MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH SAID:
Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How could there possibly be a photograph of something that never happened in the first place (i.e., a picture of a probe IN THE BODY of John F. Kennedy)?
Quoting Dr. Boswell:
"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell; February 26, 1996; Page 75 of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
------------------
But even if a photo DID exist that showed a "probe" somewhere in the picture -- so what?
Dr. Boswell stated in his 1996 ARRB deposition that President Kennedy's upper-back wound WAS, indeed, probed with "all sorts of probes", but the probes would not go through the body due to JFK's muscles having "closed".
So we know that some type of "probe" was utilized by the autopsists at JFK's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963. Dr. Boswell certainly wasn't hiding that fact during the ARRB excerpt I cited above.
Is it the contention of certain conspiracy theorists (and possibly John Canal too) that a picture was taken during the autopsy that supposedly depicts a probe going ALL THE WAY THROUGH John F. Kennedy's body?
But, since we know from the various testimony sessions of autopsy doctors Boswell and Humes that no such "all the way through the body" probing was done at JFK's autopsy, then (obviously) no such photograph like that could exist in the first place.
And I'm trying to figure out why photographer John Stringer would have wanted to take a picture of a probe that had been placed only a small distance into JFK's upper-back wound (with the probe obviously not going very far into the body, per Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony)?
What purpose would a "partial probe" photograph have served in the overall documentation of JFK's autopsy? I can think of no good reason for Stringer to have taken a photo of that nature at all. A photo like that would have served about the same purpose as taking a picture of Dr. Humes inserting his finger into JFK's back wound.
In other words, such "partial probe" photography would be essentially worthless and useless, IMO.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
[Stringer might have taken a "partial probe" photo] To prove that the bullet only penetrated an inch or so.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But such a picture would "prove" no such thing.
Why?
Because of these words spoken by Dr. Boswell in 1996:
"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr. J.T. Boswell
MARK SAID:
In that particular portion of the male anatomy, do we expect the muscles in a cadaver to be "so big and strong" as to prevent probing?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Evidently so. Boswell said so.
Let me guess -- Boswell is lying scum. Right?
David Von Pein
February 3-6, 2010
