Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225  (Read 256 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« on: June 14, 2018, 05:11:18 PM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

****************************************

The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) by firing three shots from the alleged Sniper’s Nest in the sixth floor southeastern window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD).

The cornerstone of this case would become known as the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). We have seen in numerous posts in this series that the SBT was totally IMPOSSIBLE and did NOT happen, and this post will look at it from even another angle.

This post will look at the location of the back wound and how the WC manipulated this to make it look like it was possible for a single shot to hit both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC).


*********************************************

The initial staff of the WC wrote this about the wound in JFK’s back.

Quote on

A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.

Quote off

Where did they get this from? As it turns out they got it from MANY sources who saw JFK up close. We begin with Secret Service (SS) Agent Roy Kellerman’s observation.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the President?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The other wound that I noticed was on his shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. And was it--what was its general position with respect to the breadth of the back?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right straight.

Mr. SPECTER. No. Upper shoulder, lower shoulder; how far below the lower neckline would you say?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The upper neckline, sir, in that large muscle between the shoulder and the neck, just below it.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that opening?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Again about the size of a little finger.

Kellerman is clearly NOT saying the base of the neck like the final WC Report would state. Our next witness is SS Agent William Greer. Here is what he said before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER. During the course of the autopsy did you hear any doctor say anything about the wound on the right side of Mr. Kennedy's back?

Mr. GREER. That was the first time that I had ever seen it when the doctors were performing the autopsy, they saw this hole in the right shoulder or back of the head, and in the back, and that was the first I had known that he was ever shot there, and they brought it to our attention or discussed it there a little bit.

Mr. SPECTER. What conversation was there concerning the wound on the right back?

Mr. GREER. Well, the doctors and people who were performing the autopsy, when they turned the body apparently over they discovered that this wound was in the back, and they thought that they probably could get a bullet out of there, and it took a lot of--then they took more X-rays, they took a lot of X-rays, we looked at them and couldn't find the trace of any bullet anywhere in the X-rays at all, nothing showed on the X-rays where this bullet or lead could have gone.

Mr. SPECTER. Approximately where in the President's back was the bullet hole?

Mr. GREER. It was, to the best of my recollection it was, back here, just in the soft part of that shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the upper right shoulder area?

Mr. GREER. Upper right, yes.

Again, we see the use of the word “shoulder” and NOT base of the neck as Ford would change this to. More evidence of this wound in the back comes from SS Agent Glen Bennett. In his affidavit signed on November 23, 1963, he said the following about the wound he saw on JFK.

Quote on

At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. (Glen Bennett Original Report)

Quote off

He too says the wound to the back of JFK was “four inches down from the right shoulder.” So far we have seen three SS agents who did NOT agree with the final conclusion of the WC. These can hardly be called “mistaken”, confused witnesses by the WC defenders. Our next witness is another SS Agent named Clint Hill and he said this during his WC testimony.

Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

This too does NOT agree with a “base of the neck” wound we would see in the WC Report. Our next witnesses were two FBI Agents by the name of James Sibert and Francis O’Neill. Again, not your normally confused witnesses who are prone to make “mistakes” as the WC defenders claim. In their report of the autopsy they wrote the following about the wound they saw on JFK’s body.

Quote on

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was BELOW the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled  by this missile was short distance inasmuch as the end of the end of the opening could be felt with a finger. (Sibert & O’Neill Report, p. 4) (Emphasis added)

Quote off

This too does NOT match a base of the neck wound. Furthermore, the wound did NOT penetrate more than an INCH so it did NOT transverse the body, thus, it could NOT have come out of the throat or anywhere else as claimed by the WC. Given all this evidence, why did the WC write this in their Report about this wound?

Quote on

The President's Neck Wounds

During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the BASE of the back of President Kennedy's NECK slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots. (WCR, p. 87) (Emphasis added)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Where did this language come from? Certainly NOT from the evidence at the disposal of the WC. It came from Congressman Gerald Ford and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was the first to catch this editing from him. In 1997 the ARRB released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the SBT. Here is a copy of the edit by him.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Click on page 1 to see the work of Ford that ran counter to all the available evidence. Ford claimed this about his change-- "My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said. "My changes were only an attempt to be more precise." How does one make things “more precise” by ALTERING the true location of the wound based ON ALL THE EVIDENCE?

Ford would call this a “small change” instead of what it was—TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE. He should have been charged with that crime and if the WC was really looking for the truth they should NEVER have allowed this to happen, but alas, they were looking to hide the truth from the American people.  This proves it.

They chose to go with Ford’s change over what all the evidence showed. All the witnesses were professionals too, there was NOT one confused, “mistaken” civilian among them. This proves they were NOT looking for the truth and those that defend their conclusions are not looking for the truth either.

These statements again sink the WC’s conclusion.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 05:17:20 PM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« on: June 14, 2018, 05:11:18 PM »


Online Michael Capasse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2018, 06:20:02 PM »
The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:"A bullet had  entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2018, 11:13:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:"A bullet had  entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

The WC totally lied. That much is evident.

Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 591
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2018, 11:14:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:"A bullet had  entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

And didn't forensic pathologist wannabe 'Dr' Ford get his way?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #225
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2018, 11:14:53 PM »