BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound?
No speculation need apply.
BUD SAID:
Why do you say they didn't?
[...]
You said the neck wasn't dissected. Clearly it was.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
[Bud] has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it) that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound.
BUD SAID:
Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?
Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck muscles without dissection?
Of course not, all you can do is blow hot air and run.
IN ANOTHER THREAD....
BEN HOLMES SAID:
When are you going to cite for your belief that the doctors dissected the neck wound, Davy?
Why the cowardice?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have never made any such claim--ever. You're lying--again (as per usual).
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Stop whining about what you said or didn't say.
Until you SPECIFICALLY assert that the prosectors did NOT dissect the track of the bullet or the throat wound, that *IS* your stance.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Don't ya just love Ben's strange set of rules?
And until I SPECIFICALLY state that I do not think the moon is made out of green cheese, then my stance (per Ben's cockeyed rules) is that I DO believe in the "green cheese" theory.
Ben's in a world all his own.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
This is, of course, a false analogy, and Davey knows it. Now, if Vincent Bugliosi had asserted that the moon was made of green cheese, THEN your analogy works.
You know the prosectors didn't dissect the track of the bullet, or the throat wound -- BUT YOU'RE TERRIFIED OF PUBLICLY STATING THAT.
So tell us coward, why?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Benny's screwy rule book rears its ugly head again I see.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The URL [David Von Pein] should have the guts to publish is [This Link].
Here's some relevant content [from the above link]:
[Quoting DVP:]
"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."
[End DVP Quote.]
So tell us Davey - why are you calling [Bud] a liar?
[...]
Lyin' Davey Von Peiny posted a fact online, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly agree with it here in this forum.
Such a lyin' coward!!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
"Clearly the neck was dissected."
....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
"Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Ben Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
Because, "in essence" (or "fundamentally"), the track of the bullet through JFK's upper back and the front of his neck WAS definitely established by way of examining the bruises that existed inside the President's body during the autopsy after the Y-incision was made. The autopsy doctors, after the Y-incision was done, could, "in essence", SEE the track of the bullet in the President's body by way of the bruising.
And this "in essence" track was also established in 1968 by the Clark Panel when four doctors examined the autopsy photos and X-rays in detail. Here's what the Clark Panel concluded:
--- Quote On: ---
"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
This is really a simple matter... either the prosectors dissected the frontal neck wound, and the track of the bullet, or they didn't.
[Bud] argues that they did.
Davey Von Peiny admits publicly that they did not.
Trying to re-write what [Bud] was claiming won't work. He's on record in far too many posts.
BUD SAID:
Clearly the neck was dissected, as things like the neck muscles were described. Humes said the neck was dissected.
The thing is that Ben is trying to make the argument that the autopsy was negligent or deficient, but he can't make that argument, so he asks loaded questions that shift the burden. When I tried to get him to get specific on these concepts, he resisted. If he doesn't spell out the ideas, how can we tell whether what was done is outside of the vague concepts he expressed?
REPLAY....
BUD SAID:
Humes said the neck was dissected.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Point me to his testimony where he says that. I can't find any such testimony where he uses the word "dissected" in connection with his examination of the neck.
In Humes' Warren Commission testimony, he definitely does get into a good amount of detail about the "bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound". Is this the testimony you mean when you said "Humes said the neck was dissected"? * ....
"We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea. At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy. There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles."
To reiterate my previous point, the above testimony would seem to indicate that the wound in President Kennedy's neck was, "IN ESSENCE", dissected.
A key question to ask here would be: How much more information than what is provided above via Dr. Humes' testimony would (or could) have been obtained if the autopsists had completely cut open JFK's neck? Dr. Humes, in fact, has answered that question already. He stated this during his 1996 ARRB testimony:
"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."
* = At the time I asked Bud the above question, I hadn't seen this Internet post written by Bud, in which he does, indeed, cite the exact same excerpts from Dr. Humes' Warren Commission testimony that I quoted above (although Bud doesn't put any quotation marks around Humes' words; nor does he even indicate that he's quoting Dr. Humes at all; but, nevertheless, the words spoken by Humes are still there in Bud's post).
BUD SAID:
He [Dr. Humes] describes dissection. I hate to go back over ground I covered two months back, but I'll try to get you up to speed on my position. Here is the testimony where Humes talks about dissection, as soon as he says "Y shaped incision" he is talking about dissection, that is what an autopsy does....
"To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination, which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest..." [More of Humes' testimony already cited in DVP's last post.]
He is talking about opening up the body to examine the neck. .... I quoted a source that said that often the top part of the "Y" is pulled up over the face. That would expose the neck area for examination.
Look, I don't conduct autopsies, you don't and Ben doesn't. My understanding is they open up the body and look for damage. This was done. The problem here is that we end up arguing against an argument that Ben refuses to make. It is up to him to make the argument that the autopsy wasn't done correctly, and he can't, so he plays these games, where he throws out some vague concept and tries to make it all about that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for your clarifying post, Bud.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You haven't told us who lied...
Was it [Bud]?
Was it you?
As both of you contradict each other on the prosectors dissecting the track of the bullet, and the throat wound - ONE OF YOU IS LYING.
Who is it, Davey?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Try to be reasonable (just this once), okay Ben?
Neither Bud nor I are "lying". It's just that you are having a difficult time understanding Bud's meaning of the word "dissected". (Or maybe you're just being stubborn and refuse to acknowledge that you do understand what Bud means. That could very well be the case too.)
In any event, Bud and I both know that JFK's neck was not cut open during the autopsy. And we both know that the "neck organs" were not removed. But we also know that an EXAMINATION of body parts relating to JFK's neck injury WAS done by Humes and Company during the autopsy.
E.G., the doctors examined the bruises of the upper chest (pleura) and the bruising of JFK's right lung. And that examination by the autopsists, plus the fact that there were no whole bullets found in the President's body and the additional information discovered by Dr. Humes from Dr. Perry on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd concerning the existence of the tracheotomy, enabled the autopsy physicians to conclude this:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of the Official Autopsy Report; Warren Report, p.543
I'll also use this opportunity to repeat something I said two days ago:
"In essence (or "fundamentally"), the track of the bullet through JFK's upper back and the front of his neck WAS definitely established by way of examining the bruises that existed inside the President's body during the autopsy after the Y-incision was made. The autopsy doctors, after the Y-incision was done, could, "in essence", SEE the track of the bullet in the President's body by way of the bruising." -- DVP; 10/27/2021
BEN HOLMES SAID:
No Davey - now you're lying. [Bud] claimed that the throat wound had been dissected... THAT MEANS IT WAS CUT OPEN.
You cannot re-write what [Bud] has been posting for weeks now.
This is a simple logical fallacy. You're DESPERATELY trying to change the topic.
The topic is the prosectors - and whether or not they DISSECTED THE TRACK OF THE BULLET - AND THE THROAT WOUND.
Nothing else is on the table.
Now, deal with the FACTS as I've laid them out... did the prosectors dissect the track of the bullet, and the throat wound, AS [BUD] CLAIMS THEY DID, or did they not?
It's a Yes/No question... and I predict you'll run.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ben, you need to look at the second definition of the word "dissect" (via Merriam-Webster's). Let's have a gander at that definition:
DISSECT --- 2: to analyze and interpret minutely.
David Von Pein
September 10-14, 2021
October 27, 2021
October 29, 2021
