Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 8, 2022 20:28:27 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wgcu/files/styles/medium/public/201509/sibert_photo.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md188/pages/md188_0001a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) included an interview that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) did with James Sibert on August 25, 1977, in Myers, Florida. Sibert was assigned to the Baltimore FBI office at the time of the assassination. The Baltimore office had jurisdiction for the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) so he was ordered to go there and observe.
Sibert would have an affidavit made of the interview and this would become MD - 46 in the ARRB files. We see an interesting, and perplexing, comment early on.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image1.gif
…Specifically the FBI assumes jurisdiction over violations of certain State laws which are committed on U.S. Government property by civilians. (HSCA 10/24/78 interview of James Sibert; ARRB MD - 46, p. 1)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image1.htm
Quote off
What did he mean by this comment? He cannot be referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) because while murder did violate the State law of Texas it was NOT committed on U.S. Government property. Dealey Plaza (DP) is public property so this option is out.
The other option is BNH itself as it is governing property. What State laws could be, or would be, violated by civilians at BNH on November 22, 1963?
Sibert then makes this curious statement.
Quote on
…Since it was assumed that many dignitaries, members of the news media, and other civilians would be present on arrival of Air Force I, we would be present should any jurisdictional problems arise. (Ibid.)
Quote off
The jurisdictional problems already arose when the Secret Service (SS) illegally seized the body of JFK at Parkland Hospital (PH) since they had NO jurisdiction for the assassination. Is this what he was referring to? Or was it something else?
He then tells us the instructions that he was given by Ed Tully, Agent-In-Charge, of the Baltimore Division which he had received from FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image2.gif
Tully had instructed us to:
1) get in the motel, 2) witness the authority and stay with the body, 3) preserve the chain of custody and take any bullets to the FBI Laboratory.
When the motorcade from the airport arrived at the Navy Hospital…Mr. O'Neill and I helped carry the damaged casket into the autopsy room with some Secret Service agents. (Ibid.; MD - 46, p. 2)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image2.htm
Quote off
What possible chain of the custody could there have been to preserve? Again, the body was illegally seized from the area with the jurisdiction -- Dallas, Texas – so there was NO chain of custody as it was broken already by the SS.
Sibert also mentions that he and Agent Francis O'Neill carried in a damaged casket, but others said that JFK had been in a new bronze casket when he arrived. Which is correct?
Sibert would note three wounds on JFK's body and two of them did agree with the official narrative.
Quote on
I recall three wounds, namely: a large wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull [sic] bone missing…and a third one in the upper back. (Ibid.)
Quote off
This describes two wounds differently from the way the WC did. They said that the head wound was in the right temporal and parietal areas, and that the wound on the posterior of JFK was at the base of the neck. Sibert says that the head wound was located in the upper BACK of the head, and the wound on the posterior was on the upper back. Why is the WC's version so different?
Sibert then gives us more detail about the back wound.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image3.gif
I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed a wound with a finger and Dr. [Pierre] Finck probed it with a metal probe. They concluded that the wound only went in so far and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both Finck and [Dr. James] Humes that there was exit wound of the bullet through the back…Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely. (Ibid., pp. 2-3)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image3.htm
Quote off
This is a killer for the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) as Sibert said no exit wound was found in connection with the back wound! He also said that he was not aware of a telephone call between the autopsy doctors and the PH doctors (Ibid., p.3) so they wouldn't know about the throat wound. More importantly, since the back wound was probed it cannot be argued that the throat wound connected to it as the SBT requires.
The comment about a type of bullet that completely fragments being used also sinks the WC's claim as Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) allegedly used full-metal jacketed bullets that are designed not to fragment. So why would Sibert see this IF the WC was correct?
Quote on
After being developed, the X-rays of the head were being examined in the autopsy room and the X-ray showed many flecks like the Milky Way. Part of the bullet had fragmented or disintegrated and most of the metal fragments were very tiny. (Ibid., p. 4)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image4.htm
Quote off
This “Milky Way" of particles confirms that a fragmentation type bullet was used for JFK's head shot.
Sibert also stated that he didn't recall the throat wound being examined at all (Ibid., p.4), thus, the later claim of the back wound and the throat wound being connected is once again shown to be false.
Sibert mentions that two metal fragments were taken from JFK's head and put into a glass jar (Ibid., p. 5). What ever happened to these fragments? He further stated that the receipts for a “missile” was really for the fragments. He also said all of his original notes were destroyed when the Baltimore FBI office finished the report. Why? (Ibid.)
These statements by Sibert cast serious doubts on the official narrative in quite a few ways. He was a FBI agent and present at the autopsy so his version of events has to be taken seriously.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wgcu/files/styles/medium/public/201509/sibert_photo.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md188/pages/md188_0001a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) included an interview that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) did with James Sibert on August 25, 1977, in Myers, Florida. Sibert was assigned to the Baltimore FBI office at the time of the assassination. The Baltimore office had jurisdiction for the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) so he was ordered to go there and observe.
Sibert would have an affidavit made of the interview and this would become MD - 46 in the ARRB files. We see an interesting, and perplexing, comment early on.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image1.gif
…Specifically the FBI assumes jurisdiction over violations of certain State laws which are committed on U.S. Government property by civilians. (HSCA 10/24/78 interview of James Sibert; ARRB MD - 46, p. 1)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image1.htm
Quote off
What did he mean by this comment? He cannot be referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) because while murder did violate the State law of Texas it was NOT committed on U.S. Government property. Dealey Plaza (DP) is public property so this option is out.
The other option is BNH itself as it is governing property. What State laws could be, or would be, violated by civilians at BNH on November 22, 1963?
Sibert then makes this curious statement.
Quote on
…Since it was assumed that many dignitaries, members of the news media, and other civilians would be present on arrival of Air Force I, we would be present should any jurisdictional problems arise. (Ibid.)
Quote off
The jurisdictional problems already arose when the Secret Service (SS) illegally seized the body of JFK at Parkland Hospital (PH) since they had NO jurisdiction for the assassination. Is this what he was referring to? Or was it something else?
He then tells us the instructions that he was given by Ed Tully, Agent-In-Charge, of the Baltimore Division which he had received from FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image2.gif
Tully had instructed us to:
1) get in the motel, 2) witness the authority and stay with the body, 3) preserve the chain of custody and take any bullets to the FBI Laboratory.
When the motorcade from the airport arrived at the Navy Hospital…Mr. O'Neill and I helped carry the damaged casket into the autopsy room with some Secret Service agents. (Ibid.; MD - 46, p. 2)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image2.htm
Quote off
What possible chain of the custody could there have been to preserve? Again, the body was illegally seized from the area with the jurisdiction -- Dallas, Texas – so there was NO chain of custody as it was broken already by the SS.
Sibert also mentions that he and Agent Francis O'Neill carried in a damaged casket, but others said that JFK had been in a new bronze casket when he arrived. Which is correct?
Sibert would note three wounds on JFK's body and two of them did agree with the official narrative.
Quote on
I recall three wounds, namely: a large wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull [sic] bone missing…and a third one in the upper back. (Ibid.)
Quote off
This describes two wounds differently from the way the WC did. They said that the head wound was in the right temporal and parietal areas, and that the wound on the posterior of JFK was at the base of the neck. Sibert says that the head wound was located in the upper BACK of the head, and the wound on the posterior was on the upper back. Why is the WC's version so different?
Sibert then gives us more detail about the back wound.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/pages/Image3.gif
I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed a wound with a finger and Dr. [Pierre] Finck probed it with a metal probe. They concluded that the wound only went in so far and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both Finck and [Dr. James] Humes that there was exit wound of the bullet through the back…Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely. (Ibid., pp. 2-3)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image3.htm
Quote off
This is a killer for the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) as Sibert said no exit wound was found in connection with the back wound! He also said that he was not aware of a telephone call between the autopsy doctors and the PH doctors (Ibid., p.3) so they wouldn't know about the throat wound. More importantly, since the back wound was probed it cannot be argued that the throat wound connected to it as the SBT requires.
The comment about a type of bullet that completely fragments being used also sinks the WC's claim as Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) allegedly used full-metal jacketed bullets that are designed not to fragment. So why would Sibert see this IF the WC was correct?
Quote on
After being developed, the X-rays of the head were being examined in the autopsy room and the X-ray showed many flecks like the Milky Way. Part of the bullet had fragmented or disintegrated and most of the metal fragments were very tiny. (Ibid., p. 4)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md46/html/Image4.htm
Quote off
This “Milky Way" of particles confirms that a fragmentation type bullet was used for JFK's head shot.
Sibert also stated that he didn't recall the throat wound being examined at all (Ibid., p.4), thus, the later claim of the back wound and the throat wound being connected is once again shown to be false.
Sibert mentions that two metal fragments were taken from JFK's head and put into a glass jar (Ibid., p. 5). What ever happened to these fragments? He further stated that the receipts for a “missile” was really for the fragments. He also said all of his original notes were destroyed when the Baltimore FBI office finished the report. Why? (Ibid.)
These statements by Sibert cast serious doubts on the official narrative in quite a few ways. He was a FBI agent and present at the autopsy so his version of events has to be taken seriously.