Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 4, 2018 10:54:15 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
www.americanussr.com/images/lee-harvey-oswald.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T answer.
***********************************
Let’s finish up a question I covered earlier with a new question about it.
1) How did Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) earn a Texas unemployment check for a time he was NOT in Texas per the WC?
This question goes back to the question regarding LHO’s visit to the Paines’ on 10/31/63 when LHO, or someone acting like him, cashed a check at the A&P. This check was for Texas unemployment and it was dated 10/1/63 per the person who cashed it. (The details can be found in “Statements That Sink The WC’s Conclusion--#97 & CE-1165) Georgia Tarrants was the cashier who checked his ID and cashed the check for $33.00.
The problem is this—the WC said LHO was in MEXICO CITY during this time (until 10/3/63) so was he collecting an unemployment check when he was NOT in state and looking for work? Also, why would a man who was short on money wait nearly a month to cash said check?
Can any WC defender explain this for me?
2) Who was the person who visited the Atomic Energy Museum on July 26, 1963?
Ironically, or NOT so ironically, this is the same place the paraffin tests would be conducted after the assassination to determine if LHO had used a rifle and a pistol on 11/22/63. The “visitor” wrote the following in the visitor’s log:
Quote on
Lee H. Oswald, USSR, Dallas Road, Dallas, Texas. (Dick Russell, ”The Man Who Knew Too Much”, p. 361; Commission Document 897, p. 5)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=5
Quote off
Could this be anymore indicting? It mentions the USSR in it. There is NO Dallas “Road” so, what was the meaning of this? Also, LHO was NOT living in Dallas in July 1963 even IF it was him who went there (something the WC never showed happened) so, why would he write that IF he went? It would seem once again an imposter was at work and was trying to leave a trail that would be remembered as well as lead to LHO’s front door.
3) What did Reporter Seth Kantor mean by this?
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0195a.jpg
- Shot twice in the head
- Poss[ibility] of Commie plot
- [LHO] questioned by FBI in recent days
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0195a.htm
Quote off
This is from Kantor’s OWN notebook. Who was shot “twice in the head?” I mean, many researchers have come to the conclusion John F. Kennedy (JFK) was, but the WC always maintained he was shot just ONCE in the head. Ditto Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). So who was shot twice in the head then?
The initial charges that were going to be filed, until President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) called and nixed it, was a Communist plot had killed JFK and LHO was PART OF IT. It seems Kantor got the SAME information as he wrote down it was possibly a “Commie” plot.
The irony here is that DA Wade said this before the WC:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support such a complaint of a conspiracy?
Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was.
I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me.
I was told this. I have never seen any of that personally.
Even Wade said he had NO evidence showing LHO was a Communist so who was Kantor hearing may have been involved that WERE A COMMUNIST? Also, what does he mean by he didn't know "what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was?" Shouldn't this be STANDARD stuff for a District Attorney?
Finally, who were the "FBI Agents questioning LHO in the recent days" before the assassination? I sure would love to know who they were and why they were talking to a "loner malcontent!"
4) Why did “Texas Law” apply to LHO’s dead body, but NOT President John F. Kennedy's (JFK)?
Remember, the murder of a president in 1963 was a LOCAL crime, thus, the local area had jurisdiction for the crime and body. We see this point illustrated in LHO’s mother’s testimony before the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. And then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. Then Mr. Perry, the doctor, came down. We were escorted into a room. And he came in. He said, "Now, you know the Texas law is that we have to have an autopsy on a body."
I said, "Yes, I understand."
And Marina understood.
So everyone was okay with ENFORCING THE LAW WITH LHO’s body, but NOT JFK’s body. How come? In the eyes of the law every body is supposed to be treated the same otherwise you lose CHAIN OF CUSTODY for the evidence. That is what happened with JFK’s body.
5) Why did Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin refer to wounds that were listed in the DRAFT copy of the autopsy, but NOT in the FINAL copy in a WC Executive Session memorandum dated 1/27/64?
This is from the transcript of that session and Rankin said this in it:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0069a.gif
"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the PICTURE of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered BELOW THE SHOULDER BLADE TO THE RIGHT OF THE BACKBONE, which is below the place where the PICTURE shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy DIDN'T STRIKE ANY BONE AT ALL..." (Emphasis mine) (Weisberg 1975, p.307; WC Executive Session 1/27/64, p. 193)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm
Quote off
This one paragraph raises so many legitimate questions. First of all, the main point that he was referring to was that wounds were listed in a DRAFT copy of the autopsy report that are NOT in the official version describing the wounds sustained by JFK. The final version of the report, after LHO's death, did NOT list these kinds of wounds, so why was Rankin mentioning the old copy and NOT the final one? This is what Horne from the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) wanted to know as Humes always said he had a consistent report from the night of the autopsy to the final copy. This proves he did NOT have a consistent report, that he willingly changed the wounds after the death of LHO.
The ARRB had this question for him.
Q. Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1 in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
A. Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
Q. Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
A. I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
Q. Do you see any inconsistency at all between destroying some handwritten notes that contained blood on them but preserving other handwritten notes that also had blood on them?
A. Well, only that the others were of my own making. I didn't--wouldn't have the habit of destroying something someone else prepared. That's the only difference that I can conceive of. I don't know where these went. I don't know if they went back to J or where they went. I have no idea. I certainly didn't keep them. I kept nothing, as a matter of fact.
This is a great question and shows the ridiculousness of Humes’ excuse for allegedly destroying his draft copy of the autopsy after LHO was dead. I’m sure getting some blood on these documents is quite NORMAL given the circumstances, so, do Medical Examiners take the time to ‘burn’ notes all the time for this reason? Obviously, Boswell did NOT.
Humes certainly wasn’t sure of what was burned.
Q. I'd like to show you the testimony that you offered before the Warren Commission. This is in Exhibit 11 to this deposition. I'd like you to take a look at pages 372 to the top of 373, and then I'll ask you a question.
A. All right.
Q. I'll read that into that record while you're reading it yourself. Mr. Specter asked the question: "And what do those consist of?" The question is referring to some notes. "Answer: In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24, I made a draft of this report, which I later revised and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room."
Do you see Mr. Specter's question and your answer?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help refresh your recollection of what was burned in your home?
A. Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as Exhibit--whatever it is.
Q. My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of the report that was burned or whether it was—
A. I think it was—
Q. --handwritten notes—
A. It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
Q. Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being the equivalent of draft of the report?
A. I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else to remain, period. This business, I don't know when J got that back or what.
He seem very defensive here, doesn’t he? IF he did NOTHING wrong, why is he so defensive. Also, who considers handwritten notes and a DRAFT COPY OF A REPORT to be the SAME thing? Don’t you use your notes to make your DRAFT REPORT? I would think so, but Humes doesn’t here, but quickly says he did do this!
Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –
Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.
Q. Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?
A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.
Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?
A. Right.
So he did BURN THE NOTES AND THE DRAFT COPY OF THE REPORT (perhaps it was the final copy UNTIL LHO was gunned down?) after just saying it was “hair- splitting” to say this!
What did he mean by his comment “I didn’t want anything else to REMAIN?” This is a curious thing to say when discussing medico-legal documents.
Next we come to the pictures. Why is Rankin looking at pictures that show wounds that NONE of the photos in the National Archives show? Where are these photos? The official theory says he had a wound at the base of the neck (courtesy of Ford & Specter), yet he is referring to a wound that is reported by all other people who actually saw the body, but the extant photos DO NOT show this wound. Why?
Finally, do the wounds Rankin mention sound like they could connect? We know from people there that at least three probes were done, and photographed, yet none of the extant photos show any probes. Why? He mentions there is no damage to the spine, which is virtually impossible if a bullet transited through the neck and out into the throat. This is confirmed by the autopsy report he read, but why does the official and final one NOT say this? The other thing of importance here is that all the sources, death certificate; autopsy report; etc...say the cause of death was the result of being shot with a HIGH-VELOCITY bullet. The M-C was never a high-velocity rifle, so how does this occur?
Can any WC defender answer these questions in a non-conspiratorial way? If not, the WC will have more claims shown to be incorrect and their conclusion is sunk again.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
www.americanussr.com/images/lee-harvey-oswald.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T answer.
***********************************
Let’s finish up a question I covered earlier with a new question about it.
1) How did Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) earn a Texas unemployment check for a time he was NOT in Texas per the WC?
This question goes back to the question regarding LHO’s visit to the Paines’ on 10/31/63 when LHO, or someone acting like him, cashed a check at the A&P. This check was for Texas unemployment and it was dated 10/1/63 per the person who cashed it. (The details can be found in “Statements That Sink The WC’s Conclusion--#97 & CE-1165) Georgia Tarrants was the cashier who checked his ID and cashed the check for $33.00.
The problem is this—the WC said LHO was in MEXICO CITY during this time (until 10/3/63) so was he collecting an unemployment check when he was NOT in state and looking for work? Also, why would a man who was short on money wait nearly a month to cash said check?
Can any WC defender explain this for me?
2) Who was the person who visited the Atomic Energy Museum on July 26, 1963?
Ironically, or NOT so ironically, this is the same place the paraffin tests would be conducted after the assassination to determine if LHO had used a rifle and a pistol on 11/22/63. The “visitor” wrote the following in the visitor’s log:
Quote on
Lee H. Oswald, USSR, Dallas Road, Dallas, Texas. (Dick Russell, ”The Man Who Knew Too Much”, p. 361; Commission Document 897, p. 5)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=5
Quote off
Could this be anymore indicting? It mentions the USSR in it. There is NO Dallas “Road” so, what was the meaning of this? Also, LHO was NOT living in Dallas in July 1963 even IF it was him who went there (something the WC never showed happened) so, why would he write that IF he went? It would seem once again an imposter was at work and was trying to leave a trail that would be remembered as well as lead to LHO’s front door.
3) What did Reporter Seth Kantor mean by this?
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0195a.jpg
- Shot twice in the head
- Poss[ibility] of Commie plot
- [LHO] questioned by FBI in recent days
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0195a.htm
Quote off
This is from Kantor’s OWN notebook. Who was shot “twice in the head?” I mean, many researchers have come to the conclusion John F. Kennedy (JFK) was, but the WC always maintained he was shot just ONCE in the head. Ditto Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). So who was shot twice in the head then?
The initial charges that were going to be filed, until President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) called and nixed it, was a Communist plot had killed JFK and LHO was PART OF IT. It seems Kantor got the SAME information as he wrote down it was possibly a “Commie” plot.
The irony here is that DA Wade said this before the WC:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support such a complaint of a conspiracy?
Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was.
I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me.
I was told this. I have never seen any of that personally.
Even Wade said he had NO evidence showing LHO was a Communist so who was Kantor hearing may have been involved that WERE A COMMUNIST? Also, what does he mean by he didn't know "what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was?" Shouldn't this be STANDARD stuff for a District Attorney?
Finally, who were the "FBI Agents questioning LHO in the recent days" before the assassination? I sure would love to know who they were and why they were talking to a "loner malcontent!"
4) Why did “Texas Law” apply to LHO’s dead body, but NOT President John F. Kennedy's (JFK)?
Remember, the murder of a president in 1963 was a LOCAL crime, thus, the local area had jurisdiction for the crime and body. We see this point illustrated in LHO’s mother’s testimony before the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. And then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. Then Mr. Perry, the doctor, came down. We were escorted into a room. And he came in. He said, "Now, you know the Texas law is that we have to have an autopsy on a body."
I said, "Yes, I understand."
And Marina understood.
So everyone was okay with ENFORCING THE LAW WITH LHO’s body, but NOT JFK’s body. How come? In the eyes of the law every body is supposed to be treated the same otherwise you lose CHAIN OF CUSTODY for the evidence. That is what happened with JFK’s body.
5) Why did Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin refer to wounds that were listed in the DRAFT copy of the autopsy, but NOT in the FINAL copy in a WC Executive Session memorandum dated 1/27/64?
This is from the transcript of that session and Rankin said this in it:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0069a.gif
"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the PICTURE of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered BELOW THE SHOULDER BLADE TO THE RIGHT OF THE BACKBONE, which is below the place where the PICTURE shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy DIDN'T STRIKE ANY BONE AT ALL..." (Emphasis mine) (Weisberg 1975, p.307; WC Executive Session 1/27/64, p. 193)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm
Quote off
This one paragraph raises so many legitimate questions. First of all, the main point that he was referring to was that wounds were listed in a DRAFT copy of the autopsy report that are NOT in the official version describing the wounds sustained by JFK. The final version of the report, after LHO's death, did NOT list these kinds of wounds, so why was Rankin mentioning the old copy and NOT the final one? This is what Horne from the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) wanted to know as Humes always said he had a consistent report from the night of the autopsy to the final copy. This proves he did NOT have a consistent report, that he willingly changed the wounds after the death of LHO.
The ARRB had this question for him.
Q. Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1 in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
A. Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
Q. Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
A. I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
Q. Do you see any inconsistency at all between destroying some handwritten notes that contained blood on them but preserving other handwritten notes that also had blood on them?
A. Well, only that the others were of my own making. I didn't--wouldn't have the habit of destroying something someone else prepared. That's the only difference that I can conceive of. I don't know where these went. I don't know if they went back to J or where they went. I have no idea. I certainly didn't keep them. I kept nothing, as a matter of fact.
This is a great question and shows the ridiculousness of Humes’ excuse for allegedly destroying his draft copy of the autopsy after LHO was dead. I’m sure getting some blood on these documents is quite NORMAL given the circumstances, so, do Medical Examiners take the time to ‘burn’ notes all the time for this reason? Obviously, Boswell did NOT.
Humes certainly wasn’t sure of what was burned.
Q. I'd like to show you the testimony that you offered before the Warren Commission. This is in Exhibit 11 to this deposition. I'd like you to take a look at pages 372 to the top of 373, and then I'll ask you a question.
A. All right.
Q. I'll read that into that record while you're reading it yourself. Mr. Specter asked the question: "And what do those consist of?" The question is referring to some notes. "Answer: In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24, I made a draft of this report, which I later revised and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room."
Do you see Mr. Specter's question and your answer?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help refresh your recollection of what was burned in your home?
A. Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as Exhibit--whatever it is.
Q. My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of the report that was burned or whether it was—
A. I think it was—
Q. --handwritten notes—
A. It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
Q. Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being the equivalent of draft of the report?
A. I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else to remain, period. This business, I don't know when J got that back or what.
He seem very defensive here, doesn’t he? IF he did NOTHING wrong, why is he so defensive. Also, who considers handwritten notes and a DRAFT COPY OF A REPORT to be the SAME thing? Don’t you use your notes to make your DRAFT REPORT? I would think so, but Humes doesn’t here, but quickly says he did do this!
Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –
Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.
Q. Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?
A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.
Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?
A. Right.
So he did BURN THE NOTES AND THE DRAFT COPY OF THE REPORT (perhaps it was the final copy UNTIL LHO was gunned down?) after just saying it was “hair- splitting” to say this!
What did he mean by his comment “I didn’t want anything else to REMAIN?” This is a curious thing to say when discussing medico-legal documents.
Next we come to the pictures. Why is Rankin looking at pictures that show wounds that NONE of the photos in the National Archives show? Where are these photos? The official theory says he had a wound at the base of the neck (courtesy of Ford & Specter), yet he is referring to a wound that is reported by all other people who actually saw the body, but the extant photos DO NOT show this wound. Why?
Finally, do the wounds Rankin mention sound like they could connect? We know from people there that at least three probes were done, and photographed, yet none of the extant photos show any probes. Why? He mentions there is no damage to the spine, which is virtually impossible if a bullet transited through the neck and out into the throat. This is confirmed by the autopsy report he read, but why does the official and final one NOT say this? The other thing of importance here is that all the sources, death certificate; autopsy report; etc...say the cause of death was the result of being shot with a HIGH-VELOCITY bullet. The M-C was never a high-velocity rifle, so how does this occur?
Can any WC defender answer these questions in a non-conspiratorial way? If not, the WC will have more claims shown to be incorrect and their conclusion is sunk again.