And yet we know from their testimony the wound must have been visible while JFK lay on his back. He was not lifted or rolled over.
Not in Parkland, no, but if you read the testimonies the wound was visible from behind the gurney.
It IS an ongoing discussion. Which is why it would be polite for you to read what has been said, instead of expecting people to repeat the same arguments, or go searching for links.
I've read some of it but not all of it. Have you?
No. She pointed out there were more than one set taken, and the ones being shown to her were not the set she took. Her testimony is quite clear on that matter. She goes to further detail about the difference between the sets.
She? Who?
That photographs 'could' be faked is a statement there is no need to weigh, or even mention, unless you can provide evidence they were faked.
If the alternative is to discard all the expert witnesses from the Parkland-, Methodist- and Bethesda hospitals you have to consider the possibility that some of the photographs are fake, yes.
The experts at the time stated on the rear of the right hand side. The autopsy documents agree. The photographs conclude.
No, the words used was: "occipital", "posterior" and "occipital-parietal" this translates to the vernacular "rear" as in the back of the head.
Some doctors remembered differently later, in published memoirs.The first impressions has precedence.
They also went into great (and wrong) details of important events. Which is understandable. Human memory is flawed. We fool ourselves with memories every day.
Agree. That is why the earliest recollections are the most vital.
Which is why we turn to physical evidence.
Agree. Uncompromised physical evidence is always the best evidence, yes.
Unless you think the body was changed, altered, or swapped, between hospitals, we have TWO photographic records of the autopsy.
Two? The body is the best evidence, that is why the concept of chain of custody is extra ordinary important when it comes to secure it before being compromised. The Secret Service used fire arms when stealing the body from the Parkland autopsy team, breaking the law and the chain of custody. Destroying the evidence.
You could try reading the Warren Commission report.
I've read the report, yes, and a lot of the 26 volumes, yes again.
Oswald was still carrying the fake ID he used to buy the rifle when arrested.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11026298&postcount=484
He had photographs of himself taken with the rifle.
Marina was and is not a trustworthy witness.
Yes. When she heard about the shooting she went to see if it was in the garage. Her suspicions raised because Oswald had visited during the week instead of a weekend.
The reason was that the Paines children had a birth day party that weekend and Oswald was not invited, i.e. thursday 21 nov was his only chance in two weeks to see his family. This had happened before.
She thought the blanket it was kept in was undisturbed, but when the police turned up, she opened the blanket and it was gone. She also admitted to Oswald having owned the rifle from around the time it was purchased, and taking the photographs of him with both his murder weapons.
Marina was and is not a reliable witness, period.
Once again. It would have been polite to check what people had already said on this. There really is no reason to expect answers to questions that have already been discussed at length. Please be polite enough to read previous threads.
As I said I've read some of it, but the threads are massive, and besides, no one is forcing you. Do what you want.
Which is why we look at other evidence. Given the photographs were taken on her property, seemingly from her camera, and match her statement, she seems to have been honest on this matter.
Where you see evidence lots of people see obvious tampering with the evidence. The camera in question (Imperial Reflex) was not found until a month after the murder in spite of two DPD search parties to the Paines residence. When asked by the WC on exactly how she hold the camera when taking the picture/s (1, 2 , 3 , 4, ...) she hold it in front of her eyes, not knowing it was a box camera.
Marina has lied and given contradictory testimony so many times that her "testimony" is completely worthless.
Got a better explanation of how people were in possession of his photograph having been signed?
Only one of the three hand writing experts said he could positively identify the english part of the hand writing as Oswalds. The russian part is to this day (also) unknown.
You want links to four threads,
No, I want your sources in case I am not certain you are correct in any given case.
one of which you are already posting in? Just go read the discussion. Get a feel for what has already been said, and find out where the rest of us are coming from. You are joining the conversation, it would be polite to have taken a look.
As I said, I have read some of it.
Please quote me making exceptions.
I
asked you.
I certainly can. Witness statements are not a reliable source of evidence. They are heavily flawed. We think our minds are like cameras, recording everything we see. The truth is they record only a few details. And those details are pliable, and will change over time.
I've read a lot of witness psychology and I insist that there are a lot of factors conditioning the memory. One, and usually the most important, is the length in time between an event and the recollection.
Look at a practical example. You are making much of the witnesses who think shots came from the grassy knoll. But what of all the people who disagree. Of people who heard a different number of shots, or shots from different locations.
Are there any witnesses reporting hearing shots from, lats say, the southern grassy knoll?
They were not lying. They were giving honest evidence, accurate to their memories. But they are only human. And we are flawed. Our memories more so.
Are you saying we should disregard all witness testimony as flawed? Notes taken during surgery for example?
If you have any interest in history, or investigation, you should always have this in mind. The one constant in witness testimony will be contradiction.
So, when everyone who saw the back of JFK's head are reporting a big gaping wound, they are contradicting each other?
You also have to consider the limitations of ANY human memory. You also have to understand why other forms of evidence is given higher priority. No evidence is perfect, but physical evidence can be tested. It is not limited by the ability to be described, or subjective interpretation.
That is why I told you that blanket proclamations concerning witness testimony is impossible to make, you have to take in to account the unique conditions in every single case before making any judgement on its veracity.
At the time there was one bullet from the gurney. One bullet in pieces. I personally include the third bullet because of evidence found on the lighting gantry a few years ago. So three bullets consistent with the one rifle we know with any certainty to be fired that day. As further evidence we have the three spent shell casings.
There is no chain of custody either on the CE-399 or the empty casings.
If you want to speculate for any other bullets, or any other sources of bullets, then supply some physical evidence of either the weapon, or the bullets.
I do not have to speculate in alternative scenarion in order to discard the official one. Fortunately.
No. At least three bullet wounds in JFK, four in Connally and one from a fragment in Tauge. That makes it eight bullet wounds.
And yes, those are all consistent with LHO's shots.
Still not replicated, though.
But I am happy to clarify that I meant the wounds we could say with certainty after the autopsy, documented in evidence. Of course, this takes into account at least one exit wound being obscured by an attempt to keep JFK breathing.
There is no way to prove this was an exit wound before probing the body.
The totality of the ballistics evidence if absolutely fine. Unfortunately I do not share the unrealistic expectations of forensic science, or witnesses, that conspiracy theory books indulge in.
I'm perfectly aware of real life conditions vs idealised situations but you can't explain away everything with that as a blanket statement, again, you have to look carefully att every little instance before tentatively asses the material.
I'm sorry? Other than conspiracy-innuendo, what exactly was in question?
The chain of custody. Is there any?
An "old" palm print, possibly Oswalds. And, remember, fingerprints are seldom undisputed as in the case of hand writing. It is more of an
art than a science.
Lifted with a powder medium. So a print left by residue of skin contact, lifted by being dusted. Which also lifts the surrounding markings.
The point is that it was not fresh and therefore could have been taken from a dead Oswald. There were detectives in the morgue on the evening of Oswalds murder, taking fingerprints from the dead body. It would have been easy to bring the barrel and mark it with a hand print from the body.
As I said, Lt. Carl Day refused to sign the deposition and the whole affair stinks of tampering, and no, no proven chain of custody. The fix was in.
Word to the wise; A lot of CT books make a big deal about how later inspections of the rifle found no prints. Those are because the prints have been physically lifted from the rifle. They are no longer there to be studied.
Word to the wise. Do not underestimate your opponent.
No. Witness testimony is measured against the physical evidence. Not vice versa.
As I said, it depends.
Please show me evidence of how the physical evidence was faked. Otherwise refrain from CT innuendo.
I have no access to the physical evidence, but judging from the documentation there are no strait forward evidence unequivocally proving Oswald did it and did it alone.
This is remarkable, considering the vast
quantity of it.
Great. Show me how the physical evidence was interfered with. Start with the "iffy" prints. Show me how a latent print, lifted in a powder medium, is faked.
An "old print" can be taken from a dead body, pressing the object on the fingers or the palm of the hand. And, "prints" have been vastly overestimated as "proof" of this and that, just as in the case of hand writing and nitrate testing for gun residues. To name a few outdated forensic techniques and traditions.
You don't get to ask why evidence was altered, or interfered with, until you prove that the evidence was tampered with.
Most of it says it was tampered with. Ca 95% certainty.
At the moment you are playing Conspiracy Innuendo. Saying people could have, or might have, or that it is iffy. None of which is enough to show evidence was altered.
No, I'm weighing probabilities. So are you.
If you want me to believe your interpretation of the medical testimony is correct, then show me evidence that the photographic record of the autopsy was altered. Explain how a wound crept from the back of the head to the back of the side of the head.
David Mantik has been at the NARA nine times with the permission of the Kennedy family to investigate the autopsy photos and the x-ray photos. He is certain that the photo of the back of JFK's head is a forgery, using a stereoscope. He is also certain that the photos of the x-ray are forgeries for different reasons.
Is this proof? Of course not. Is it incriminating evidence? Certainly.
If you want to suggest there is something wrong with the prints, explain how one can fake a latent print lifted by a powder medium.
An "old" print = dead body part against the barrel.
If you want to call the ballistics crap, then explain each and every piece of ballistics evidence.
One step at the time. Lets start with the CE-399 and the chain of custody, ok?
But first, go read what has already been said.
I'll do that if you read all the books and articles I've read om the subject the last four years.
A residue test failing to lift residue does not mean a gun was not fired. HAD residue been lifted it would have strengthened the case, but one major misunderstanding by laymen is that every time a gun is fired there will be residue to recover. How well the residue sticks, how long it lingers, is a variable.
i agree to a certain degree. Traditional testing for nitrates is now disregarded 100% by trained forensic experts. Neutron activation is better but only a couple of hours after the shooting. Oswald tested a bit too late to make a definitive judgement and therefore we can not say for sure. My point is, though, that no residue was detected = no evidence of shooting a rifle (or a pistol) that day.
And there is indeed at least one witness who described a man of Oswalds build and height, quite accurately, in the TSBD window, before his arrest was made public.
Who? Brennan? Come on! He couldn't identify Oswald in the line up.
But we DON'T NEED a witness to have seen him.
We have his rifle.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11026298&postcount=484
See above.
We have his shell casings.
No chain of custody and missing engravings.
We have them in his location at the time.
No one have positioned Oswald at the sixth floor during the shooting.
No chain of custody, no engravings.
Of what?
We have autopsy records and photographs.
Which are mutually exclusive, yes.
We have his prior attempt to murder, with the same rifle.
Ah, you mean Gen. Walker? Or, Nixon (lol)? I beg to differ, and so do all the evidence and witnesses, except ... Marina.
We have him photographing himself with the murder weapons.
Marina ...
By any reasonable assessment, we have a weight of physical evidence against Oswald.
So far you have offered innuendo suggesting there is something wrong with the evidence. You won't show us how the evidence was altered, faked, or flawed. Just vague notions of it not being trustworthy.
See above.
Yes. Even though.
Do you have evidence of another rifle that can reasonably be inferred to have been fired?
Is it Texas custom not to look inside the barrel of a suspect murder weapon? To see if it has been recently fired?
Why not read the thread and find out?
If you do not want to discuss the murder of JFK , no one is forcing you, and certainly not me.
The evidence has already been shown. Please by all means, read the threads. But I do not have time to sit here linking every single relevant post. Nor do I have time to repeat every single post.
I'm afraid you have to name your sources and if disputed, provide a link if possible. As do I.
o you see any problems with this, or is it so far so good?
