Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 7, 2022 20:16:07 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
The Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) was setup as a result of the movie "JFK" by Oliver Stone due to the questions it raised. The ARRB's primary focus was on the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the documents surrounding the assassination itself. The ARRB spent much of their time either interviewing people directly who were present at the autopsy or using previous interviews of these individuals (primarily by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)). This post will look at one such person who was at the autopsy in the role of a photographer.
John T. Stringer took photographs of the body of JFK and he tells the ARRB that he was there and told not to discuss what he saw and heard with any one.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0003a.gif
Q: Mr. Stringer, were you present at any time during the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: What was your role generally at the autopsy?
A: I took photographs of the body.
--------------------------------------------------
Q: Were you ever previously under any kind of order or restraint from being able to talk about the autopsy?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Can you explain, very briefly, what the nature of the order was or the circumstances that put you under the order?
A: Well, I think it was the morning after the autopsy. We were gathered into the commanding officer's office of the Naval Medical School, who through the fear of God and everyone - and he had a paper that we all had to sign that we would not
talk to anyone about what had happened on that particular night.
Q: Do you remember the name of the person who gave you the order?
A: John Stover. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer, pp. 5-6)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=5
Why would an order of silence be needed IF the body of JFK reflected the wounds that would later be claimed? To me, the only reason for an order like this (and others were given similar orders) is because the body did NOT match what would later be claimed by the Warren Commission (WC). For the record -- Stringer was never called by the WC. Why?
Stringer would also tell the ARRB that he was the director and that he taught medical photography classes to students at Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) while he was stationed there.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0004a.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0005a.gif
Q: As of 1949, did the Navy have any photography school - medical photography schools, other than at the Bethesda Naval Medical School?
A: No, they did not.
Q: So, then, you were the director of medical photography at the only -
A: Yes.
Q: - facility that the Navy had for teaching medical photography?
A: That's correct.
Q: Did you, yourself, teach photography?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did you teach photography?
A: Well, from the time I was there till the time I retired.
Q: When did you retire?
A: In `74. In February of `74. We also had chiefs there that were also teaching. I was the director of them.
Q: Do you have - or could you give me a rough estimate of how many students you taught during the time you were at Bethesda?
A: There was an average of four every six months, and sometimes there were seven. So, you go with that by about 30 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Would it be fair to say, then, that you had a significant amount of experience in autopsy photography as of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know if anyone in the Navy who had more experience with autopsy photography than you did, as of 1963?
A: Not as far as I can know. (Ibid. pp.18-19, p. 21)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0004b.htm
This information shows that Stringer had a lot of experience in medical photography. This is important when discussing the autopsy of JFK. Stringer was also recognized by BMH as he received a number of commendations (ARRB MD 90, MD 91) for his outstanding work in photography.
It appears that Stringer was interviewed by the HSCA on August 12, 1977, by telephone despite him not recalling it. Stringer told the HSCA that all the photographs that he took were given to the Secret Service (SS) after they signed for them. He never saw them after they were developed. (AARB MD 19, HSCA telephone interview of John Stringer, p. 11)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/pages/Image10.gif
In 1966 Stringer was allowed to see the autopsy photographs in the National Archives (NA). He told the HSCA that all the photographs that he had taken were NOT present. (Ibid.) Before the ARRB he said that he did not remember this trip to the NA at all. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer pp. 54-55)
How do we balance these two statements? Why would the HSCA say he went to the NA to view the autopsy photographs if he did not? According to the HSCA, Stringer also told them in 1977 that he took photographs of JFK's chest, but there are no such photographs of this area today. Again, how do we balance this? He further said that he took photographs of JFK's brain and gave them to Dr. James Humes with no receipt. What happened to these photographs?
Stringer is a very confused witness as he said he had no contact with the HSCA, but the ARRB produced MD 19. He continued to say that he did not talk with them. Then the ARRB produced MD 80 which was a letter that Stringer sent to the HSCA.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md80/pages/md80_0001a.gif
Stringer said that he couldn't remember if he took black and white photographs, but MD 80 made him tell the ARRB that he probably did.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0008a.gif
Q: In Exhibit 19, there are a couple of references, which I have recorded as being on pages 11 to 12 and 16, that state that you did not take color photographs - excuse me - you did not take black and white photographs at the autopsy. Are those statements correct or incorrect?
A: Well, I don't know whether I did or not, but I think I did when I see all this.
Q: You think that you did -
A: Took some black and white.
Q. When you say "see all of this", what are you referring to?
A: Well, seeing what was said back in those days.
Q: You're referring to Exhibit 19?
A: Well, I am referring to some of the other things that were said that there were black and whites taken. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer, pp. 64-65)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=15
He seems confused to me. I find it hard to believe that the HSCA would say they interviewed him if they didn't. Ditto with the trip to the NA. I would expect more from a man who was the director of medical photography. Did he or did not take black and white photographs?
Stringer would say that he was in the morgue when JFK's body arrived and that it was in a metal casket. He further said that JFK was wrapped in two sheets -- one around the body and one around the head. (Ibid. pp. 66-67) Stinger said that probes were used, but that he took no photographs depicting them in JFK's body. (Ibid., pp. 72-73) Why? Isn't it standard autopsy procedure to take photographs with the probes in the wound tracts? Could it be that they would have shown that the wounds did not connect (i.e. base of neck and throat wounds)? What other reason could there be for this omission?
Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium that you recall?
A: I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
Q: So, when you're referring to the neck, you're referring from behind?
[14] A: From behind. (Ibid., p. 73)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0009a.gif
This statement proves that the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) is false. If the two wounds did NOT connect, and he said they did NOT, then there is no way that the WC's theory can be correct. This all by itself shows more than three shots were fired and that there was a conspiracy. The answer to Stringer's confusion might lie with the someone talking with him about what he saw. The ARRB plays a tape recording of a conversation that he had with researcher David Lifton in 1972 and he clearly says that the wound seen in JFK's head was in the occipital area. This is not what the WC claimed by the way. Even after hearing the recording Stringer still was acting confused and saying he didn't recall saying that when he clearly heard himself saying that on the tape. Was he under pressure to change his previous statements? It seems like it as he told the ARRB that the only wound in the occipital area was one of entry. (Ibid., p. 81) Why the change if he wasn't being pressured?
Other people, Floyd Riebe and Thomas Robinson, saw the body and noted the wound in the occiput region to be one of exit so why was Stringer saying it was one of entry? To me Stringer is a witness who only offers one firm conclusion -- the back and throat wound were not connected so the SBT is not possible. This alone means that the official conclusion is totally incorrect.
Stringer's supposed faulty memory continually only benefited one side -- the official version. He said the wound was in the occipital and it was 5" in 1972, but then altered it to just being an entry wound size in 1996. He didn't remember speaking with the HSCA when he clearly did as he sent them a letter. He initially said that he never went to the archives and then he did go in 1966 with Drs. James Humes and Thorton Boswell.
Furthermore, he told the ARRB that he was the only one taking photographs at the autopsy, but if we go to ARRB MD 232 we see this interesting comment.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md232/pages/md232_0003a.gif
Modonia, when asked, said he did know Robert L. Knudsen, and remembered that he was a White House photographer, and said, "he may have been there that weekend (right after the assassination)." As soon as he said this, however, he said, "take that out of your notes, I shouldn't have said that, I am not sure." (ARRB MD 232, p. 3)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=754#relPageId=3
Quote off
We have seen in a previous post that Robert Knudsen's family has said that he was at the autopsy and was taking photographs. Why would Vincent Modonia feel like he should not have mentioned Knudsen being around the Naval Photographic Center (NPC) that weekend? Why did Knudsen's family say he was at the autopsy? Was he? Was there more than one autopsy? One that showed the real wounds and one that was more sterile as Sandra Spencer would tell the ARRB?
What do you think of John Stringer's statements?
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
The Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) was setup as a result of the movie "JFK" by Oliver Stone due to the questions it raised. The ARRB's primary focus was on the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the documents surrounding the assassination itself. The ARRB spent much of their time either interviewing people directly who were present at the autopsy or using previous interviews of these individuals (primarily by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)). This post will look at one such person who was at the autopsy in the role of a photographer.
John T. Stringer took photographs of the body of JFK and he tells the ARRB that he was there and told not to discuss what he saw and heard with any one.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0003a.gif
Q: Mr. Stringer, were you present at any time during the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: What was your role generally at the autopsy?
A: I took photographs of the body.
--------------------------------------------------
Q: Were you ever previously under any kind of order or restraint from being able to talk about the autopsy?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Can you explain, very briefly, what the nature of the order was or the circumstances that put you under the order?
A: Well, I think it was the morning after the autopsy. We were gathered into the commanding officer's office of the Naval Medical School, who through the fear of God and everyone - and he had a paper that we all had to sign that we would not
talk to anyone about what had happened on that particular night.
Q: Do you remember the name of the person who gave you the order?
A: John Stover. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer, pp. 5-6)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=5
Why would an order of silence be needed IF the body of JFK reflected the wounds that would later be claimed? To me, the only reason for an order like this (and others were given similar orders) is because the body did NOT match what would later be claimed by the Warren Commission (WC). For the record -- Stringer was never called by the WC. Why?
Stringer would also tell the ARRB that he was the director and that he taught medical photography classes to students at Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) while he was stationed there.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0004a.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0005a.gif
Q: As of 1949, did the Navy have any photography school - medical photography schools, other than at the Bethesda Naval Medical School?
A: No, they did not.
Q: So, then, you were the director of medical photography at the only -
A: Yes.
Q: - facility that the Navy had for teaching medical photography?
A: That's correct.
Q: Did you, yourself, teach photography?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did you teach photography?
A: Well, from the time I was there till the time I retired.
Q: When did you retire?
A: In `74. In February of `74. We also had chiefs there that were also teaching. I was the director of them.
Q: Do you have - or could you give me a rough estimate of how many students you taught during the time you were at Bethesda?
A: There was an average of four every six months, and sometimes there were seven. So, you go with that by about 30 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Would it be fair to say, then, that you had a significant amount of experience in autopsy photography as of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know if anyone in the Navy who had more experience with autopsy photography than you did, as of 1963?
A: Not as far as I can know. (Ibid. pp.18-19, p. 21)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0004b.htm
This information shows that Stringer had a lot of experience in medical photography. This is important when discussing the autopsy of JFK. Stringer was also recognized by BMH as he received a number of commendations (ARRB MD 90, MD 91) for his outstanding work in photography.
It appears that Stringer was interviewed by the HSCA on August 12, 1977, by telephone despite him not recalling it. Stringer told the HSCA that all the photographs that he took were given to the Secret Service (SS) after they signed for them. He never saw them after they were developed. (AARB MD 19, HSCA telephone interview of John Stringer, p. 11)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/pages/Image10.gif
In 1966 Stringer was allowed to see the autopsy photographs in the National Archives (NA). He told the HSCA that all the photographs that he had taken were NOT present. (Ibid.) Before the ARRB he said that he did not remember this trip to the NA at all. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer pp. 54-55)
How do we balance these two statements? Why would the HSCA say he went to the NA to view the autopsy photographs if he did not? According to the HSCA, Stringer also told them in 1977 that he took photographs of JFK's chest, but there are no such photographs of this area today. Again, how do we balance this? He further said that he took photographs of JFK's brain and gave them to Dr. James Humes with no receipt. What happened to these photographs?
Stringer is a very confused witness as he said he had no contact with the HSCA, but the ARRB produced MD 19. He continued to say that he did not talk with them. Then the ARRB produced MD 80 which was a letter that Stringer sent to the HSCA.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md80/pages/md80_0001a.gif
Stringer said that he couldn't remember if he took black and white photographs, but MD 80 made him tell the ARRB that he probably did.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0008a.gif
Q: In Exhibit 19, there are a couple of references, which I have recorded as being on pages 11 to 12 and 16, that state that you did not take color photographs - excuse me - you did not take black and white photographs at the autopsy. Are those statements correct or incorrect?
A: Well, I don't know whether I did or not, but I think I did when I see all this.
Q: You think that you did -
A: Took some black and white.
Q. When you say "see all of this", what are you referring to?
A: Well, seeing what was said back in those days.
Q: You're referring to Exhibit 19?
A: Well, I am referring to some of the other things that were said that there were black and whites taken. (ARRB testimony of John T. Stringer, pp. 64-65)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=15
He seems confused to me. I find it hard to believe that the HSCA would say they interviewed him if they didn't. Ditto with the trip to the NA. I would expect more from a man who was the director of medical photography. Did he or did not take black and white photographs?
Stringer would say that he was in the morgue when JFK's body arrived and that it was in a metal casket. He further said that JFK was wrapped in two sheets -- one around the body and one around the head. (Ibid. pp. 66-67) Stinger said that probes were used, but that he took no photographs depicting them in JFK's body. (Ibid., pp. 72-73) Why? Isn't it standard autopsy procedure to take photographs with the probes in the wound tracts? Could it be that they would have shown that the wounds did not connect (i.e. base of neck and throat wounds)? What other reason could there be for this omission?
Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium that you recall?
A: I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
Q: So, when you're referring to the neck, you're referring from behind?
[14] A: From behind. (Ibid., p. 73)
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/pages/Stringer_0009a.gif
This statement proves that the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) is false. If the two wounds did NOT connect, and he said they did NOT, then there is no way that the WC's theory can be correct. This all by itself shows more than three shots were fired and that there was a conspiracy. The answer to Stringer's confusion might lie with the someone talking with him about what he saw. The ARRB plays a tape recording of a conversation that he had with researcher David Lifton in 1972 and he clearly says that the wound seen in JFK's head was in the occipital area. This is not what the WC claimed by the way. Even after hearing the recording Stringer still was acting confused and saying he didn't recall saying that when he clearly heard himself saying that on the tape. Was he under pressure to change his previous statements? It seems like it as he told the ARRB that the only wound in the occipital area was one of entry. (Ibid., p. 81) Why the change if he wasn't being pressured?
Other people, Floyd Riebe and Thomas Robinson, saw the body and noted the wound in the occiput region to be one of exit so why was Stringer saying it was one of entry? To me Stringer is a witness who only offers one firm conclusion -- the back and throat wound were not connected so the SBT is not possible. This alone means that the official conclusion is totally incorrect.
Stringer's supposed faulty memory continually only benefited one side -- the official version. He said the wound was in the occipital and it was 5" in 1972, but then altered it to just being an entry wound size in 1996. He didn't remember speaking with the HSCA when he clearly did as he sent them a letter. He initially said that he never went to the archives and then he did go in 1966 with Drs. James Humes and Thorton Boswell.
Furthermore, he told the ARRB that he was the only one taking photographs at the autopsy, but if we go to ARRB MD 232 we see this interesting comment.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md232/pages/md232_0003a.gif
Modonia, when asked, said he did know Robert L. Knudsen, and remembered that he was a White House photographer, and said, "he may have been there that weekend (right after the assassination)." As soon as he said this, however, he said, "take that out of your notes, I shouldn't have said that, I am not sure." (ARRB MD 232, p. 3)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=754#relPageId=3
Quote off
We have seen in a previous post that Robert Knudsen's family has said that he was at the autopsy and was taking photographs. Why would Vincent Modonia feel like he should not have mentioned Knudsen being around the Naval Photographic Center (NPC) that weekend? Why did Knudsen's family say he was at the autopsy? Was he? Was there more than one autopsy? One that showed the real wounds and one that was more sterile as Sandra Spencer would tell the ARRB?
What do you think of John Stringer's statements?