharp on this and specifically referenced the Stanford archive, so he might be another source. For those - like me - who have no clue about any of this, the link to the Stanford archive is below. What Dan is calling daybooks are listed as "daily appointment books." And that's all I have to say about that.

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/static/ark:/13030/tf6k40059b

It is comical that you think any of this is an indication the car in question is a getaway car. How you conclude one from the other is truly amazing. For example, you assume a photo of a cop with a shotgun pointed upward is an indication he was guarding the car. I have seen lots of footage of DPD officers holding shotguns surrounding the TSDB looking at the upper floors of the building. With these officers surrounding the building, it is not at all surprising that one of them would be standing near the car in question. Your silliness is in assuming that because one of the cops was near the car he was guarding the car.

    You have already gone on record as to NO LONGER doing any JFK Assassination research. You have No Idea with respect to the JFK Assassination Images surrounding this "getaway" car, or the DPD Cop standing/watching the car. "Surrounding the TSBD..." has absolutely nothing to do with the opposite side of the Elm St Extension.  And don't make me spank you again regarding your declaration that this car was "impounded".  You simply do Not know what you are blathering about.

JN-

No, in my layman's view all the doctors in Parkland and Bethesda were honest and scrupulous, and the x-rays of Gov. JBC's wrist genuine.

I agree with Parkland's Dr Gregory, JBC's wrist surgeon, that it is highly improbable that JBC was  holding onto his hat, after being shot through the wrist. 

Ergo...Gov JBC had not yet been shot through the wrist, at Z-272.

------------------------------------

I agree with Parkland's Dr Gregory, JBC's wrist surgeon, that it is highly improbable that JBC was  holding onto his hat, after being shot through the wrist. 


I have never read that Dr Gregory ever made that statement. At least not to the WC.

Dr Gregory's priority was to repair the wrist and would have no knowledge of JBC holding his hat.

When Dr Gregory was asked if the bullet that struck JBC’s arm was a direct shot he stated no.

Mr. DULLES - Could I ask just one question? If a bullet had merely struck the Governor's arm without previously having struck anything else, is it conceivable that impediment of the bone that it hit there would be consistent with merely a flesh wound on the thigh? Do you follow me?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; I follow you. I would doubt it on the basis of the kind of wound that the Governor has. Now the kind of wound in the Governor's right forearm is the kind that indicates there was not an excessive amount of energy expended there, which means either that the missile producing it had dissipated much of its energy, either that or there was an impediment to it someplace else along the way.
It is simply that there was not enough energy loss there, and one would expect a soft tissue injury beyond that point to be of considerably greater magnitude.

-------------------------------

Dr Gregory’s gives a detailed description of the wound and what could have caused it.

Dr. GREGORY - In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.
(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)
I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it Joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead.
The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity of the intial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.
-------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular missile so as to cause the wound in the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - I would say that the back of this being fiat and having sharp edges is irregular, and would possibly tend to tear tissues more than does an inclined plane such as this.

I might also add that until reading Robert Caro's LBJ books I had no idea how close LBJ and JBC were or how far back their relationship went. Very close and very far back. To the extent JBC waffled and gave "well, maybe" lip service to the SBT in later interviews, this could be explained by tossing LBJ a bone. (Of course, since LBJ himself doubted the SBT, that wouldn't be much of a bone. I guess it would be like tossing the "WC party line" a bone.)

Just a guess but since CTs do mostly guessing, I think I'm entitled to one once in a while. I doubt LBJ ever read the WCR. He got his information from Hoover who was equally clueless about the facts. Whatever information was being sent up the ladder to him was apparently getting garbled in translation.
JBC disputed the SBT for one simple reason. He had been led to believe JFK was hit by the first shot and he knew he had been hit by the second. I don't know where he got that idea but apparently that's what he had been led to believe. Later in life when he was asked about the possibility of the SBT if JFK had been hit by the second shot, he said that might be possible. It seems to me it is not only possible, it is a certainty that if they were both hit by the second shot, the SBT is a fact.

No, welcome to the John Corbett and Lance Payette Dissembling and Evasion Hour.

Was Dr. David O. Davis an amateur? Was Dr. Lawrence Angel an amateur? Was Dr. Fred Hodges an amateur? Was Dr. Doug Ubelaker an amateur? Was Dr. John Fitzpatrick an amateur? Was Dr. Robert Kirschner an amateur? Was Dr. Vincent DiMaio an amateur? Was Dr. Forrest Chapman an amateur? All of these experts presented findings that invalidate your version of the shooting, but you ignore this fact and continue to dishonestly pretend that I am merely giving my own opinions.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio is not your friend. He believes JFK was shot in the back of the head and that there was not a second missile that struck his head.

Dr. E. Forrest Chapman is a forensic pathologist but you have cited his opinions of CE543 in a field in which he is not a professional.

Why do you cite the opinions of experts outside their field of expertise?

Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Why doesn't it appear on the extant JFK autopsy skull x-rays? Why didn't the autopsy doctors say anything about the high fragment trail that is so obvious on the extant skull x-rays? Did they just "miss" it?! I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

I defer to the unanimous opinion of the FPP which is the medical evidence indicates JFK was shot in the back of the head. I'm not silly enough to think I can offer a more compelling opinion base on the few low grade photos and x-rays that have been leaked to the public. You, on the other hand, seem to have no qualms about doing that.

Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining how the three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist and the chief medical photographer at the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm (3.93 inches) lower and only 1 cm above the EOP? Hey? I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

I can take a stab at it based on the limited amount of autopsy evidence I have seen and given that I am no expert in forensic pathology. Once the bullet tore through JFK's skull, his head ceased to be a solid object. It was a collection of bone fragments held together by flaps of scalp. I can certainly understand how pathologists inexperienced in forensic medicine could mislocate the point of entry. One of Dr. Cyril Wecht's objections to their work is that they didn't take their measurements from standard points of reference.

Are you ever going to venture a guess as to how a bullet that struck at the Clark Panel-HSCA FPP entry site could have created a fragment trail that started 5 cm above the site and at least 2 cm to the right of the site? How does that work? Top it off, how could this same bullet, supposedly an FMJ bullet, have deposited a large fragment, two smaller fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below the alleged entry site? Huh? How does that work? Tell us. Let's hear it. I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

A guess is all I can offer. It's all you can offer also. Neither of us has any expertise in the field of forensic pathology. Only one of us thinks his guess is more credible than the unanimous opinion of the FPP.

And on and on we could go. The plain fact of the matter is that you and Lance Payette have no clue how to explain any of these facts.

Neither do you but that doesn't stop you from pontificating as if you have expertise in these various fields.

Instead of admitting this, you keep falsely pretending that I'm doing nothing but voicing my own opinions, and Payette keeps hiding behind his juvenile talking point that all conspiracy theorists have warped minds and thus can't deal logically with evidence.

I don't agree with Lance a lot [pun intended] but I do agree CTs aren't very good at dealing logically with the evidence. They don't try to explain the evidence. They make up excuses to explain the evidence away. That's why they are never able to present any actual evidence that anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination. The best they can do is attack the findings of the WC with their amateurish opinions in fields which require a high level of expertise which they don't possess.