‘The [Warren] report … has collapsed like a house of cards …’

“I think that the report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards, and I think the people who read it in the long-run future will see that. I frankly believe that we have shown that the [investigation of the] John F. Kennedy assassination was snuffed out before it even began, and that the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was not to use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.”

Senator Richard Schweiker on “Face the Nation” in 1976

Republican Schweiker and Democrat Gary Hart headed the Church Committee subcommittee that produced the report titled “The Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies.”

107 comments

  1. Philip T. says:

    Quotes like this are bedrock.

  2. John Kirsch says:

    The WC members were like blind men being led around by the CIA and FBI. The closest analogy would be the way a prosecutor manipulates a grand jury.

  3. John Kirsch says:

    Schweiker wasn’t some conspiracy “nut.” He was a U.S. senator who had studied the assassination and the performance of the intelligence agencies. I wonder if Hart has ever said how he feels about the WC.

    • Bob Truitt says:

      John, I’m sorry I didn’t catch this before. Gary Hart was a speaker at the 40th anniversary of the Warren Commission Conference put on by AARC in WashDC in September 2004. I believe it was taped by (not CNN but the other 3 letter organization that tapes & rebroadcasts, that I can’t think of the name right now). I do remember Gary Hart saying, “there is more than one way to assassinate a candidate” referring to the picture that the MSM ran of him on the boat “Monkey Business”. I’ve seen the tapings on the internet, so they are available.

  4. Andrew Everett says:

    I think one of the most treacherous devices of the post-WWII era has to be the Non-Disclosure Agreement…here is what the HSCA was forced to sign in 1977 by the CIA:

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAappend.html#ExhibitA

    ———-

    This CIA weapon has several parts. First, it binds the signer, if a consultant, to never reveal that he is working for the committee (see paragraph 13). Second, it prevents the signer from ever revealing to anyone in perpetuity, any information he has learned about the committee’s work as a result of working for the committee (see paragraphs 2 and 12). Third, it gives the committee and the House, after the committee terminates, the power to take legal action against the signer, in a court named by the committee or the House, in case the committee believes the signer has violated the agreement. Fourth, the signer agrees to pay the court costs for such a suit in the event he loses the suit (see paragraphs 14 and 15).

    These four parts are enough to scare most researchers or staff members who signed it into silence forever about what they learned. The agreement is insidious in that the signer is, in effect, giving away his constitutional rights. Some lawyers who have seen the agreement, including Richard A. Sprague, have expressed the opinion it is an illegal agreement in violation of the Constitution and several Constitutional amendments. Whether it is illegal or not, most staff members and all consultants who signed it have remained silent, even after three and a half years beyond the life of the committee. There are only two exceptions, the author and Gaeton Fonzi, who published a lengthy article about the HSCA cover-up in the Washingtonian magazine in 1981.

    –from Chapter 17 of The Taking of America 1, 2, 3 by Richard Sprague

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html

    ——————-

  5. George Simmons says:

    I feel it is clear that there was no real investigation of the CIA.

    The CIA decided what documents it would show the WC and HSCA.

    We now know that the CIA both lied to and misled the WC and the HSCA.

    The role of George Joannides as liason to the HSCA shows just how shocking this deception was.

  6. Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

    This shows how much the media has changed. We were told the internet was freedom. That was pure lie. What matters is the media that reaches enough to matter. In exchange for the internet the critical mass media underwent a gigantic slim fast diet.

    That is what has produced America’s new corporate totalitarianism. It is a very different kind of totalitarianism from that of the 1930s. It is much more steeped in communications research.

    • leslie sharp says:

      The groundwork for this totalitarianism was formally established by the Social Science Research Council and its offspring. The media was and is the vehicle, whether 1930′s newsprint or 2014 internet. The only advantage WE The People have is our capacity to discern.

  7. Jonathan says:

    Senator Schweiker is more charitable than I. Yhe Warren Commission did not merely make a mistake in relying on the FBI and the CIA and in failing to carry out its own investigation.

    The record shows Earl Warren and Allen Dulles deceived other commissioners; Gerald Ford lied about the back wound; the commission ignored many key witnesses such as George Burkeley; staff attorneys Specter, Belin, and Ball had no use for the truth. And so on. No, the Warren Commission did not merely make a mistake. As a body, it acted in bad faith and deserves public scorn.

  8. TLR says:

    If I remember correctly, Schweiker suspected that Castro was behind the assassination.

    • Jonathan says:

      From reading the Face the Nation transcript it’s clear Schweiker leaned toward the idea Castro killed Kennedy as payback.

      Schweiker comes off as a mixed bag. He’s a Gerald Ford supporter. He’s critical of the way the FBI and CIA misled the Warren Commission but apparently feels the agencies are now (as of June 1976) on board with openness. He believes the Warren Report was a cover-up and says the American people need to know the truth of the assassination.

      At the end of his interview it’s clear he’s lit no fires under or inspired any curiosity in his interviewers. He provided no fireworks after speaking the words quoted above in this diary.

      • Mary says:

        “[Richard] Schweiker told me in his opinion the CIA was responsible for the assassination. That’s a heck of a statement to come from a United States Senator and one who had even been Ronald Reagan’s running mate in 1976.”
        –Robert Tanenbaum, former Deputy Counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, “The Probe Interview: Bob Tanenbaum,” Probe, July-August 1996 (Vol. 3 No. 5)

        • Paul Turner says:

          I wonder if Schweicker was the first ever person who was picked to be Veep by a candidate who hadn’t yet won his party’s nomination for President(and, in fact, didn’t then, as we recall).

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Schweiker also said that Oswald had fingerprints of intelligence.

  9. Tom says:

    The sequence of those transcripts … all messed up. Lots of missing pages, or am I wrong? Very difficult to read in continuity.

  10. anonymous says:

    ‘At the end of his interview it’s clear Richard Schweiker inspired any curiosity in his interviewers.’

    We’ve been subjected to ‘limited hangouts’ for 50 years – It’s just one technique, used by the CIA and their corporate media sock puppets to conceal facts of the assassination and other operations.

    ‘The WC was like blind men being led around by the CIA… The way a prosecutor manipulates a grand jury.’

    If LHO was not assassinated – he probably would have been indicted – A “good” prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”…Curiosity got Hoppy Heidelberg kicked off the OKC Federal Grand Jury: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujiz5FSn8a0

    Dr. Sam Cohen, a physicists, worked on the Manhattan Project and co inventor of the neutron bomb, and Air Force General Benton Partin, concluded that it was impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck bomb to bring the building down: http://okcbombingtruth.com/

  11. Mariano says:

    The Warren Commission was focused on arriving at the single assassin conclusion. The CIA, and the FBI consistently submitted evidence unfaithfully. Justice and objective investigative rigour were not served. The national interest was not served. The coverup continues to this day. What are the obligations of Secret Service Agencies to the nation? Why are elected governments and constitution unable to free up evidence that has been locked for over 50 years?
    The Warren Commission failed to objectively investigate the Assassination of a President.
    The CIA and the FBI provide prolonged continuity to this national disgrace.

    • Paul Turner says:

      The WC wasn’t SUPPOSED to investigate the assassination. Its job was merely to focus on Oswald being the lone nut, so as to protect LBJ from any blame. And the CIA and FBI needed to make sure that was the way it was going to be.

  12. The Warren Commission was doomed from the start.

    Because Earl Warren was blackmailed into taking the assignment. LBJ told him the fate of 40 million Americans was on the line. In other words, Warren did not want the job. Johnson called him in personally, and told him about Oswald in Mexico City at the Russian and Cuban consulates. The implication, as conveyed by LBJ, was if Warren did not take the job, it was WW 3. Warren left in tears.

    So, from the start, Warren was compromised. And the EIsenberg memo illustrates this. At the first staff meeting, Warren describes this meeting and then says the following–which Bugliosi censors from his book–”The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles.” Warren did add some boilerplate about finding the truth later, but as I write in my book, when you spend 167 words talking about nuclear war, domestic LBJ plots, and squelching conspiracy thinking, and then add 14 words about a search for truth, don’t you think these Ivy League guys got the message? The cover up was on because the fate of the world was on the line.

    We know this was the case because Wesley Liebeler admitted it to Sylvia Odio. He told her that Warren had given them orders to ignore any evidence indicating a conspiracy. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 254)

    To me, this is crucial to understanding what happened. What is also key is what Willens did when all the senior counsel started leaving. He began to hire recent law school graduates! That is young men who had never worked a case before. And they worked on important aspects like the bio of Ruby.

    What a disgrace. Willens was a key part of the cover up. He and his buddy Katzenbach.

    • John McAdams says:

      ”The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles.”

      Buffs always quote this out of context, but the “general principle” was that Supreme Court justices should not engage in this sort of outside activity. Justice Jackson had gotten major flack for being part of the Nuremberg Trials.

      Warren was not saying that he was engaged in any sort of cover-up.

      He told her that Warren had given them orders to ignore any evidence indicating a conspiracy.

      And your source for this is?

      • John McAdams–

        I think you’ve misunderstood the point that was being made, which was that Warren got taken in by LBJ’s bogus World War III scenario without realizing that it was a bogus scenario and then proceeded to act under the false assumption that the scenario was valid.

        Warren initially refused to agree to LBJ’s request to serve on the commission because of the policy that he himself enforced on the court against the other justices—that they should not be serving in these types of extra-judicial capacities. So, here was Johnson asking Warren to violate his very own policy, which Warren did not want to do, in part because of the conflict of interest implications but also because he knew he would have a difficult time explaining to his fellow justices why he was violating the policy that he enforced against them.

        To overcome Warren’s resistance to serving on the commission, Johnson pulled the WW III scenario on him—essentially telling Warren that a full investigation would almost certainly lead to Cuba and the Soviet Union, by virtue of Oswald’s connections to Cuba and the Soviet Union (connections that the Joannides’ CIA-funded DRE was trumpeting immediately after the assassination), making nuclear war a virtual certainty.

        That obviously would not have been a very desirable outcome, especially since it was the CIA, unbeknownst to the American people, that had started the assassination war with its attempts, in partnership with the Mafia, to assassinate Castro.

        By raising the World War III scenario with Warren, LBJ was essentially telling Warren that the nation needed him to prevent nuclear war from happening, by making sure that the investigation stopped with Oswald as a lone-nut assassin and not letting it proceed any further, which would supposedly lead to Cuba, the Soviets, and all-out nuclear war.

        Needless to say, it was a perfectly ingenious way to shut down an investigation, especially if it was LBJ and his cohorts who actually committed the dirty deed. Warren was boxed in. On the one hand, he could conduct a full and honest investigation believing that LBJ led him to believe would almost certainly lead to nuclear war. Or he could save mankind from nuclear war by pinning the crime only on Oswald, who he was convinced was guilty anyway, and just stopping there and letting his purported coconspirators (ie, Cuba and the Soviet Union) off the hook, but in the process, unbeknownst to him, ensuring that the real malefactors would never get targeted.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Jacob Hornberger September 9, 2014 at 2:06 pm

          You seem to imply that the CIA began the assassination program on their own. I don’t think so. I think they were carrying out the presidential policy. The CIA does work for the president.

        • Thomas says:

          Nice summary.

          • Nice one Jacob.

            We could also add that at the first executive session meeting, Warren did not want to the Commission:

            1.) To employ any of their own investigators
            2.) To gather its own evidence.
            3.) To have any public hearings.
            4.) To call any witnesses.

            He actually said, “Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.” (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 35()) This from a man who was a champion of the accused.

            LBJ’s treatment got him to discard all of that because of his fear of nuclear mushroom clouds. In other words, his principles went out the door. And he then closed that door.

        • John McAdams says:

          @ Jacob Hornberger

          I’m not sure what you point is. There was a real and reasonable fear in Washington of the consequences of people thinking there was a Communist conspiracy that killed Kennedy.

          Johnson used that to manipulate Warren. Johnson was a master of manipulation in every context.

          But only if Johnson knew of a Communist conspiracy would what he did be a demand for a cover-up.

          (Later, after he learned of plots against Castro, he apparently suspected that Castro had Kennedy killed.)

          So your argument essentially begs the question.

          You are assuming that Johnson knew of a communist plot to kill Kennedy, and wanted Warren to cover it up.

          But try to get beyond that assumption of yours.

          If Johnson believed there was no conspiracy, but that talk of a communist conspiracy was dangerous, trying to defuse it was exactly what he should have been doing.

          • Larry Schnapf says:

            John,

            I agree with your last statement. but wouldnt it also be true that if LBJ had a suspicion or did not know for sure, he still would have wanted to tampen down speculation or talk to make sure that pressure for retailation would reach critical mass. I would go as far as to say that even if the president was killed by a communist conspiracy (which I dont believe) that would not be sufficient grounds to start a war (Unless of course you are GW Bush). The death of one man cannot justify condemning 40 million people to death.

          • Agreed that Johnson was a grand manipulator and, I might add, an enormous liar. But you’ve got it mixed up as to what he was doing with Warren. The World War III argument he pulled on Warren was bogus, only Warren didn’t realize that. In succumbing to Johnson’s lies and manipulation, Warren thought he was being a patriot and serving his country by agreeing to serve on a commission that would pin the crime only on Oswald and not let the investigation lead to his supposed coconspirators, the Cubans and Soviets, and, almost certainly, all-out nuclear war.

            To manipulate Warren into violating his principles and his policy, Johnson had to make a persuasive case that the lone nut wasn’t really a lone nut after all but instead was acting in concert with the Soviet Union and Cuba.

            That wouldn’t have been hard to do, given the evidence of shots having been fired from the front—e.g., the blowout in the back of Kennedy’s head, which reflected a frontal shot, the neck wound, which the Dallas physicians had described as a frontal wound, the many witnesses who heard a shot from the front, etc.

            So, LBJ essentially says to Warren: “Look, there is no doubt that Oswald was firing from the back and that others were firing from the front. The only issue is: Who were the others? They had to be the Soviets and Cubans, given Oswald’s communist connections and his recent trip to Mexico City. If the investigation is permitted to lead to them, we’re looking at nuclear war, a war in which some 40 million Americans will be killed. I need you—your country needs you—to prevent this from happening by conducting an official investigation that leads only to Oswald and not beyond.”

            Like most everyone else, Warren had concluded that Oswald was guilty and so pinning the crime on him wouldn’t be difficult. By shutting down the investigation of people beyond Oswald, Warren would be letting the Soviets and Cubans off the hook but, in the process, acceding to his president’s request to save America and the world from all-out nuclear destruction.

            As it turns it, it wasn’t the Cubans and the Soviets who were the ones firing from the front. But in shutting down the investigation on the pretense that it might lead to World War III, the real malefactors were protected from an all-out investigation that could have led to them.

            That’s why the World War III scenario was so ingenious. The fear of nuclear war induced Warren and others to behave in ways they never would have behaved, thereby causing them to involve themselves in a cover-up based on lies, manipulation, and false pretenses, a cover-up that protected the real malefactors from a full-fledged investigation.

          • John McAdams says:

            To manipulate Warren into violating his principles and his policy, Johnson had to make a persuasive case that the lone nut wasn’t really a lone nut after all but instead was acting in concert with the Soviet Union and Cuba.

            No, LBJ only had to assert that some people might think there was a Communist conspiracy, and that would have dangerous implications.

            You are actually assuming a conspiracy in what you assert. Thus you think any attempt to tamp down conspiracy talk is sinister.

            Are you aware that Bill Alexander, in Dallas, prepared an indictment of Oswald charging him with killing Kennedy “in furtherance of a Communist conspiracy.” Official Washington went ballistic at that.

            Then there was the DRE that wss blaming Castro.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley6.htm

            Johnson had good reason to want such talk tamped down. Warren believed an honest investigation could do that.

          • John McAdams says:

            if LBJ had a suspicion or did not know for sure, he still would have wanted to tampen down speculation or talk to make sure that pressure for retaliation would [not] reach critical mass.

            Correct. And that would be morally justified.

            Only if there was strong evidence of a Communist conspiracy would there be any moral dilemma.

            But your final comment plainly shows that even then a “cover up” would be justified.

            Warren would have faced a moral dilemma had there been real evidence of a communist plot.

            But if there was not, he did not (at least that that sort of dilemma).

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        What is your response to Senator Schweiker, Blakey & the Jonanidies revelations – are you going to deny the possibility that they & you & all of us who are trying to find the truth – have been deceived.

        Is that what you are trying to do – find the truth – or have you already decided the truth(as you see it) but ignore primary evidence at the scene, the initial news reports of the shooting – originating from the knoll or right front, discovery of the rifle – check initial news reports (Mauser not Carcano), efforts to save JFK at Parkland & a massive exit wound at the right rear – which have been documented by the vast majority of medical personnel at Parkland & not seen in the autopsy photos & or the Zapruder film.

        You are a fly in the ointment – you at times make those who actually understand & study history & have degees in the study of history – to listen to you – but you lack objectivity – no one really knows what happened 11/22/63 in Dallas (the evidence & films & photos are in question). To believe that there is no chance of more than one shooter – is not being objective when you study ALL of the evidence.

        To state emphatically – that JFK was killed by a sole assassian – Lee Oswald – is as foolish to state the Mob, CIA, LBJ (or whoever did it by themselves) – whoever & whatever group pulled it off was a combination of those groups – most probably associated with the Congress of Freedom – documentation by informers of COF of murder plots of high officials (including JFK ) – is enough to make all of us to do more research.

        • John McAdams says:

          ignore primary evidence at the scene, the initial news reports of the shooting – originating from the knoll or right front, discovery of the rifle – check initial news reports (Mauser not Carcano),

          But we know that the rifle was a Carcano. Tom Alyea photographed it was it was being recovered.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg

          efforts to save JFK at Parkland & a massive exit wound at the right rear – which have been documented by the vast majority of medical personnel at Parkland

          You have been reading highly selected and heroically spun excerpts of testimony in conspiracy books.

          Here are several examples of how one buff (Aguliar) has distorted the record:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#witnesses

          & not seen in the autopsy photos & or the Zapruder film.

          Of course it’s not. It doesn’t exist. It’s a conspiracy factoid.

      • Paul Turner says:

        John, it appears to me that the source for the Lieberman remark to Silvio Odio was given before you asked for it.

        • John McAdams says:

          No, DiEugenio’s books are secondary sources. I don’t trust secondary sources.

          I want a primary source.

          • Dennis Berube says:

            My lord McAdams. I’m having a really hard time believing you could miss the point of what DiEugenio and Jacob said so badly and respond so abstractly.

            “If Johnson believed there was no conspiracy, but that talk of a communist conspiracy was dangerous, trying to defuse it was exactly what he should have been doing.”

            But if LBJ thought there was no conspiracy, all LBJ would have said to Warren is “Look, I want you to conduct the most thorough investigation of all time, call every witness, get every file from every agency, and fully explore all possible Communist leads to make sure there are no rumors left at the end of this.” Because in that scenario he would have no fear of the result being conspiracy.

            It wasn’t “talk” as you put it. LBJ was referring directly to the file of the FBI on Mexico City, which tied Oswald to Cuba and the Soviets. Whether or not LBJ genuinely believed the Communists did it or not is immaterial.

            The point is LBJ forced Warren into squashing any possible lead that hinted at a conspiracy because Warren likely believed it was headed to the Communists and therefore WWIII. This is evident in the 4 points Jim D pointed out earlier about how Warren did not want an investigation of any quality.

            Again, the point isn’t that LBJ believed anything, it’s that he convinced Warren that there was strong indications (through Mexico City) that Oswald was somehow working with Cuba and/or Russia and that millions of Americans would die in the resulting nuclear war if this was to come out.

            Even shorter, Warren purposely conducted a dishonest investigation for what he perceived to be the greater good based on what LBJ said.

          • RJ says:

            If so why do you keep posting links to your website to counter arguments on this message board?

            Following your logic, your links are also secondary sources. Maybe you should forgo your website links and just post primary source links?

          • John McAdams says:

            all LBJ would have said to Warren is “Look, I want you to conduct the most thorough investigation of all time, call every witness, get every file from every agency, and fully explore all possible Communist leads to make sure there are no rumors left at the end of this.”

            But such a bland plea would not have persuaded Warren, who quite reasonably believed that Supreme Court justices should tend to their knitting, and not get involved in other things.

            He remembered Justice Jackson and Nuremberg.

            So Johnson used an overwrought argument to get Warren to do what he wanted.

            All the claims in your post like:

            Warren purposely conducted a dishonest investigation for what he perceived to be the greater good based on what LBJ said.

            . . . are nonsense.

            Warren saw no real evidence of any Communist conspiracy, thus there was nothing to cover up.

          • John McAdams says:

            Following your logic, your links are also secondary sources.

            Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I just recently posted links to two frames of the Alyea film, and that is indeed a primary sources.

            But my links lead directly to essays on my site. There you will see primary sources quoted (often extensively) and often linked to.

            For example:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dulles.htm

            There you can click and see the critical memo (RFK wanted Dulles on the WC) and hear the critical phone conversation (LBJ to Fortas).

            DiEugenio wants us to take his word about what the sources indicate.

          • Dave says:

            Primary source? Well, that would include all those illegally-destroyed government Oswald files; not to mention the 1100+ CIA JFK files still being withheld. Why don’t you usefully direct your academic research efforts towards getting the remaining CIA primary sources released, instead of splitting hairs over whether eyewitnesses are ever reliable, etc.? I mean, c’mon – in the face of all the new information that has been uncovered in the 50 years since the WCR, you choose to remain in a state of historic denial.

          • John McAdams says:

            Why don’t you usefully direct your academic research efforts towards getting the remaining CIA primary sources released, instead of splitting hairs over whether eyewitnesses are ever reliable, etc.?

            If you folks will quit using eyewitness testimony (but only that testimony that you find convenient), I’ll quit telling you it’s unreliable.

            I’m just trying to steer you on the right path. :-)

            P.S. When there is no evidence of conspiracy in the documents released in 2017, what are you going to say then?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            John McAdams September 11, 2014 at 10:28 pm

            “DiEugenio wants us to take his word about what the sources indicate.”

            That has been my limited experience with Mr. DiEugenio. To do so would be a serious mistake.

          • B Kamp says:

            ”When there is no evidence of conspiracy in the documents released in 2017, what are you going to say then?”

            There is already plenty of evidence Professor, these files will answer only a few extra questions!

        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ John McAdams September 12, 2014 at 1:08 pm

          If you folks will quit using eyewitness testimony (but only that testimony that you find convenient), I’ll quit telling you it’s unreliable.

          I’m just trying to steer you on the right path. :-)

          P.S. When there is no evidence of conspiracy in the documents released in 2017, what are you going to say then?

          Professor, I’ve seen you attempt rebuttal with witness testimony, even when they aren’t the best (eg. Bledsoe & Whaley).

          Also, when you show primary sources, sometimes you’re selective.

          In any event, demand for the release of all remaining CIA files on the assassination is not necessarily to confirm conspiracy, but to seek full disclosure and the truth.

          If those files are heavily redacted, we will never know the whole story regardless of their release.

          What if those files show anything that points to a conspiracy?

          What will you do?

  13. One would think that a website such as this would knock off the hamburger mentality of conspiracy theories. Factually, given the layout of Dealey Plaza, the movements of the Agents, Spectators, and others, including the location of James Tague, is EXACTLY what one would expect if suddenly a man opened fire on the President from the 6th floor window. I’d expect people to stop looking at a blow-up images where one has to ‘interpret’ the figure of a man (who couldn’t have possibly been there) etc. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the key to understanding just how the shooting occurred is in finding that spot to the exclusion of all blotches, dots, and blood smears of the HOLE IN KENNEDY’S BACK. Either Kennedy is shot closer/higher to the shoulder than the photos demonstrate OR both Kennedy’s jacket AND shirt had ‘pillowed’ (which I highly doubt). If we had that one simple understanding of where to begin to look at the actual shooting…just a single, definitive, location. We could go forward from there. The WC put that bullet up into JFK’s Trapezius area in drawings and, apparently, the exact location of the wound is not shown in photos taken of his back as JFK’s body was laying on the mortuary table. We have to look at the wound b/c it’s been lifted and turned (thereby altering the actual point of entry in reference to the physical body).

    In any case….One Shooter: LHO. One Location: 6th floor window. Key to Assassination: Where was Oswald going after he killed JFK. It surely wasn’t to the movies.

    • Bob says:

      “Factually, given the layout of Dealey Plaza, the movements of the Agents, Spectators, and others, including the location of James Tague, is EXACTLY what one would expect if suddenly a man opened fire on the President from the 6th floor window.”

      So the movements of the Agents, Spectators, is EXACTLY what one would expect if suddenly a sniper opened fire from where?

      Factually, exactly how are agents and spectators supposed to move when they are fired on? Do they run away or do they run up the hill toward the sniper, as seen in the Z film?

      These people do not run from gunfire, when fired on ,in this FallenUSSoldiers video@5min:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlKacrqOmIw&list=UUtvrV_ifhx0EDhmPPRl7adQ#t=299

      Where was Oswald going after he killed JFK. It surely wasn’t to the movies. Where were the spectators going after the shots rang out? It surely wasn’t to the train station.

    • Dennis Berube says:

      Bill,

      “Where was Oswald going after he killed JFK. It surely wasn’t to the movies.”

      Since this is your “key to the assassination”, please inform us where Oswald was going that proves as a key he was the lone shooter.

      All I can make out are the actions of a confused intelligence asset likely thinking he is going to meet his handler or someone similar.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Dennis. Look, Oswald stated to Capt. Fritz, that after he left the TSBD he said he went home, changed his clothes, and then went to the movies because he assumed there would be no more work that day.

        So, if an ‘innocent’ Lee Harvey Oswald is going to the movies…it stands to reason that he would simply walk straight down Zang…or Simply walk directly down Jefferson. If he were to walk down Jefferson…the distance to the Texas Theater was 5300 feet..so approximately 1 mile.

        If he were to walk across the little triangle in front of the rooming house to Zang it would be 4925 feet. These numbers come from Google Earth btw.

        So, let’s assume that Oswald took either of the two most direct routes to the Texas Theater (where he said he was going to go). He either went down Zang OR Jefferson. We’ll never be able to decide which he did go because of the simple fact that he’s dead. Let’s assume he went down Jefferson: (In my next post)

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Dennis (cont): So…If he went down Jefferson..and zig-zagged his way over to 10th and Patton (site of Tippit Shooting), the most direct route would be 4143 feet. Why would Lee Harvey Oswald DEVIATE 2420 feet (from the spot he leaves Jefferson and zig-zags over to 10th and Patton) from his NORMAL Jefferson to Theater Route?? I mean…that is almost 1/2 mile AWAY from the spot he left as he was walking on Jefferson (let alone to the Texas Theater).

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Dennis (cont): So…If he went down Jefferson..and zig-zagged his way over to 10th and Patton (site of Tippit Shooting), the most direct route would be 4143 feet. Why would Lee Harvey Oswald DEVIATE 2420 feet (from the spot he leaves Jefferson and zig-zags over to 10th and Patton) from his NORMAL Jefferson to Theater Route?? I mean…that is almost 1/2 mile AWAY from the spot he left as he was walking on Jefferson (let alone to the Texas Theater).

        Then…AFTER he kills Tippit, he still has to maneuver the 3335 feet to get over to the Texas Theater!

        What does it prove? Nothing at all in and of itself. Yet, factor in Jack Ruby’s apartment is only 550 yards from the site of the Tippit shooting.

        In the end I feel that Oswald, who was used to walking all over the Oak Cliff Section of Texas (since he had no car) was headed in a very particular direction. One that put him in very close proximity to Jack Ruby’s front door. It also accounts for the actions of J.D. Tippit which, appear to be random and a bit frantic to say the least.

        Oswald actually did say he was going to the movies that day. Yet, for a man who was APPARENTLY NOT A SUSPECT YET, why in the heck would he be going in the opposite direction by more than 2x the distance (site of JD Tippit killing) FROM the place where this innocent man wanted to enjoy a movie. Not only that, but it was a movie that had already begun…and his journey to the EAST off of Jefferson/Zang (you pick) made him even more late.

  14. Paul M says:

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, the key to understanding just how the shooting occurred is in finding that spot to the exclusion of all blotches, dots, and blood smears of the HOLE IN KENNEDY’S BACK

    The back wound is definitively shown in the autopsy photos, and matches up with the holes in the jacket and shirt. The autopsy cover sheet verifies the wound location. And Gerald Ford admitted changing the WC wound description from “back” to “neck”. What else needs to be said?

    • John McAdams says:

      finding that spot to the exclusion of all blotches, dots, and blood smears of the HOLE IN KENNEDY’S BACK

      It’s plainly visible in the autopsy photos:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

      The back wound is definitively shown in the autopsy photos,

      Yes, it’s at T1, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.

      and matches up with the holes in the jacket and shirt. The autopsy cover sheet verifies the wound location.

      Well. . . it says 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process. Close enough for government work. The autopsy also says the bullet bruised the tip of the right lung, but did not penetrate. It says the passage of the bullet was supraclavicular. All consistent with an entry at T1.

      And Gerald Ford admitted changing the WC wound description from “back” to “neck”. What else needs to be said?

      What I say here:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

      • Bill Callahan says:

        John,

        The ‘puncture’ hole in Kennedy’s back is not plainly visible in the photos taken of President Kennedy, nor in the 3 sets of drawings that were prepared by the artists as per Dr. Humes direction. Humes, in later hearing before the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA had trouble identifying them.

        Here is something from Humes own testimony before the Warren Commission on the hole in the ‘neck’ vs. the clothing.

        ‘Mr. SPECTER – Taking 393 at the start, Doctor Humes, will you describe for the record what hole, if any, is observable in the back of that garment which would be at or about the spot you have described as being the point of entry on the President’s back or lower neck.
        Commander HUMES – Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.
        Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.
        Mr. SPECTER – Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?
        Commander HUMES – That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.’

        Humes can not have it both ways in this case. There is adequate photographic evidence to both refute and support the moving ‘bunch’ discussion. However, shirts do not do that. The photo you cited is simply that, a photo of ‘something’. The Jacket and the shirt, each have a corresponding hole that CLEARLY refutes the point that Humes was referring to in his report…but not in his discussion before the Commission.

        Lastly, there still exists the possibility that the bruising of the lung was caused medical professionals treating the president. Don’t forget, when they finally found the back wound 2 HOURS INTO THE AUTOPSY, according to Sibert, they actually pushed a ‘chrome’ probe into the wound and could see it pushing through into the chest cavity (granted, in either case, a bullet shock-wave could have caused the wound. The point being that the chest was inspected and no outlet could be visually seen…despite the probe causing the interior wall to be pushed upward (but not broken).

        I think the 6″ remark, by Humes, from the collar of the jacket, is pretty much the best example of Humes deferring AWAY from his own notes that puts the issue up for discussion. Three ways to not say the same thing: 1. Photo as seen in your referral. 2. Humes 14cm mastoid comment. 3. 6 inches below the collar (Which, after all…is the most SOUTHERN entry point and the one in closest proximity to the holes in shirt, jacket, and FBI Agents own notes.

        :)

      • Bill Callahan says:

        John,

        The ‘puncture’ hole in Kennedy’s back is not plainly visible in the photos taken of President Kennedy, nor in the 3 sets of drawings that were prepared by the artists as per Dr. Humes direction. Humes, in later hearing before the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA had trouble identifying them.

        Here is something from Humes own testimony before the Warren Commission on the hole in the ‘neck’ vs. the clothing.

        ‘Mr. SPECTER – Taking 393 at the start, Doctor Humes, will you describe for the record what hole, if any, is observable in the back of that garment which would be at or about the spot you have described as being the point of entry on the President’s back or lower neck.
        Commander HUMES – Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.
        Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.
        Mr. SPECTER – Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?
        Commander HUMES – That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.’

        • John McAdams says:

          The ‘puncture’ hole in Kennedy’s back is not plainly visible in the photos taken of President Kennedy, nor in the 3 sets of drawings that were prepared by the artists as per Dr. Humes direction.

          You many not be able to identify it, since you have seen only poor Internet copies.

          The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel had first generation prints and camera original color transparencies. That included a stereo pair of the back wound.

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=51

          As for the clothing: multiple photos of the motorcade put the top of Kennedy’s collar about level with the tip of Kennedy’s mastoid process. So that would work out.

          By drawings, do you mean the Rydberg drawings? That one shows the back wound way above the lower location to which the buffs want to move it.

        • John McAdams says:

          The ‘puncture’ hole in Kennedy’s back is not plainly visible in the photos taken of President Kennedy, nor in the 3 sets of drawings that were prepared by the artists as per Dr. Humes direction.

          You many not be able to identify it, since you have seen only poor Internet copies.

          The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel had first generation prints and camera original color transparencies. That included a stereo pair of the back wound.

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=51

          As for the clothing: multiple photos of the motorcade put the top of Kennedy’s collar about level with the tip of Kennedy’s mastoid process. So that would work out.

          By drawings, do you mean the Rydberg drawings? That one shows the back wound way above the lower location to which the buffs want to move it.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Humes can not have it both ways in this case. There is adequate photographic evidence to both refute and support the moving ‘bunch’ discussion. However, shirts do not do that. The photo you cited is simply that, a photo of ‘something’. The Jacket and the shirt, each have a corresponding hole that CLEARLY refutes the point that Humes was referring to in his report…but not in his discussion before the Commission.

        Lastly, there still exists the possibility that the bruising of the lung was caused medical professionals treating the president. Don’t forget, when they finally found the back wound 2 HOURS INTO THE AUTOPSY, according to Sibert, they actually pushed a ‘chrome’ probe into the wound and could see it pushing through into the chest cavity (granted, in either case, a bullet shock-wave could have caused the wound. The point being that the chest was inspected and no outlet could be visually seen…despite the probe causing the interior wall to be pushed upward (but not broken).

        I think the 6″ remark, by Humes, from the collar of the jacket, is pretty much the best example of Humes deferring AWAY from his own notes that puts the issue up for discussion. Three ways to not say the same thing: 1. Photo as seen in your referral. 2. Humes 14cm mastoid comment. 3. 6 inches below the collar (Which, after all…is the most SOUTHERN entry point and the one in closest proximity to the holes in shirt, jacket, and FBI Agents own notes.

        :)

        • John McAdams says:

          The point being that the chest was inspected and no outlet could be visually seen…despite the probe causing the interior wall to be pushed upward (but not broken).

          Are you actually implying that a through-and-through wound can necessarily be probed?

          That’s a buff book factoid.

          Here is what some real experts (the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel) said about the issue:

          (430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation.

          • jeffc says:

            This response is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and serves to underscore Jim DiEugenio’s recently expressed dismay over the Professor’s determined efforts in what amounts to a part-time job defending the Warren Commission on this forum.

            Here, McAdams is parsing a line of debate to create a narrow delineation so he can then smear a supposed “buff book factoid”. The HSCA forensic panel notably soft-pedals a major critique of the autopsy, which has been long expressed by the critics: “It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway.”

            Although he is welcome to his weak argumentation, the exasperation with McAdams’ slippery reasoning (he’ll leap on the difference between probe and dissect here, but elsewhere defend the failure to dissect as the fault of RFK) is that he is impervious to counter-information and uninterested in assuming a more fluid viewpoint. Therefore, he maintains the same arguments over and over again, even when demonstrated as poor, to the point that it all becomes eventually something of a waste of time and effort to engage him.

          • Photon says:

            Jeffc , are you implying that you know more about forensic pathology than the HSCA panel? Why? You obviously have never seen an autopsy, nor a cadaver in Rigor Motis. So what gives you the credentials to credibly criticize the panel’s statement and Dr. McAdams quoting of that statement? What medical school did you attend?
            This “major critique” of the autopsy is from individuals with no real knowledge of pathology or post mortem changes seen in recently deceased individuals. As for Mr. Dieugenio’s complaints about Dr. McAdams, he apparently thinks that it is unfair that Dr. McAdams requests proof from him to back up some frankly outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. As he has repeatedly failed to provide any real evidence to substantiate his claims ( except occasionally referring to his own published unproven allegations) he decision to leave this forum is clear-he can’t prove those claims.

          • John McAdams says:

            This response is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and serves to underscore Jim DiEugenio’s recently expressed dismay over the Professor’s determined efforts in what amounts to a part-time job defending the Warren Commission on this forum.

            Hurts having buff factoids debunked, eh?

            Want to “critique” the autopsy? Feel free.

            But that doesn’t change the fact that the bullet penetrated the torso, and exited the throat.

          • John McAdams says:

            The HSCA forensic panel notably soft-pedals a major critique of the autopsy, which has been long expressed by the critics: “It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway.”

            What is your point here? Is it that, when you see a buff factoid debunked, you want to sashay over to another buff talking point?

            Yes, the back wound should have been dissected.

            The reason it wasn’t was that the autopsy was rushed. It was rushed because of pressure from the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor.

            I’ve never said that RFK particularly was at fault, since I don’t know.

            That the autopsists were pressured is obvious if you read Manchester (who had excellent sources within the Kennedy entourage).

            It’s also obvious if you read the House Select Committee treatment of the issue.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

          • jeffc says:

            “It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway.” This statement does not “debunk” anything. It supports a long-standing critique -actually something more than a critique – that JFK did not receive a regular, or “customary”, autopsy, one of the results of which is five decades later the record remains controversial and incomplete.

            Why would the autopsy doctors not do what was “customary”? McAdams cites anecdotal information to suggest it was the result of “pressure” from the family. Famously, one of the actual doctors instead testified in 1969 that they were “ordered” not to dissect by a senior military officer. How could “pressure” from the family override the compelling need to establish medical-legal facts required for a future trial against a presumed assassin who was in custody?

            The line of reasoning expressed by the WC defenders posits that there was nothing untoward in any of the events surrounding the assassination other than a few “mistakes”, and that the official record is complete and unimpeachable. It is only “conspiracists” and “buffs”, psychologically motivated by irrational suspicion, who have sought to distort the historic record and sow doubt on the honourable findings. However, in the real world, the lone nut canon – from the WC Report to Posner to Bugliosi – has been shown repeatedly to be incomplete, unsupported by the actual evidence, and largely incurious as to numerous “dog that didn’t bark” scenarios such as an autopsy which was not “customary”.

          • Photon says:

            Jeffc’s, is there any forensic pathologist ( aside from Wecht) who has examined the photos and the x-rays and publically disagreed with the conclusions reached by the autopsy team? Despite your supposed knowledge of proper autopsy procedures, even Dr. Rose in Dallas (who would have done the autopsy if Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers hadn’t been able to get the body released) concurred with the findings.
            The point is that the autopsy was complete enough to reach an accurate conclusion according to virtually every real expert in forensic pathology. Unfortunately they didn’t go the extra mile that would have aborted the questions of the conspiracy crowd, although as we have seen with the nonsense of faked autopsy photos and faked radiographs probably nothing could ever convince the true believers.
            I’m still waiting for Jeffc to post some evidence that he has any medical background sufficient for him to comment knowledgeably on this subject. It is quite evident to me that he has never seen an autopsy.

          • John McAdams says:

            McAdams cites anecdotal information to suggest it was the result of “pressure” from the family.

            What you call “anecdotal” is what other people would call “history.”

            That is, first person accounts given to Manchester, and to the HSCA.

            Famously, one of the actual doctors instead testified in 1969 that they were “ordered” not to dissect by a senior military officer.

            Buffs quote Finck selectively, and lacking context.

            Buffs ignore the following:

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

            THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

            THE WITNESS: 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.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm

            Then you have the Blumberg Memo:

            http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=113

            Quoting:

            THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE PRESIDENT’S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the permission was extended to the CHEST.

            So Finck’s understanding is that “the family” wanted the autopsy limited.

            Why do buffs fail to quote that?

            That is consistent with all the other witness testimony. The Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor wanted things wound up quickly.

          • jeffc says:

            Can you produce a direct communication or paper order from the Kennedy family which limits the autopsy? No. There is, however, official paperwork which states that the family places no restriction.
            The idea that procedures necessary as evidence for a future trial of the arrested suspect would not be done – at anyone’s request – is absurd. It serves as an excuse though, and Finck does his best with it. But he was pinned down at the Garrison trial, and his dissembling – the “context” to which you defer – and attempts to change the topic are revealing.

            ” is there any forensic pathologist ( aside from Wecht) who has examined the photos and the x-rays and publically disagreed with the conclusions reached by the autopsy team?”

            Yes. It was called the Clark panel. They moved a wound of entrance in back of JFK’s head up four inches.

            Let it not be forgotten that Humes destroyed both his notes and the “first draft” of the autopsy report, and later lied to a national television audience regarding the autopsy photos and the Rydberg drawings. Trying to pass the JFK autopsy off as a model of procedure and probity is a losing battle in my opinion.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams:

            They why wasn’t the chest dissected?

            Even your quoted Blumberg memo states that “Later, the permission was extended (to examine) to the chest”.

          • John McAdams says:

            Can you produce a direct communication or paper order from the Kennedy family which limits the autopsy? No.

            Why do you think there would be such a paper order? The communication from the 17th floor was oral. And indeed, I don’t think the Kennedy family thought they were limited the autopsy. They simply kept calling down asking (in effect) “when will it be over?”

            But he was pinned down at the Garrison trial, and his dissembling – the “context” to which you defer – and attempts to change the topic are revealing.

            OIC. Buffs leave out important stuff, and when I point out what buffs have omitted you dismiss it as “dissembling.”

            Translation: you will believe what you find convenient, and dismiss as lies stuff you find inconvenient.

            Let it not be forgotten that Humes destroyed both his notes and the “first draft” of the autopsy report,

            No, he destroyed one thing. Under questioning by the ARRB, he seemed to say “notes, preliminary autopsy report, call it what you want.”

            and later lied to a national television audience regarding the autopsy photos and the Rydberg drawings.

            You need to produce evidence of this.

          • jeffc says:

            Let:s be clear: Finck dissembles. He is asked directly why the back wound was not dissected – as is customary – and the question must be put to him numerous times because he will not to answer. If the situation was as simple as you suggest, then Finck would have cited “pressure” from the family as his first answer. He doesn’t.

            The fact remains, there is no direct evidence that the Kennedy family interfered or expressed opinions about the autopsy. The official document in the record clearly says the family has no restrictions. The HSCA report you cite – which attempts to answer why the autopsy was incomplete – relies on uncertain impressions, and offers Admiral Burkley as the transmitter of the supposed family requests. Why did the HSCA not ask Burkley himself and clear this up? As is well known, Burkley contacted the HSCA himself and asked to be called before them. He was not.

            Humes appeared on CBS television’s assassination special in 1967 and told Dan Rather and a national audience that the Rydberg drawings matched exactly the autopsy photos.
            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=596

            An internal CBS memo from that year, citing an employee who spoke to Dr Humes, says: “Humes also said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose — other than stating it was not Robert Kennedy — to not do a complete autopsy.”
            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=A2013EFE5EEA68FFDFC2647BC196D21C?docId=597

          • John McAdams says:

            The fact remains, there is no direct evidence that the Kennedy family interfered or expressed opinions about the autopsy.

            Manchester is direct evidence, and the HSCA interviews are direct evidence.

            And Finck’s testimony is direct evidence.

            But you won’t accept any evidence that’s inconvenient for you.

            The official document in the record clearly says the family has no restrictions.

            They didn’t impose any formal restrictions. They just kept calling down to the autopsy theater and asking “when will this be over.”

            Humes appeared on CBS television’s assassination special in 1967 and told Dan Rather and a national audience that the Rydberg drawings matched exactly the autopsy photos.

            I think you have added “exactly.” Post something that has him saying “exactly.”

            Humes also said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose — other than stating it was not Robert Kennedy — to not do a complete autopsy.

            But Humes was busy with the autopsy, and not talking to RFK.

            Somebody in the autopsy theater (Burkley I would guess) was talking to people on the 17th floor, and (interpreting their wishes for it to be over) rushed the autopsy, and impeded the process.

          • John McAdams says:

            An internal CBS memo from that year, citing an employee who spoke to Dr Humes, says: “Humes also said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose — other than stating it was not Robert Kennedy — to not do a complete autopsy.”
            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=A2013EFE5EEA68FFDFC2647BC196D21C?docId=597

            This memo is a hoot!

            Here is a quicker way to get to it.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=597

            It has Humes saying that he did probe the Single Bullet track all the way through Kennedy’s torso, and that an x-ray was taken with the probe in place.

            Apparently the business about not doing a “complete autopsy” was in the context of “JFK’s kidney disease.”

            I think this has to mean the atrophied adrenal glands. I’ve seen a source (Shenon, I think) who named Burkley as the person who asked Humes not to mention that in the autopsy report.

          • jeffc says:

            “Manchester is direct evidence”
            Manchester was not at Bethesda that night.

            “the HSCA interviews are direct evidence”
            The HSCA cites Siebert and O’Neill as recalling Burkley transmitted wishes for partial autopsy, but Burkley is not interviewed (despite his contacting HSCA and asking to be be deposed). Stringer has “impression” of family pressure. What could be described as direct evidence would have come from Burkley, but he was not interviewed. The HSCA then says this: “The evidence also indicates, however, that these observations do not reflect the total picture and that Dr. Humes ultimately received permission to perform a complete autopsy.”

            Regardless of the family’s wishes – which appears to define a “full autopsy” as a top to bottom post-mortem versus a “partial autopsy” limited to the gunshot wounds – there was a legal and “customary” requirement to dissect the wound but somehow this was not done. A direct order not to do this “customary” procedure, which both Finck and Humes say they were subject to, could be considered an obstruction of justice. It appears the after-the-fact justification for this failure was to blur the family’s opinion on a top-to-bottom “complete autopsy” with procedures concerning the gunshot wounds. It serves as an excuse, but only in a very limited way (i..e. to say to Kennedy family directly prevented “customary” practices is not supported by the evidence). Therefore, McAdams gets out ahead and accuses the “buffs” of cherry-picking.

            McAdams on Humes’ CBS interview: “I think you have added “exactly.” Post something that has him saying “exactly.”

            Okay – but why do I have to do this when the word was right there in front of you?

            Humes: We were trying to be precise…these photographs show very clearly that the wound was EXACTLY where we stated it to be in our testimony before the Warren Commission, and as it is shown in this drawing.

            McAdams on CBS internal memo: “This memo is a hoot!”

            It sure is. It not only has Humes talking about procedures which appear nowhere in the official record, it also confirms that the doctors were under orders that did not originate from the Kennedy family. And on top of that, here we have CBS News sitting on the scoop of the decade – obstruction of justice in autopsy of the President! – to instead have their crack reporter Dan Rather softball a few questions and allow Humes to blatantly lie to him and the national audience.

            Prediction: a month from now, or seven months from now, or whatever, on this forum or another, Professor McAdams will jump all over another poster who suggests the autopsy was less than above-board, and he will use exactly the same arguments and links as above, and he will pretend that any counter-information has never crossed his way.

          • John McAdams says:

            he will pretend that any counter-information has never crossed his way.

            You have completely blown off the counter-information I have given you, and repeated buff talking points.

            So of course I’ll say the same things again. You really have zero evidence that the incomplete autopsy has anything to do with any conspiracy or cover-up.

          • anonymous contributor says:

            Contrary to what John McAdams claims in his September 15 7:39pm post, it is clear that Dr Humes destroyed not only the first draft of his autopsy report but also some of the notes from the autopsy. There’s a good account of this on pages 158 to 166 of Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust, which lists several examples of ‘facts’ in the autopsy report that do not exist in the surviving notes.

            McKnight writes on page 162 that “There are, give or take, about eighty-eight autopsy ‘facts’ in the official prosectors’ report. About sixty-four of these ‘facts’ or pieces of medicolegal information (almost 75 percent) cannot be found in either the published notes or CE 397. Some fifteen of these pieces of information involve measurements and numbers that are not found in the published record.”

            The documents were destroyed after Oswald’s murder had ensured that they would not be examined in court. Humes gave as his reason for burning the documents that they were blood-stained and he did not want them to become ghoulish souvenirs. But this cannot be the real reason. The first draft of the autopsy report was written the day after the autopsy, and would not have been contaminated. Several blood-stained documents survived Humes’s purge.

            The written documents are not the only autopsy materials to have been destroyed for no obviously innocent reason. Several photographs appear to have gone missing (see e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=68612). As everyone knows, the president’s brain, which could be expected to provide evidence of the direction and number of head shots, no longer exists.

            The selective destruction of autopsy materials needs to be placed in context. There is also the deliberate failure to dissect the back and throat wounds; the failure to measure and locate any of the wounds precisely; the failure to photograph any of the wounds clearly; the failure to label those photographs in accordance with accepted procedures; and the choice of inexperienced and subordinate general pathologists to conduct the autopsy despite the availability of many eminently qualified forensic pathologists. Each of these defects had the effect of obfuscating the evidence of President Kennedy’s injuries.

          • John McAdams says:

            @ anonymous contributor

            I’m afraid your post is full of factoids.

            Contrary to what John McAdams claims . . . it is clear that Dr Humes destroyed not only the first draft of his autopsy report but also some of the notes from the autopsy. There’s a good account of this on pages 158 to 166 of Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust, which lists several examples of ‘facts’ in the autopsy report that do not exist in the surviving notes.

            No, the earliest statement from Humes has him destroying “notes.” Under biased questioning by the ARRB, he seemed to be saying “notes, draft, whatever you want to call it.”

            As for the McKnight claim: the point of “notes” is notes. They are an aid to memory. Check the notes from your college classes. They don’t contain everything you heard or remember.

            Several photographs appear to have gone missing

            Only if you believe Augilar’s decades after the fact testimony. The photos we have now match the earliest inventory.

            Also, any missing photos have to be consistent with the authenticated photos we have now. The ones we have show the nature of Kennedy’s wounds. Any missing ones would have to be consistent.

            As everyone knows, the president’s brain, which could be expected to provide evidence of the direction and number of head shots, no longer exists.

            And we know what happened to it.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt

            Why are you citing as mysterious something was was settled 35 years ago?

            The selective destruction of autopsy materials needs to be placed in context.

            You need to explain why “conspiracy” needs to be the context.

            Do you really think that, when things happen that should not, the explanation is always conspiracy?

            Will you ever admit that sometimes people just screw up?

          • jeffc says:

            Before accusing people of presenting “factoids”, would it not serve to be at least familiar with the source material? You have never read McKnight’s book, and have apparently never read numerous well known and highly regarded volumes, despite having apparently endless amounts of time to post ever-weaker responses on this forum and others. No one is trying to convince you of anything because you are not here to “debate” – you are here to propagate a pre-determined viewpoint – but really, it is not 1992 anymore, the scholarship and literature have progressed but you haven’t. Jean Davison at least tries to stay abreast.

            By the way, to say “the photos we have now match the earliest inventory” is way off the mark. There are far more “missing” photos than existing. The 1965 Finck memo, which you brought up, discusses some of these missing photos, and the 1967 CBS memo, which you have recently read, has Humes describing a missing x-ray taken during a procedure which officially did not happen.

          • John McAdams says:

            By the way, to say “the photos we have now match the earliest inventory” is way off the mark.

            No, it’s not.

            I said “inventory,” and you mention one document that supposedly references other photos. But that’s not an “inventory.”

            There are far more “missing” photos than existing. The 1965 Finck memo, which you brought up, discusses some of these missing photos,

            I don’t see any mention there of any photos that aren’t in evidence.

            1967 CBS memo, which you have recently read, has Humes describing a missing x-ray taken during a procedure which officially did not happen.

            Now you are changing he subject to x-rays.

            But the x-ray he describes, the “missing” one, supposedly shows a probe all the way through Kennedy’s torso, showing the track of the bullet was fully revealed.

            Do you believe that?

            You wouldn’t cite as evidence something you know to be bogus, would you?

          • anonymous contributor says:

            I scored a “factoid”! But I’m disappointed that I wasn’t called a “buff”. Doesn’t using “factoids” automatically make me a “buff”? If not, how many “factoids” does it take to qualify as a “buff”?

        • Frank says:

          That the Kennedy family would, or even could, obstruct the autopsy is nonsense right off the top. If a member of my family was gunned down as a political leader, then I would demand the most thorough and customary autopsy on the planet. Dignity be hanged; he’s dead anyway. I want the truth. If the pressure was communicated to the doctors as coming from the family then in all likelihood that was feigned by an intermediary as the most effective means of advancing the agenda of obstruction. If it was in fact the family’s hysterical irrationality, then General Cigar Muncher should have vetoed that civilian sentiment as not in the interest of learning the truth, and therefore not in the national interest. You see, there is no excuse for an incomplete autopsy. It had to be a strategic decision.

          • John McAdams says:

            That the Kennedy family would, or even could, obstruct the autopsy is nonsense right off the top.

            Wrong. There were not intentionally “obstructing” anything. They simply failed to understand the need for a thorough forensic autopsy.

            They wanted to get the body fixed up for an open casket viewing the next day.

          • Frank says:

            “Wrong. There were not intentionally “obstructing” anything. They simply failed to understand the need for a thorough forensic autopsy.”

            A distinction without a difference, and absurd in either case.

          • John McAdams says:

            A distinction without a difference, and absurd in either case.

            So there is no distinction between intentionally messing things up, and messing things up because you don’t really understand the demands of a forensic autopsy?

            And there is no difference between sinister military officers corrupting things, and family and loyal retainers messing things up out of ignorance?

          • Frank says:

            “So there is no distinction between intentionally messing things up, and messing things up because you don’t really understand the demands of a forensic autopsy?”

            It had to be intentional in any case; that’s my point which you are avoiding in your responses. If you have questions as to why it had to be intentional, refer to my earlier posts. Any other explanation is absurd under the circumstances.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ John McAdams

          So Finck’s understanding is that “the family” wanted the autopsy limited.

          That was Finck’s ‘understanding’, but based on who or what?

          (I echo JeffC’s question about a direct communication or paper order from the Kennedy family).

          • John McAdams says:

            That was Finck’s ‘understanding,’ but based on who or what?

            Based on what somebody in the autopsy theater was saying. The best guess is that it was Burkley, who was on the phone to the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor.

            (I echo JeffC’s question about a direct communication or paper order from the Kennedy family).

            Why in the world do you think there had to be a paper order? If you were actually familiar with the primary sources, you would know that they say oral communication with the 17th floor was the issue.

            And apparently nobody on the 17th floor said “limit the autopsy.” They kept asking things like “when will it be over.”

            As for “direct communication:” you should check out Manchester, and the interviews the HSCA did on this.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ McAdams Sep 17/14 at 8:08 pm

            Being impatient is a different matter than a plea to restrict the autopsy to prevent ascertaining the full truth on how the President was shot.

            This is evident in your very own link which you have graciously provided, for which I will quote for the benefit of readers here, with my bold emphasis added:

            … He specifically recalled Dr. Burkley indicating to the doctors that they should not conduct a full autopsy, saying, “* * * (you) shouldn’t do a complete one if (you) don’t have to.”(40)

            (Par. 51) Adm. David Osborne (then captain) stated that at the beginning of the autopsy there was tremendous pressure to perform
            a “quick post” and to leave the hospital. (41)

            (Par. 52) The evidence supports the above recollections. They reflect the general nature of the initial stages of the autopsy:
            somewhat confused at the beginning with discussions concerning the extent and nature of the autopsy to be performed. The
            evidence also indicates, however, that these observations do not reflect the total picture and that Dr. Humes ultimately received
            permission to perform a complete autopsy.

            …McHugh said that on occasions, Kennedy and O’Donnell asked only to speak with
            him.(103) They inquired about the results, why the autopsy was consuming so much time, and the need for speed and efficiency, while still performing the required examinations. (104) McHugh said he forwarded this information to the pathologists, never stating or implying that the doctors should limit the autopsy in any manner, but merely reminding them to work as efficiently and quickly as possible.(105)

          • John McAdams says:

            This is evident in your very own link which you have graciously provided, for which I will quote for the benefit of readers here, with my bold emphasis added:

            Did you even read what you posted? It shows that the autopsists were under huge pressure to finish quickly.

  15. Tim Gratz says:

    The Warren Commission had clear evidence of a conspiracy in the testimony of Dallas Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith re a fake Secret Service agent on the mall. Smith’s testimony and its implications are not even mentioned in the WC Report. It was Wesley liebeler who took Smith’s deposition.

    • John McAdams says:

      Actually, no.

      Apparently, some agent of some kind flashed credentials of some kind at Smith from a distance, and he assumed they were Secret Service credentials.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ssknoll.txt

      • KenS says:

        Re: John McAdams, September 15, 2014 @ 2:08pm

        Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn’t alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
        I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.
        Mr. LIEBELER. Did you accost this man?
        Mr. SMITH. Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.

        From Officer Smith’s testimony; he says it was an SS agent.

        • John McAdams says:

          But he showed the credentials “as soon as he saw me coming.”

          Did Smith manage to sneak up on the man? If not, he only saw the credentials from a distance.

          • KenS says:

            re: John McAdams, September 16, 2014 @ 11:33 am

            Officer Smith very clearly states he recognized the man’s credentials to be those of a Secret Service agent. Obviously the distance was close enough for him to make the i.d. He does not equivocate.

          • Paulf says:

            And herein demonstrates the total futility of paying any attention to McAdams.

            The testimony of the witness — a police officer no less — is that he saw a Secret Service agent, or rather a man who flashed a SS badge. But McAdams, who wasn’t there and has absolutely no reason to doubt other than that he argues with anything that goes against his theory — says, no I know better than the man who was on the scene.

            It is entirely possible that the witness was mistaken, but to flippantly claim that you have better knowledge of what someone else saw is ridiculous.

      • RJ says:

        Your statement is not consistent with Smith’s testimony. This is a speculative statement.

        I can make one just as easily and with more conviction based on the same testimony…Officer Smith stated that the man produced credentials showing that he was a secret service agent. And Smith had seen the SS credentials before, which is why he believed this was the case.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        That’s not what your link ultimately says!

        Officer Joe Smith said the plainclothes agent STATED he was Secret Service (per the HSCA).

        As for military intelligence agents in the area, Lancer debunks that suggestion with this well-researched article, that James Powell had his camera with him, and Officer Smith does NOT mention anything of the sort:

        http://jfklancer.com/knollagent/index.html

        • John McAdams says:

          Officer Joe Smith said the plainclothes agent STATED he was Secret Service (per the HSCA).

          That’s not what he told the Warren Commission. In fact, the HSCA wrongly cited the Warren Commission for “stated.”

          On Smith, the HSCA cited the WC version, and an HSCA document that I don’t have, and isn’t on Mary Ferrell.

          But the HSCA reported that “Smith indicated that he did not examine these credentials closely.”

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=214

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Professor,

            Smith’s WC testimony was that the unknown person on the knoll SHOWED him he was a SSA.

            If he didn’t get a good look at his credentials, as you also acknowledge, then obviously Smith meant that he was TOLD.

            This interpretation was apparent to the HSCA, which is why they said ‘stated’.

          • John McAdams says:

            Smith’s WC testimony was that the unknown person on the knoll SHOWED him he was a SSA.

            If he didn’t get a good look at his credentials, as you also acknowledge, then obviously Smith meant that he was TOLD.

            No, he more likely assumed.

            Read the HSCA, will ya.

            Several people saw men they thought were Secret Service, but were not.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Read the HSCA, will ya.

            I did but you don’t accept what they report!

            Bottom line, you’re suggesting that some plainclothes agent flashed credentials and uttered not a word while Officer Smith was pointing his service revolver at him.

            Puh-lease Professor.

            Michael Hogan’s post further clarifies this issue.

            The problem with the WC is that they didn’t probe like they should have (even the HSCA acknowledges this).

            Also, just because a DP witness years later, is pressed for more details by an investigative journalist, doesn’t mean he or she has changed their story.

      • Michael Hogan says:

        John McAdams wrote:

        Apparently, some agent of some kind flashed credentials of some kind at Smith from a distance, and he assumed they were Secret Service credentials.

        From a distance? Apparently the encounter was close enough for Officer Smith to notice the man’s fingernails. As he told Anthony Summers:

        “He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic’s hands. And afterwards it didn’t ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn’t snap on it.”

        Some agent of some kind flashed credentials of some kind?

        Officer Smith told Anthony Summers:

        “The man, this character, produces credentials from his hip pocket which showed him to be Secret Service. I have seen those credentials before, and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.”

        • John McAdams says:

          But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic’s hands. And afterwards it didn’t ring true for the Secret Service.

          But it doesn’t ring true for somebody impersonating Secret Service either.

          “The man, this character, produces credentials from his hip pocket which showed him to be Secret Service. I have seen those credentials before, and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.”

          Is he changing his story?

          His WC testimony makes it clear that the fellow flashed credentials from a distance.

          And the HSCA reported that “Smith indicated that he did not examine these credentials closely.”

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=214

          So the later version has him examining the credentials closely?

          • RJ says:

            John, you’re wavering now to cover up your initial speculative statement. You have no basis of proof to say what kind of distance Smith was from the individual showing SS credentials. You do have, in the WC testimony, a firm declarative statement from Smith that these were SS credentials.

            And I quote from your own posting: “I have seen these credentials before, and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.”

            He was close enough to see, analyze, and recognize the SS credentials.

            I would add — and yes this is informed speculation by me that I’ll actually admit as such — that, as a trained law enforcement officer, it is consistent that Smith would notice other attributes about this individual that were mentally noted but not actively analyzed once he saw the credentials. Before seeing them? Sure, he would be viewed as a suspect and looked over with scrutiny for several reasons, probably first and foremost for any presence of a weapon. But it would seem that Smith was focused on finding the assassin he believed to be somewhere in the area behind the fence, and a SS agent wouldn’t be an assassin. It’s only later on, when he was informed that there were no official SS agents stationed at DP at that time, that he would think hard about his initial observations of this man, and those details would become fresher in his mind.

            Speculation? Yes. But I think it’s quite plausible. I’d like to see you admit to your speculative statements on this site instead of projecting them as statements of fact, which they quite often are not.

      • Mball says:

        “Apparently, some agent of some kind flashed credentials of some kind at Smith…” Pure speculation. Smith mentioned the Secret Service agent in his deposition to Wesley Liebeler, but Liebeler slid right past it. Smith said that the man was a Secret Service agent. In interviews with author Anthony Summers, Smith said that “I have seen those credentials before, and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.” Smith further told Summers that the man he encountered was not very clean cut, more like “an auto mechanic” in sports shirt and pants, but with dirty fingernails. He was in a hurry and admits that he didn’t pay that much attention to it at the time. No one has come forward to admit being that man and clear the mystery up. The HSCA couldn’t resolve the issue, although they tried.

  16. Bob says:

    Bill Callahan: “Factually, the movements of the Agents, Spectators, and others, including the location of James Tague, is EXACTLY what one would expect if suddenly a man opened fire on the President from the 6th floor window.”

    EXACTLY how are agents and spectators supposed to move when they are fired on? Do they run away or do they run up the hill toward the sniper, as seen in the Z film?

    These Miami spectators run toward the shooter:

    “At that moment five shots rang out. Some described the noise as that of a motorcycle backfiring. In all count, there were a total of five shots that were fired.

    Immediately there was a fury of bodies charging to the area where the gun shots erupted. It didn’t take very long, but several people had pinned Zangara to the ground. Some in the crowd began chanting the sentiment of a typical lynch mob. By the time Zangara was completely subdued, he had lost his much of his clothes, was handcuffed and then taken to the Miami Police Station for booking. Zangara was transported to the jail tied to a trunk rack on one of the cars in the president’s procession.”

    http://miami-history.com/attempted-assassination-of-fdr-in-bayfront-park/

  17. Bill Callahan says:

    Bob: “These Miami spectators run toward the shooter”.

    Zangara was surrounded by spectators, literally surrounded when he attempted to kill FDR. He was standing on a chair, people saw the weapon come up..and some tried to grab his arm.

    Sirhan. Was surrounded by spectators, literally surrounded when he killed RFK. He was grabbed by bystanders.

    Hickley. Was surrounded by spectators, literally surrounded when he shot RR. He was grabbed by Agents.

    Bremmer. Was surrounded by spectators, literally surrounded when he shot GW. He was grabbed by bystanders.

    Moore. Was surrounded by spectators, litter all surrounded when she shot at Ford. She was grabbed by bystanders.

    The difference between all those other events and JFK Assassination: In the echo chamber that Dealey Plaza is only a few, who were not near ‘bounce-back’ areas (walls, buildings, pergolas, etc, had any clue) had any clear of where the shots had come from.

    The Agents are seen looking upward and rear-word in the Altgens Photo. In fact, the Robert Hughes film shows a shape moving in that window as the car moves just below it one Elm Street. I think the best evidence of this is shown in the Elsie Dorman Movie, taken from inside the TSBD (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKc5zb3N-Mw)

    In the very end of that film, at literally the moment of the first shot begins, you can see a gentleman who was walking away from the parade suddenly darts his head upward as the first shot rings out (she stated she stopped at the sound of the first shot).

    Anyway….that people grab a shooter is based on them knowing where the shooter is AND THEIR OWN FLIGHT OR FIGHT INSTINCT. In the cases I cited….they were at risk. I’d like to read your response to Dorman’s film. Thanks.

    • Pat Speer says:

      Watch Dorman’s film again. She may have stopped–momentarily–after hearing the first shot, but she continued filming for some time afterward…long enough to capture the press car and even McClain turning the corner.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      @ Bill,

      Can you indicate at what time point that gent looks upward.

      It’s an interesting view point. Wish it can be slowed down.

      I did notice Willis’ daughter running on the north side of Elm trying to keep up with the motorcade.

      There might be other interesting observations upon further study.

      (If there was a Go Back In Time wish granted by a genie, this would be one of them, and I’d be armed with any modern camcorder).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more