(PART 117)



You better look at what Ed LeDoux just posted in the Lunch Encounter
thread. [Click Here.]

That is your buddy, Roy Truly.



You expect way too much spot-on accuracy from the early reports. Nothing in those newspaper articles debunks the second-floor encounter. Your utter desperation to make Oswald blameless is blatantly obvious.

OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor. Oswald told Fritz it was the "second floor". That's revealed in Captain Will Fritz' notes and in Fritz' written report too (Warren Report; Page 600).

Was Oswald lying too? Or do you want to pretend that Captain Fritz was the person doing the lying on page 600 of the Warren Commission Report?

More HERE.


"Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a liar. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident [or that Fritz was lying--in both his notes and his typewritten report]." -- DVP; July 2015


In addition, Jim....

What do you do with Mrs. Robert Reid's testimony? She said she saw Oswald, holding a Coke, walking through the offices on the second floor within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

Reid's testimony is perfectly consistent with the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter occurring on the second floor, having occurred just seconds before Reid saw Oswald in the second-floor office area. It fits to a tee.

Was Mrs. Reid lying to frame Oswald too, Jim?



That is a good catch and just about seals the deal on the lying, racist police informant, Truly.

Can you please answer Davey's query as to how to explain Reid's testimony about Oswald being on the second floor?

I mean the stuff about what Oswald said in the FBI's notes or Fritz's notes I don't worry about. I mean, does anyone really believe that the DPD could not get a tape recorder if they wanted to? I don't. They didn't want one there. But there is some info that Fritz secretly taped the interrogations. And he never revealed them. Wonder why?

But what about Reid?


Why can't you answer it yourself, Jimmy?


Mrs. Reid, by the way, participated in a reconstruction of her post-assassination movements for the Warren Commission. Here is her testimony concerning that re-creation/re-enactment, beginning at 3 H 274 (emphasis in bold is DVP's):

Mr. DULLES. How long after the third shot did you run into the building?

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Dulles, we did a reconstruction on that time sequence on Friday and I am going to come to that as soon as I get the route first.

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. BELIN. You went into the building in the main lobby?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I did.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take the elevator or the stairs?

Mrs. REID. No; I went up the stairs.

Mr. BELIN. Was this the front stairs or the back stairs?

Mrs. REID. No; the front stairs.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. I went into the office.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there, I thought it was a little strange that one of the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand, so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.

Mr. BELIN. When you saw him, I believe you said you first saw him when he was coming through the door?

Mrs. REID. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Turning to Exhibit 497, what doorway was it where you first saw him?

Mrs. REID. Right here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to the doorway between numbers 27 and 28?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. On Exhibit 497?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. Where were you when you saw him in that doorway?

Mrs. REID. I was coming right through here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to what number there?

Mrs. REID. Well, it is 29.

Mr. BELIN. 29. And then about where were you when you actually passed him or had this exchange?

Mrs. REID. Right along here. I passed my desk.

Mr. BELIN. Why don't you put on Exhibit 496 [Belin really means 497 here, not 496] an "X" as to where you were when you thought you passed him.

Mrs. REID. Here.

Mr. BELIN. I wonder if you would put the initial "R" which we will put for Mrs. Reid.

Mrs. REID. All right.

Mr. BELIN. By the "X" and that is where you were when you passed him. On March 20, you and I met for the first time, didn't we, Mrs. Reid?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. We sat down and I asked you to tell me what happened and you related the story. Did I keep on questioning you or did you tell me what happened?

Mrs. REID. Well, I more or less told you what had happened.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Then we went out on the street, did we not, in front of the building, with a stopwatch, do you remember that?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I surely do. It was kind of cool.

Mr. BELIN. It was kind of cool wasn't it, and a little bit windy.

Mrs. REID. Yes; it was; yes.

Mr. BELIN. And when in Dallas, we started the stopwatch from the time that the last shot was fired, is that correct?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. And then you went through your actions, what you saw, your conversations that you had, and your actions in going back into the building and up to the point that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how long by the stopwatch it took you?

Mrs. REID. Approximately 2 minutes.

Mr. DULLES. I didn't hear you.

Mrs. REID. Two minutes.

Mr. BELIN. From the time of the last shot, the time you and Oswald crossed?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I believe that is the way we timed it.

Mr. BELIN. When you--you saw me start the stopwatch and you saw me stop it there, right?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. When you met in the lunchroom--

Mrs. REID. I didn't meet him in the lunchroom.

Mr. BELIN. Pardon me, when you met in the office, which direction were you going, looking toward Exhibit 497, as you look on it, which direction were you going--toward the left or right?

Mrs. REID. You mean as I came in the office? I turned in and turned to my left.

Mr. BELIN. That would be heading in a westerly direction, is that right?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. What direction was Oswald walking?

Mrs. REID. He was going east.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him actually walk through or coming through the door there?

Mrs. REID. He had just gotten to the door, was stepping in as I glanced up.

Mr. BELIN. He was stepping in as you glanced up?

Mrs. REID. Yes.


Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor?

Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.

Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?

Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?

Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.



I do not presume to know everything about this case. I never have and never will. There are things which I specialize in. But this is not one of them.

And I sure do not think the last word is in the WC volumes. Or with Allen Dulles and David Belin. I mean they did the "questioning" of Baker. Just a coincidence to you, right?

These guys like Bart and Ed have really done some good work on this issue.

So I will ask them about it.


OK. Fair enough, Jim.

But let me add just one additional nail in the coffin of your ridiculous "Baker never saw Oswald" theory....

In addition to the testimony, statements, and/or reports of Mrs. Robert A. Reid and Roy S. Truly and Marrion L. Baker and Dallas Police Captain J.W. Fritz, there is also additional corroboration that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the Book Depository within about two minutes of JFK's assassination in the form of the November 22, 1963, report filed by FBI agent James W. Bookhout. Here's what Bookhout said in that report, which can be found in the Warren Report on Page 619 (emphasis added by DVP):

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees' lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, and thereafter went home." -- James W. Bookhout; 11/22/63


Hi Dave,

Mrs. Reid tells a very convincing story, and she is well coached by Mr. Belin as she tells it. However, there is just one small problem with her story.

Where in this wide open one-room office was Mrs. Reid hiding until Geneva Hine spotted her in a group of latecomers?

[More of Prudhomme's post HERE.]


That's mighty weak, Bob. (As the wishy-washy, non-definitive excerpts of Geneva Hine's testimony below certainly indicate.)

And are you actually suggesting Mrs. Reid just lied her ass off in her testimony?

Emphasis is mine....

Mr. BALL -- Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn't see anybody there.

Miss HINE -- Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones...so I was busy with the phone.

Mr. BALL -- From the time you walked into the room, you became immediately busy with the phone?

Miss HINE -- Yes, sir; sure was.


Reid recants a story from Ochus Campbell...


Reid also twists the story...


And what is Reid's name doing on the bottom of Truly's handwritten affidavit? Perhaps nothing suspicious, but when taking the many things in account, the least to suspect is to use her as backup of the fake encounter.


Baker and Truly never went in as fast as they claimed they did...


The bigot and ultra conservative Truly lied in his testimony!


Lovelady lied in his testimony...


Shelley lied...


Etc etc etc...


Good! More liars! Lots more!

Have you tallied up the total number of people who lied in the JFK case yet, Bart? Is it up to five digits yet? Or is it still at four figures?

Jesus, how ludicrous.


But Dave, [Mark] Lane was right! Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. He said so himself in his interrogation.


You think Oswald himself told the police he was standing in the doorway during the shooting? Where on Earth did you get that idea? He never said any such thing. He said just the opposite, in fact. He admitted to the press that he was INSIDE the building at the time of the shooting, which is one of the biggest reasons of all for throwing out the "Prayer Man" theory.

And, Sandy, if you're referring to Fritz' "out with Bill Shelley in front" note, that note is referring to a point in time AFTER the shooting. That fact is corroborated by James Bookhout's report. More HERE.


Oswald isn't saying he was inside the building during the shooting.


Yes, he is. Or maybe you think Lee didn't hear these words within the reporter's question....

"...at the time..."



That is not what Oswald is saying there.

There was no question: Where were you at the time of the shooting?

It's too general.


Okay, Jim, let's just have another look.

Now, if Oswald had REALLY been Mr. "Prayer Man" on the steps of the TSBD at the moment JFK was being shot, don't you think he would have offered up that ironclad alibi to the reporter who asked him the question "DID YOU SHOOT THE PRESIDENT?"?

But, instead of saying "Hey, you guys! I couldn't have shot anybody! I was standing in front of the building doing a little praying! Just ask Wesley Frazier! He was standing right next to me!", Oswald's pathetic answer to the question "Did you shoot the President?" was "I work in that building."

Great response there if he's an innocent "patsy", eh?


REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."




He did not even know he had been charged with that crime. And he says that here.

So you expect him to instantly work out a defense in detail amid this chaos? When he does not even have a counsel?

C'mon, geez.


So what? You think the fact he hadn't yet been charged would prohibit him from just simply saying "No, I didn't shoot the President, because I was standing on the front steps"?

You think Oswald's mindset was: Until I'm officially charged with a crime, I just won't say a thing about my foolproof alibi -- even when I'm directly asked if I'm guilty?

That doesn't make sense to me, Jim.



You would have been right at home in the Dallas DA's office.

See the film, The Thin Blue Line.




Oswald's guilt is all too obvious -- with or without all the fancy words spoken by Mr. Mark Lane.

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 969 of "Reclaiming History"



I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.


Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course).

But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom?

In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt.

If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth — which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer.



Do you think no one knows your tricks by now?

I deliberately quoted Mark Lane and the intro to his 1964 legal brief for the National Guardian.

I then showed how depriving Oswald of his rights short circuited the evidentiary presentation.


So let me ask: Does Finck's testimony at the Shaw trial bear any resemblance to his testimony before the WC?

Answer: NO!

Why not? Because the rules of procedure were obeyed at Shaw's trial. As Mark Lane noted, there was a real cross examination of the witness.

Finck made a mistake: He told the truth. The medical evidence has never been the same.

You want to avoid that crucial evidence, which would have never surfaced under cover up man Specter, not in 100 years. In fact, Specter never asked any of the doctors why they did not dissect the back wound. Garrison did [sic; it was actually Oser who questioned Finck]. And we saw what happened. But you don't want to address that crucial evidence.




Do you think Dr. Humes was lying through his teeth in this WC testimony?....

DR. HUMES -- "Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. .... We were unable...to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point."


Of course the argument can be made that with the probing of the wound being unsuccessful, this would have been even MORE of a reason for the pathologists to remove the neck organs to dissect the path of the bullet. But this was not done.

Dr. Finck, at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, said that he was told not to dissect the neck wound, but he could not recall who gave that order. But to think it was an order given by someone who had a desire to "cover up" proof of a frontal gunshot wound is to also suggest that that person giving the order KNEW for a fact at the time of the autopsy that there were multiple gunmen firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza. And that, IMO, is just silly.

The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.


Excerpts from Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony (1969; Shaw Trial)....

QUESTION: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

DR. FINCK: I did not dissect the track in the neck.


DR. FINCK: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask the Court so to direct.

THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

DR. FINCK: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: Why not, Doctor?

DR. FINCK: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --

QUESTION: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

DR. FINCK: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

QUESTION: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you, as an autopsy pathologist, attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

DR. FINCK: I had the cause of death.

QUESTION: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

DR. FINCK: As I recall, I didn't remove these organs from the neck. .... I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why you didn't do this as a pathologist?

DR. FINCK: From what I recall, I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound, the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. .... I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

DR. FINCK: As I recall, I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.

QUESTION: You were told not to, but you don't remember by whom?

DR. FINCK: Right.

QUESTION: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

DR. FINCK: I don't recall.

QUESTION: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

DR. FINCK: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

DR. FINCK: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

QUESTION: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

DR. FINCK: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

QUESTION: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?

DR. FINCK: I did.

QUESTION: With what?

DR. FINCK: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction, and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck, I may have created a false passage.

QUESTION: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?

DR. FINCK: I did not consider a dissection of the path.

QUESTION: How far did the probe go into this wound?

DR. FINCK: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times, you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

QUESTION: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?

DR. FINCK: The first fraction of an inch.

QUESTION: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?

DR. FINCK: I don't know.


You realize, I hope, that Humes' concluding the back wound did not extend into the body is a far bigger problem for the SBT than his failure to dissect the back wound. The failure to dissect the back wound could be written off in the name of expediency--because someone told him not to. Spending a significant amount of time studying and probing the back wound, only to conclude it was but a shallow dent in the back, however, is lethal for the single-bullet theory.


Not at all. The reason for the unsuccessful probing of the back wound was fully explained by two of the three pathologists in their testimony over the years -- Finck in 1969 (which I just quoted above) and Boswell in 1996.

And then there is this testimony, also quoted earlier, by Dr. Finck (emphasis is my own):

"I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path."


The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.



Recall, this is a murder case in 1963, therefore the standard of evidence is: beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

The third word above, "probably", is Von Pein's. In other words, it is his assumption.

​He then quotes a long hunk from Finck's testimony, but he does not quote the most revealing part. Finck said that he was not running the autopsy that night. Then this exchange occurred:

Q: Was Dr. Humes running the show?

​A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that--he said--"Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating "I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.

Somehow, Davey did not find that passage important, probably because it belies his necessary assumption with actual evidence.

​Further belying it, actually wrecking it with finality, is more evidence from the horse's mouth, that is Humes. In my CBS article that Davey said (for good reasons) he only skimmed, Humes told a representative from the network that yes, he was limited from doing a proper autopsy on JFK. He did not want to reveal who gave him those instructions except to say that it was not Bobby Kennedy.


And just exactly how would Dr. Humes have known whether or not such an order (or request) had originally come from the Kennedys on the 17th floor, with that order (request) then being relayed to Humes by way of a high-ranking member of the military (with possibly more people in-between who communicated the Kennedys' request)?

Do you think that if Bobby Kennedy HAD made such a request, that it would have been Bobby himself who would have marched into the autopsy room and told Dr. Humes personally what his request was?



You cannot be serious Davey.

I mean the above shows just what a lousy researcher you are. And also how incredibly biased you are.

The HSCA, a very long time ago, discovered a document which RFK signed that night about the autopsy. RFK left blank the space marked "restrictions" in the permit he signed before the autopsy began. Based upon that, and other interviews, the HSCA concluded that the family did not interfere with the autopsy.

In an affidavit for the HSCA, Burkley stated, "I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and to take the time necessary for completion."

In an interview with the HSCA, the commander of the Bethesda Medical Center, Galloway, stated that he was present throughout the examination, and no orders were being sent in from outside the autopsy room by phone or person.

Humes told the ARRB that Burkley never told him what to do that night and said it in no uncertain terms, "as far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably, no."

This not only blows you up, but also Dan Rather, who in 1975 told America that yes, the autopsy was botched, but blamed it on RFK through Burkley. This was undoubtedly conveyed to him via that Pentagon suck up Lattimer, who was a consultant on the show.


Isn't it nice of DiEugenio to use something supplied by Dr. Humes when it serves Jimmy's purpose? Most of the time, though, Humes is nothing but a rotten lying SOB. Right, Jimmy?

Emphasis is my own:

"All three of the pathologists know from experience that bullets can do crazy things when they enter the human body and might end up anywhere. The only way to be sure they haven't missed it is to x-ray the entire body. Finck's decision doesn't set well with Admiral Burkley, who can see his idea of a quick recovery of evidence giving way to hour after hour of difficulties and delays. Burkley says that Mrs. Kennedy had only granted permission for a limited autopsy, and questions the feasibility of finding the bullet that entered the president's back without conducting a complete autopsy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 162 of "Reclaiming History"

Bugliosi's source for the above information about Jackie Kennedy wanting only a "limited autopsy" is ARRB document MD156, which is a memo written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill:

"Following arrival at the Naval Medical Center...Admiral Burkley, the President's personal physician, advised that Mrs. Kennedy had granted permission for a limited autopsy and he questioned any feasibility for a complete autopsy to obtain the bullet which had entered the President's back." -- Sibert/O'Neill Internal Memo, dated 11/26/63 (ARRB MD156)

But even if it wasn't Jackie Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy who specifically requested no dissection of JFK's neck, as I said before, the notion that ANYONE would have made such a request solely because they wanted to hide evidence of a conspiracy and a frontal shot to JFK's body is a notion that only a desperate conspiracy theorist could possibly embrace.

But, Jimmy DiEugenio, being a charter member of the Anybody But Oswald and Virtually Everybody In Officialdom Lied Societies, embraces such a notion with open arms.

There's also this....

"Dr. Humes told JAMA in 1992, "I was in charge from start to finish and there was no [military] interference—zero . . . Nobody made any decision in the morgue except me. Nobody . . . influenced me in any way, shape, or form."

Dr. Finck agreed. "I will repeat this. There was no military interference with the autopsy. There were many people in the morgue—all very upset—and this made it difficult for us. But there was no military interference."

Although the military did not interfere with the autopsy, it is clear that the Kennedy family did. FBI agent Francis O'Neill wrote that as he understood it, "Mrs . Jackie Kennedy gave permission for a partial autopsy and Dr. George Burkley, the president's personal physician, reiterated her remarks," and that "there was no question that Burkley was conveying the wishes of the Kennedy family."

The family's request for a "partial autopsy" was not, however, an attempt to circumvent the investigation, as some have claimed. Dr. Humes explained to the HSCA that "initially, Admiral Burkley said that they had caught Oswald and that they needed the bullet to complete the case, and we were told initially that's what we should do, . . . find the bullet." "
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 386 of "Reclaiming History"


Why did you skip the rest of that document?

What clearly happened is that Jackie was grief stricken and wanted to get it over with.

She was then overruled by the others involved that a complete autopsy must be done.

RFK then signed the permit.

As it proceeded, it was the military that then interfered.

Geez, anything goes with you, doesn't it.


You're missing the timing and context, David. The Kennedys initially asked that the autopsy be limited, but RFK granted approval for a complete autopsy when the importance of it was explained to him. As I recall, there is even a signed document from him approving a complete autopsy.

As far as context, I think you're failing to acknowledge that the WC hid behind the Kennedy family, and tried to blame them for their own failure to review the autopsy materials. In the hearings which led to the ARRB, Arlen Specter, a sitting Senator, testified and tried to blame the WC's failure on the Kennedy family, only to have Senator John Glenn (who was no doubt tipped off by a knowledgeable staffer) come back an hour later and ask if the commission did not, in fact, have access to all the materials. To which Specter answered in the affirmative. So the "Kennedys wouldn't let us" excuse was bogus from day one, but was nevertheless pushed by Specter et al in his conversations with Humes etc. Anything but admit that the Chief Justice of the United States had made a reversible error in the most important murder "trial" of his life.



Jim / Pat,

But don't you think that Jackie Kennedy's desire to, as Jim D. said above, "get it over with", and her initial request that a "partial autopsy" be done, just might have played a part in the decision of the pathologists to not dissect President Kennedy's neck/back wound?

In hindsight, it would have been much better, of course, if Dr. Humes and company had, indeed, dissected the neck wound. But, Pat, let me ask you specifically --- do you think the decision to not dissect that wound was made in order to hide a conspiracy from the world? And do you think that whoever it was who made that final decision to not dissect the path of that bullet already KNEW that JFK had been shot from the front by a bullet?



Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.


Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.


Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.
I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.


I might buy that the failure to dissect the throat when it could have proven more than one shooter was entirely innocent, but for the fact that they also failed to dissect the brain when it could have proven more than one shooter.

Dissecting the throat on the night of the autopsy was probably the single-most important procedure they could have performed, seeing as the Parkland doctors saw a wound in the throat and a wound on the back of the head, and thought they were connected.

Dissecting the brain at the supplementary autopsy was undoubtedly the single-most important procedure.

And yet neither was performed. This, to me, is highly suspicious. While the doctors may not have known about the throat wound during the autopsy (and I accept that they did not), there's no reason to believe whoever ordered them NOT to dissect the throat was equally in the dark. One would think, in fact, that military men concerned about the outbreak of WWIII would be in constant touch with the outside, and be receiving regular updates from people watching the news. The possibility exists, then, that whoever told them not to dissect the neck knew the establishment of a trajectory connecting the throat wound with the head wound might lead to the conclusion this shot came from in front of the president, and the depository.


OK. Thanks for the reply, Pat.

David Von Pein
May 18-21, 2016
May 18-19, 2016