Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 26, 2019 9:02:38 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
jfkassassination-conspiracy.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/9/8/20984674/1212513_orig.jpg
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 Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) mother’s testimony before the Warren Commission (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 Lee J. 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
"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) (taken from WC Executive session 1/27/64)
Quote off
This one paragraph raises so many legitimate questions. First of all, the main point was he was referring to wounds that were listed in a DRAFT copy of the autopsy report as these are NOT the official version of 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 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 document 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?
jfkassassination-conspiracy.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/9/8/20984674/1212513_orig.jpg
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 Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) mother’s testimony before the Warren Commission (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 Lee J. 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
"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) (taken from WC Executive session 1/27/64)
Quote off
This one paragraph raises so many legitimate questions. First of all, the main point was he was referring to wounds that were listed in a DRAFT copy of the autopsy report as these are NOT the official version of 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 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 document 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?