Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 7, 2018 14:19:39 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/s1600/warren.jpg
e3.365dm.com/17/10/750x563/skynews-lee-harvey-oswald-john-f-kennedy_4138295.jpg
Governor John Connally's Jacket With The Bullet Hole Nowhere Near The The Chest Area:
whokilledjfk.net/images/catch_8.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T/WON’T answer. So far, their silence is deafening! The WC’s OWN evidence has sunk them repeatedly.
************************************
1) IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) learned of President Kennedy’s (JFK) motorcade route via the newspaper as suggested by the WC, then what newspaper did he learn this from?
This is a key question as LHO was accused of PREMEDITATED murder, but to this day, nearly sixty years later, NO one has shown that LHO knew of the motorcade route and it passing right below the building he worked in. NO one. I have challenged WC defenders over the years and none of them can show me what source told him this.
In fact, one of the most important sources was published in the twenty-six volumes of the WC’s evidence and they had to WIPE out the map that showed the motorcade route! Why? If we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 1365, page 617 we see this:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0324a.jpg
…the WHOLE area where the map of the motorcade is missing from the Friday, November 22, 1963, edition of the Dallas Morning News when it was published by the WC! Surely, the Dallas Morning News did NOT publish their own paper this way. Why did the WC do this? The answer can ONLY lean towards the idea of them NOT telling us the truth, but I will give the WC defenders a chance to answer this question.
Why did the WC cover-up the map of the motorcade when they published this front cover?
2) Why did the WC publish drawings instead of the photographs taken at the autopsy?
Does this make any sense to anyone? Why not use the ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS depicting the wounds seen at the autopsy? Why have someone draw pictures like this instead?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0501a.jpg
And:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
The other point to be made here is NONE of the photographs were admitted into evidence either. Can any WC defender explain this action by the WC?
3) Why would photographs that had been taken to aid Dr. Humes in the autopsy NEVER be shown to him?
We know both color and black & white photographs were taken that showed “significant findings” due to it saying so in the Pathological Examination Report, a.k.a. CE-387, page 382. Here is what it says about the photographs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0503b.jpg
Photography: Black and white and color photographs depicting significant findings are exposed but NOT developed. These photographs were placed in the custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of the U.S. Secret Service, who executed a receipt therefore (attached). (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0503b.htm
Quote off
We know from Humes’ WC testimony that the photographs were NOT shown to him.
Mr. SPECTER - Were the photographs made available then, Dr. Humes, when Exhibit 388 was prepared?
Commander HUMES - No, sir.
This again, is CE-388.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
We see when the most important wound was drawn with Humes (and the others) NOT seeing the photographs of the head area! Why? He would tell us why in his WC testimony.
Representative FORD. May I ask what size are the pictures to which you refer?
Commander HUMES - We exposed both black and white and color negatives, Congressman. They were exposed in the morgue during the examination. They were not developed. The kodachrome negatives when developed would be 405. They were in film carriers or cassettes, as were the black and white. Of course they could be magnified.
Representative FORD. Have those been examined by personnel at Bethesda?
Commander HUMES - No, sir. We exposed these negatives; we turned them over. Here I must ask the counsel again for advice to the Secret Service.
Mr. SPECTER - Yes; it was the Secret Service.
Commander HUMES - They were turned over to the Secret Service in their cassettes unexposed, and I have not seen any of them since. This is the photographs. The X-rays were developed in our X-my department on the spot that evening, because we had to see those right then as part of our examination, but the photographs were made for the record and for other purposes.
Representative FORD. But they had never been actually developed for viewing.
Commander HUMES - I do not know, sir.
So let me get this straight, they took photographs of JFK’s body to assist Humes, and the other prosectors, and then they NEVER HAD THEM DEVELOPED AND NEVER SHOWED THEM TO THE PROSECTORS? What?
Can any WC defender explain this for me? Please?
4) Why would you clean and press EVIDENCE?
Believe it or not this is what happened to Governor John Connally’s (JBC) shirt, jacket and trousers!
Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to determine from your examination of the Governor's clothing whether or not they had been cleaned and pressed prior to the time you saw them?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they had.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that different from or the same as the condition of the President's clothing which you have just described this morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is different in that the President's clothing had not been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed.
Mr. SPECTER - Had the President's clothing been pressed then?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
This means this comment is NOTHING but speculation since he could NOT find copper to prove it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from the rear of the wearer toward his front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
We again are left with BIASED SPECULATION due to the cleaning and pressing.
Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to the cause of the hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from the chest of the Governor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it could.
It could have been from a Civil War musket ball too (a shout out to Ben Holmes and his nonsense) for all we know as he clearly states it is IMPOSSIBLE to know since the shirt had been CLEANED AND PRESSED BEFORE he examined it. Can any WC defender explain why this was done? Is this normal evidence handling in a murder case?
Back of shirt (CE-685):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0184b.jpg
Front of shirt (CE-686):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0185a.jpg
We again see the WC’s OWN evidence sinks their claims and conclusion presented in the Report.
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/s1600/warren.jpg
e3.365dm.com/17/10/750x563/skynews-lee-harvey-oswald-john-f-kennedy_4138295.jpg
Governor John Connally's Jacket With The Bullet Hole Nowhere Near The The Chest Area:
whokilledjfk.net/images/catch_8.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T/WON’T answer. So far, their silence is deafening! The WC’s OWN evidence has sunk them repeatedly.
************************************
1) IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) learned of President Kennedy’s (JFK) motorcade route via the newspaper as suggested by the WC, then what newspaper did he learn this from?
This is a key question as LHO was accused of PREMEDITATED murder, but to this day, nearly sixty years later, NO one has shown that LHO knew of the motorcade route and it passing right below the building he worked in. NO one. I have challenged WC defenders over the years and none of them can show me what source told him this.
In fact, one of the most important sources was published in the twenty-six volumes of the WC’s evidence and they had to WIPE out the map that showed the motorcade route! Why? If we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 1365, page 617 we see this:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0324a.jpg
…the WHOLE area where the map of the motorcade is missing from the Friday, November 22, 1963, edition of the Dallas Morning News when it was published by the WC! Surely, the Dallas Morning News did NOT publish their own paper this way. Why did the WC do this? The answer can ONLY lean towards the idea of them NOT telling us the truth, but I will give the WC defenders a chance to answer this question.
Why did the WC cover-up the map of the motorcade when they published this front cover?
2) Why did the WC publish drawings instead of the photographs taken at the autopsy?
Does this make any sense to anyone? Why not use the ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS depicting the wounds seen at the autopsy? Why have someone draw pictures like this instead?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0501a.jpg
And:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
The other point to be made here is NONE of the photographs were admitted into evidence either. Can any WC defender explain this action by the WC?
3) Why would photographs that had been taken to aid Dr. Humes in the autopsy NEVER be shown to him?
We know both color and black & white photographs were taken that showed “significant findings” due to it saying so in the Pathological Examination Report, a.k.a. CE-387, page 382. Here is what it says about the photographs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0503b.jpg
Photography: Black and white and color photographs depicting significant findings are exposed but NOT developed. These photographs were placed in the custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of the U.S. Secret Service, who executed a receipt therefore (attached). (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0503b.htm
Quote off
We know from Humes’ WC testimony that the photographs were NOT shown to him.
Mr. SPECTER - Were the photographs made available then, Dr. Humes, when Exhibit 388 was prepared?
Commander HUMES - No, sir.
This again, is CE-388.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
We see when the most important wound was drawn with Humes (and the others) NOT seeing the photographs of the head area! Why? He would tell us why in his WC testimony.
Representative FORD. May I ask what size are the pictures to which you refer?
Commander HUMES - We exposed both black and white and color negatives, Congressman. They were exposed in the morgue during the examination. They were not developed. The kodachrome negatives when developed would be 405. They were in film carriers or cassettes, as were the black and white. Of course they could be magnified.
Representative FORD. Have those been examined by personnel at Bethesda?
Commander HUMES - No, sir. We exposed these negatives; we turned them over. Here I must ask the counsel again for advice to the Secret Service.
Mr. SPECTER - Yes; it was the Secret Service.
Commander HUMES - They were turned over to the Secret Service in their cassettes unexposed, and I have not seen any of them since. This is the photographs. The X-rays were developed in our X-my department on the spot that evening, because we had to see those right then as part of our examination, but the photographs were made for the record and for other purposes.
Representative FORD. But they had never been actually developed for viewing.
Commander HUMES - I do not know, sir.
So let me get this straight, they took photographs of JFK’s body to assist Humes, and the other prosectors, and then they NEVER HAD THEM DEVELOPED AND NEVER SHOWED THEM TO THE PROSECTORS? What?
Can any WC defender explain this for me? Please?
4) Why would you clean and press EVIDENCE?
Believe it or not this is what happened to Governor John Connally’s (JBC) shirt, jacket and trousers!
Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to determine from your examination of the Governor's clothing whether or not they had been cleaned and pressed prior to the time you saw them?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they had.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that different from or the same as the condition of the President's clothing which you have just described this morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is different in that the President's clothing had not been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed.
Mr. SPECTER - Had the President's clothing been pressed then?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
This means this comment is NOTHING but speculation since he could NOT find copper to prove it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from the rear of the wearer toward his front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
We again are left with BIASED SPECULATION due to the cleaning and pressing.
Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to the cause of the hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from the chest of the Governor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it could.
It could have been from a Civil War musket ball too (a shout out to Ben Holmes and his nonsense) for all we know as he clearly states it is IMPOSSIBLE to know since the shirt had been CLEANED AND PRESSED BEFORE he examined it. Can any WC defender explain why this was done? Is this normal evidence handling in a murder case?
Back of shirt (CE-685):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0184b.jpg
Front of shirt (CE-686):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0185a.jpg
We again see the WC’s OWN evidence sinks their claims and conclusion presented in the Report.