Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 20, 2023 20:07:26 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was set up after Congress passed the JFK Records Act in 1992. The two primary functions of the ARRB were to obtain as many records and documents as possible that related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK), and to focus on the autopsy of JFK.
One of the people involved in the autopsy of JFK on the evening of November 22, 1963, was Floyd Riebe. At that time Riebe was a second-class hospital corpsman in the Medical Photography Department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH). Riebe was tasked with photographing surgery and microscopic examinations. He was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on April 30, 1978.
Riebe was involved because he had duty on the evening of November 22, 1963, so when JFK's body arrived, he went to the autopsy room. He told the HSCA that there were three or four doctors, Secret Service (SS) agents, FBI agents and some Marines from Arlington there when he arrived. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978 HSCA Interview, p. 1) Riebe worked under the director of photography, John Stringer, at the autopsy. They each took different pictures. Riebe said his photographs were taken by the FBI as soon as he finished a cassette. The FBI instructed him to use flash bulbs instead of artificial light so the number could be counted by the flashes. (Ibid., p. 2) It sounds like the FBI didn't trust them as they thought they may take extra photographs and keep them. Why were they worried about this IF JFK's body reflected the official narrative?
When he was deposed by the ARRB on May 7, 1997, he failed to mention this when asked about the lighting.
Q: Was there any standard procedure for lighting in an autopsy?
A: No. Used the available light or a flash. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, pp. 11-12)
The word "flash" appears five times in his deposition, but the word "FBI" appears not once. Why did he change his statement from 1978?
We come across another discrepancy when he tells the HSCA this.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md141/pages/md141_0002a.gif
Riebe mentioned that he had witnessed approximately 10 or 12 autopsies prior to the JFK autopsy. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=672#relPageId=2
Quote off
Notice that he told the HSCA that he had witnessed 10-12 autopsies before JFK's, but here is what he told the ARRB.
Q: Prior to November 22nd, 1963, approximately how many autopsies had you witnessed?
A: Three or four.
Q: Had you witnessed by that time any autopsies of gunshot victims?
A: No. I don't think so.
Q: Since or after November 22nd, 1963, approximately how many autopsies have you witnessed?
A: One. And that was all.
Q: So then your experience with autopsies would be in the area of five or so?
A: Yes, about five or six. No more than six. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, p. 11)
Why the discrepancy? He told the HSCA he witnessed 10-12 autopsies, but then he later told the ARRB that it was about "five or six...no more than six." That is quite a big discrepancy.
Riebe described JFK's wounds as follows to the HSCA.
Quote on
Riebe recalled seeing one wound in the lower neck near the front of the body and one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 2)
Quote off
Riebe would again alter his statement to the ARRB somewhat. He would describe the wounds as follows.
Q: I would like you to describe as best you recall what or provide a description of the injuries to President Kennedy's head so we will say from above the throat. Not to the throat but above the throat. What did you observe on the body?
A: The right side in the back was gone (indicating). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it.
Q: When you said that, you put your hand on the back of your head.
A: The occipital.
Q: The occipital area?
A: Yes. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, pp. 44-45)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=795#relPageId=10
----
Q: Did you see any other - in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Q: I notice again your gesture is you are pointing above your right ear?
A: Yes.
Q: How close of an observation did you get to the wounds on President Kennedy's head?
A: About five, six feet, something like that. (Ibid., p. 46)
----
Q: What was the position of the body when you made that observation about the nature of the wound?
A: He was on his side. (Ibid., p. 47)
----
Q: Did you observe any wounds on any other part of President's Kennedy's body?
A: Yes, in the back.
Q: What did you observe on the back?
A: Well, it looked like - it looked like a bullet hole. But when, I think it was, Colonel Finck tried holding that with his finger, it didn't go anywhere or so they said.
----
Q: Did you observe any injuries to the neck or throat?
A: Well, to me it looked like a tracheostomy was done in the throat. Kind of over exaggerated, but that's what it looked like.(Ibid., p. 47)
Riebe describes a number of things differently in regard to the wounds to the ARRB. He notes that the head wound was in the OCCIPITAL area and this is where numerous other witnesses put the wound's location. This location is NOT conducive to a shot from behind as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed as it is an EXIT wound, and this would mean the shot that caused it entered from the FRONT!
He also mentions a back wound that he did NOT tell the HSCA about. Why did he leave this wound out? We know that it is NOT the wound the WC claimed was at the "base of the neck" as he didn't refer to the neck and it did NOT exit the body. This wound is certainly NOT the one the WC claimed was involved in the ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT) since it went nowhere!
He again describes a wound differently as he didn't tell the HSCA about the tracheostomy. He just said there was a wound in the front of the neck. One can say these aren't major, but discrepancies are important. Overall, however, he destroys the WC's conclusion.
He would also say that he did not believe that the pathologists performed a "total body autopsy." (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 3) They also did NOT perform a medico-legal autopsy either. The one simple point that proves this is the James Tague injury. The WC had to adapt the shooting sequence based on the injury to Tague, but IF a legal and proper autopsy had been done then this shouldn't have changed anything. That is why you do autopsies in the first place! They are meant to determine how many times the victim was shot and from what direction. In this case they completely altered their findings based on a person coming forward nearly 9 months later. That doesn't seem fishy at all. Sure.
How can the WC"s conclusion be correct when the vast majority of people who saw JFK's body all described wounds that disagree with their conclusion? It can't of course. We are continually told a false narrative to hide the truth.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was set up after Congress passed the JFK Records Act in 1992. The two primary functions of the ARRB were to obtain as many records and documents as possible that related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK), and to focus on the autopsy of JFK.
One of the people involved in the autopsy of JFK on the evening of November 22, 1963, was Floyd Riebe. At that time Riebe was a second-class hospital corpsman in the Medical Photography Department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH). Riebe was tasked with photographing surgery and microscopic examinations. He was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on April 30, 1978.
Riebe was involved because he had duty on the evening of November 22, 1963, so when JFK's body arrived, he went to the autopsy room. He told the HSCA that there were three or four doctors, Secret Service (SS) agents, FBI agents and some Marines from Arlington there when he arrived. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978 HSCA Interview, p. 1) Riebe worked under the director of photography, John Stringer, at the autopsy. They each took different pictures. Riebe said his photographs were taken by the FBI as soon as he finished a cassette. The FBI instructed him to use flash bulbs instead of artificial light so the number could be counted by the flashes. (Ibid., p. 2) It sounds like the FBI didn't trust them as they thought they may take extra photographs and keep them. Why were they worried about this IF JFK's body reflected the official narrative?
When he was deposed by the ARRB on May 7, 1997, he failed to mention this when asked about the lighting.
Q: Was there any standard procedure for lighting in an autopsy?
A: No. Used the available light or a flash. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, pp. 11-12)
The word "flash" appears five times in his deposition, but the word "FBI" appears not once. Why did he change his statement from 1978?
We come across another discrepancy when he tells the HSCA this.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md141/pages/md141_0002a.gif
Riebe mentioned that he had witnessed approximately 10 or 12 autopsies prior to the JFK autopsy. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=672#relPageId=2
Quote off
Notice that he told the HSCA that he had witnessed 10-12 autopsies before JFK's, but here is what he told the ARRB.
Q: Prior to November 22nd, 1963, approximately how many autopsies had you witnessed?
A: Three or four.
Q: Had you witnessed by that time any autopsies of gunshot victims?
A: No. I don't think so.
Q: Since or after November 22nd, 1963, approximately how many autopsies have you witnessed?
A: One. And that was all.
Q: So then your experience with autopsies would be in the area of five or so?
A: Yes, about five or six. No more than six. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, p. 11)
Why the discrepancy? He told the HSCA he witnessed 10-12 autopsies, but then he later told the ARRB that it was about "five or six...no more than six." That is quite a big discrepancy.
Riebe described JFK's wounds as follows to the HSCA.
Quote on
Riebe recalled seeing one wound in the lower neck near the front of the body and one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 2)
Quote off
Riebe would again alter his statement to the ARRB somewhat. He would describe the wounds as follows.
Q: I would like you to describe as best you recall what or provide a description of the injuries to President Kennedy's head so we will say from above the throat. Not to the throat but above the throat. What did you observe on the body?
A: The right side in the back was gone (indicating). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it.
Q: When you said that, you put your hand on the back of your head.
A: The occipital.
Q: The occipital area?
A: Yes. (ARRB Deposition of Floyd Reibe, pp. 44-45)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=795#relPageId=10
----
Q: Did you see any other - in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Q: I notice again your gesture is you are pointing above your right ear?
A: Yes.
Q: How close of an observation did you get to the wounds on President Kennedy's head?
A: About five, six feet, something like that. (Ibid., p. 46)
----
Q: What was the position of the body when you made that observation about the nature of the wound?
A: He was on his side. (Ibid., p. 47)
----
Q: Did you observe any wounds on any other part of President's Kennedy's body?
A: Yes, in the back.
Q: What did you observe on the back?
A: Well, it looked like - it looked like a bullet hole. But when, I think it was, Colonel Finck tried holding that with his finger, it didn't go anywhere or so they said.
----
Q: Did you observe any injuries to the neck or throat?
A: Well, to me it looked like a tracheostomy was done in the throat. Kind of over exaggerated, but that's what it looked like.(Ibid., p. 47)
Riebe describes a number of things differently in regard to the wounds to the ARRB. He notes that the head wound was in the OCCIPITAL area and this is where numerous other witnesses put the wound's location. This location is NOT conducive to a shot from behind as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed as it is an EXIT wound, and this would mean the shot that caused it entered from the FRONT!
He also mentions a back wound that he did NOT tell the HSCA about. Why did he leave this wound out? We know that it is NOT the wound the WC claimed was at the "base of the neck" as he didn't refer to the neck and it did NOT exit the body. This wound is certainly NOT the one the WC claimed was involved in the ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT) since it went nowhere!
He again describes a wound differently as he didn't tell the HSCA about the tracheostomy. He just said there was a wound in the front of the neck. One can say these aren't major, but discrepancies are important. Overall, however, he destroys the WC's conclusion.
He would also say that he did not believe that the pathologists performed a "total body autopsy." (ARRB 141, April 30, 1978, HSCA Interview, p. 3) They also did NOT perform a medico-legal autopsy either. The one simple point that proves this is the James Tague injury. The WC had to adapt the shooting sequence based on the injury to Tague, but IF a legal and proper autopsy had been done then this shouldn't have changed anything. That is why you do autopsies in the first place! They are meant to determine how many times the victim was shot and from what direction. In this case they completely altered their findings based on a person coming forward nearly 9 months later. That doesn't seem fishy at all. Sure.
How can the WC"s conclusion be correct when the vast majority of people who saw JFK's body all described wounds that disagree with their conclusion? It can't of course. We are continually told a false narrative to hide the truth.