Released File Shows J. Edgar Hoover Acknowledged Large Rear Head Wound

[Michael T. Griffith]

A newly released FBI document discovered by the Mary Ferrell Foundation’s Rex Bradford shows that J. Edgar Hoover's WC testimony was altered to remove his acknowledgment that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head. A page from the original court reporter’s transcript of Hoover’s testimony shows that someone made handwritten changes, and those changes were printed in the published version in 1964.

Anyone can look at the newly released file and see that Hoover's testimony was altered to remove his reference to a large wound in the back of the head. The file shows the word “portions” was penciled in before “of the skull,” while the typewritten words “the back” were crossed out. His original statement was that

. . . the back of the skull had been practically shot off.

This was changed to

. . . portions of the skull had been practically shot off.

See https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=241589#relPageId=29.

This is certainly a substantive change. As many here know, over 40 witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of JFK's head. These witnesses include two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, nearly all of the Dallas doctors and nurses (including the two nurses who cleaned the skull and wrapped the head in a sheet), and numerous witnesses at the autopsy.

Hoover almost certainly got his information from Sibert and O'Neill, both of whom said there was a large wound in the right-rear area of the skull. BTW, Sibert and O'Neill flatly rejected the SBT because they knew the back wound was well below the throat wound. Also, when the ARRB showed O'Neill the back-of-head autopsy photo, he said it looked like it had been altered because he saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head at the autopsy.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsibertW.htm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/new-jfk-file-who-altered-the-fbi

[Tom Graves]

A newly released FBI document discovered by the Mary Ferrell Foundation’s Rex Bradford shows that J. Edgar Hoover's WC testimony was altered to remove his acknowledgment that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head. A page from the original court reporter’s transcript of Hoover’s testimony shows that someone made handwritten changes, and those changes were printed in the published version in 1964.

Anyone can look at the newly released file and see that Hoover's testimony was altered to remove his reference to a large wound in the back of the head. The file shows the word “portions” was penciled in before “of the skull,” while the typewritten words “the back” were crossed out. His original statement was that

. . . the back of the skull had been practically shot off.

This was changed to

. . . portions of the skull had been practically shot off.

See https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=241589#relPageId=29.

This is certainly a substantive change. As many here know, over 40 witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of JFK's head. These witnesses include two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, nearly all of the Dallas doctors and nurses (including the two nurses who cleaned the skull and wrapped the head in a sheet), and numerous witnesses at the autopsy.

Hoover almost certainly got his information from Sibert and O'Neill, both of whom said there was a large wound in the right-rear area of the skull. BTW, Sibert and O'Neill flatly rejected the SBT because they knew the back wound was well below the throat wound. Also, when the ARRB showed O'Neill the back-of-head autopsy photo, he said it looked like it had been altered because he saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head at the autopsy.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

One wonders if probable KGB "moles" Bruce Leonard Solie and Leonard V. McCoy (look them up) in the CIA, or Kremlin-loyal triple agent Aleksei Kulak (Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) at the Bureau's NYC field office might have influenced him?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith, One wonders if probable KGB "moles" Bruce Leonard Solie and Leonard V. McCoy (look them up) in the CIA, or Kremlin-loyal triple agent Aleksei Kulak (Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) at the Bureau's NYC field office might have influenced him? -- Tom

Yeah, that's it! Hoover didn't say there was a large back-of-head wound wasn't because Hoover's two agents at the autopsy both reported seeing a large right-rear head wound. Nah! It was because KGB moles told him about the wound!

Wingnutty.

[Royell Storing]

  This is the same Sibert and O'Neil that heard/noted, "surgery to the head area" being exclaimed after the JFK Body was placed on the Autopsy Table.

[Tom Graves]

Hoover's two agents at the autopsy both reported seeing a large right-rear head wound.

Dear Michael "'Useful Idiot' or Worse" Griffith,

Silbert and O'Neil had a real clear, up-close view of the rear of JFK's shaved head, right?

-- Tom

[Royell Storing]

 This changing of the Hoover Testimony is right in line with Rep Ford moving the written description of JFK's BACK wound up to JFK's Neck. And people laugh about the JFK assassination being a conspiracy? Coupled with Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE declaring the SBT "Is Impossible", the LN believers are looking very gullible.

[Tom Graves]

Knott Lab Forensic science [sic] declared the SBT impossible.

Dear Royell "Broken Record" Storing,

Aww . . . . never mind.

[Jake Maxwell]

A newly released FBI document discovered by the Mary Ferrell Foundation’s Rex Bradford shows that J. Edgar Hoover's WC testimony was altered to remove his acknowledgment that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head. A page from the original court reporter’s transcript of Hoover’s testimony shows that someone made handwritten changes, and those changes were printed in the published version in 1964.

Anyone can look at the newly released file and see that Hoover's testimony was altered to remove his reference to a large wound in the back of the head. The file shows the word “portions” was penciled in before “of the skull,” while the typewritten words “the back” were crossed out. His original statement was that

. . . the back of the skull had been practically shot off.

This was changed to

. . . portions of the skull had been practically shot off.

See https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=241589#relPageId=29.

This is certainly a substantive change. As many here know, over 40 witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of JFK's head. These witnesses include two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, nearly all of the Dallas doctors and nurses (including the two nurses who cleaned the skull and wrapped the head in a sheet), and numerous witnesses at the autopsy.

Hoover almost certainly got his information from Sibert and O'Neill, both of whom said there was a large wound in the right-rear area of the skull. BTW, Sibert and O'Neill flatly rejected the SBT because they knew the back wound was well below the throat wound. Also, when the ARRB showed O'Neill the back-of-head autopsy photo, he said it looked like it had been altered because he saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head at the autopsy.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsibertW.htm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/new-jfk-file-who-altered-the-fbi

Indeed...
Everything Hoover said and did in the aftermath is very suspicious...
Hoover might have even ordered his testimony changed... A bad dude... and
And those who love the WC and Hoover seem irrational, and often resort to ad hominems when their argument is weak...