RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
>>> "David, let's get to the best witness, shall we? .... Jackie Kennedy's direct Warren Commission testimony, the testimony NOT redacted: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was NOTHING --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (My emphasis)" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep. That's what Jackie said alright. I know that. And although her
testimony is far from being crystal-clear with respect to the
locations of JFK's wounds, it sounds to me like she's describing a
hole at the FRONT part of the head, not the rear.
Why would these words make anyone think that Jackie was describing a
huge hole at the BACK of her husband's cranium? --- "From the front
there was nothing."
>>> "Clearly, she was trying to hold his skull on IN THE BACK." <<<
At best, her words are muddled and ambiguous. The Warren Commission
wasted a golden opportunity with Jackie to get some things settled
with respect to JFK's head wounds.
>>> "When she climbed on to the back of the limo, she grabbed a piece of her husband's skull." <<<
There's no proof of that at all. Jackie never even remembered going
onto the trunk.
Yes, it was Clint Hill's opinion that Jackie was, indeed, reaching for
something on the trunk. But so what? We can see her doing her
"reaching" right on the Z-Film. Everybody can see that. But it looks
to me like she's trying to keep from losing her balance.
Plus, there are these two things to consider with respect to the
"Jackie On The Trunk" issue.....
1.) Even if she DID grab a piece of JFK's head on the trunk, it's
really another "So what?" type of thing. Why? Because we know that
JFK's head DOES, indeed, snap BACKWARD sharply immediately after
going FORWARD about 2 inches or so at the critical POINT OF IMPACT
from Z312 to Z313.
Therefore, since we know his head is snapping BACKWARD (i.e., TOWARD
THE TRUNK OF THE CAR), it's certainly possible (but not provable) that
a chunk of his just-blasted-open head was thrown onto the trunk lid as
a result of that BACKWARD head movement that is observed after his
head goes initially forward after being hit from BEHIND by Lee Harvey
Oswald's bullet.
So a shot from BEHIND Kennedy could certainly have resulted in a piece
of his head ending up BEHIND him as well, given the violent rearward
movement of his head after he was shot.
Plus, we know that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified that blood and
brain tissue was literally ALL OVER that car (inside and outside) when
it was examined at the White House garage on November 22-23, 1963.
2.) If Jackie really did pick up a piece of JFK's head on that trunk,
then WHAT DID SHE DO WITH IT during the 5-minute high-speed drive to
Parkland Hospital as she was ALSO using her hands to try to "hold his
hair on"?
Did she put the grisly piece of skull in her pocket or something? In
her pillbox hat? Or is it the contention of conspiracy theorists that
she grabbed the piece of skull off of the trunk lid and held onto it
in one hand all the way to Parkland, while she used that same hand
(and I can only assume that she was using BOTH of her hands here) to
try and "hold" the President's "skull on" during the drive to the
hospital?
A more reasonable explanation, IMO, is that while she was in the
process of attempting to hold the skull of JFK together, a piece of
loose skull or brain tissue came off in her hands...and it was this
piece of skull she gave to a Parkland doctor inside the hospital.
YMMV. But it really won't matter, because I've got the autopsy report
(which definitively states that JFK was shot just twice, and only from
"behind and above"), the proven-unaltered photos of JFK at autopsy,
and my #1 item above in this particular "Jackie On The Trunk" sub-
topic discussion, which can never be totally debunked by CTers either.
But good luck trying.
>>> "She [Jackie] held it and gave it [to] attendants at Parkland." <<<
She actually gave the skull fragment to Dr. Marion T. (Pepper)
Jenkins, not to "attendants".
>>> "DPD officer Bobby Hargis was hit with piece of the President's brain. He was back and to the left of JFK." <<<
So what? See above. The President's brain tissue and blood were
spraying out in virtually EVERY direction after he was shot. The spray
goes several feet up into the air, for Pete sake. Plus, there's the
likelihood that the wind blew some of this up-in-the-air debris right
directly toward Officer Hargis and Officer Martin (the wind was said
to have been blowing in such a direction that day).
Think up something else. This argument about Hargis and the "Jackie
Retrieves A Skull Piece" argument are moribund (at best).
>>> "Please explain to me how the cerebellum leaked onto the gurney at Parkland." <<<
It didn't. No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. During Dr. Boswell's
1996 ARRB session, we find this exchange taking place (CTers have to
believe that Boswell was lying through his teeth here):
DR. BOSWELL -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the
part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong,
because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and
in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around,
and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out.
And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral
hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very
simple to take out."
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>>> "David, if the bullet blew the front of JFKs head off, why no brain or tissue matter on Connally, Nellie, Greer or Kellerman?" <<<
~sigh~
Are you nuts? Nellie and John Connally always said in interviews that
they were covered with brain matter after the head shot.
JOHN CONNALLY SAID:
"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see
on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my
thumb."
NELLIE CONNALLY SAID:
"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot
falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was
the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the
car and both of us."
==========
Why aren't you aware of any of this basic stuff, Richard? John and
Nellie Connally, in probably dozens of interviews they gave after
1963, always said the very same thing about being showered with JFK's
head debris. You've actually never seen ANY of those many interviews
with either Nellie or JBC? Very curious.
>>> "Also, why doesn't the magic bullet, having caused all that damage and having gone through 17 pieces of clothing, have ZERO fabric striations on it?" <<<
"Fabric striations"?? And "17 pieces of clothing"?? WTF?? That must be
a new one pulled out of the "Conspiracy Kook" files, huh Richard? Never
heard that one before. (Just more chaff for the kooks to chew on, no doubt.)
But I did hear a brand-new theory just yesterday, which is being self-
promoted around the Internet here in December 2007 by the theory's
evidently very loony author (Brian David Andersen). And it's a theory
that Richard Van Noord (or Dean Jackson) might not even be able to
swallow (incredible as that might seem) ---
Andersen's new book "My God, I'm Hit!" purports that JFK wasn't shot
in the head AT ALL on 11/22/63. Instead, Kennedy faked his own demise
during the "incident" on Elm Street.
(Just when you thought the kooks couldn't sink any further into
absurdity, huh?)
>>> "A little wheat from the chaff, of course." <<<
As I've said for a long time, it's the CT-Kooks who are the experts at
latching onto the chaff and ignoring the wheat field right before
their orbs. Your "Jackie On Trunk" and "Hargis" chaff-like items above
are two prime examples of this.
You'd think that you kooks would start gagging on all that chaff after
44 years....but I guess conspiracists must think it's extremely tasty,
since they devour a steady diet of it daily. (Go figure.)
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 15, 2007)
