Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I no longer think it was shellfish toxin that JFK was poisoned with. I now believe it was strychnine. The reason I say that is because shellfish toxin causes flaccid paralysis, while strychnine causes intense muscle spasms, and that is what Kennedy had. This is from Calling All Angels, about Jane Stanford, who was poisoned with strychnine.

 "On January 14, 1905, in her mansion on Nob Hill, Jane Stanford becomes violently ill after drinking mineral water. She only swallowed a little because it tasted bitter, and she spit it out. Tests revealed the presence of strychnine. Spooked after surviving the attempt on her life, Mrs. Stanford sails for Japan by way of Hawaii. On February 28, 1905, after drinking a glass of bicarbonate of soda, she cries out to her secretary, Bertha Berner, to call the doctor. She complained of having no control of her body. Three doctors attend to her, but she is dead in 25 minutes. Her hands, legs, and feet, are noted to be distorted in the classical intense, rigid spasm of strychnine poisoning."

Observe the spasm in JFK's hands where the metacarpal flexors were activated.

As the seconds passed, the spasms just got worse. Here is the last frame before the fatal head shot.

That had to be very painful, and it could not be the result of trauma. 

This is how he was beforehand.

Trauma could not have caused that change. To that point, the only trauma JFK received was a shallow wound in his back and a shallow wound in his throat. He was definitely poisoned and with a nerve agent. 

 

Regarding Jackie's testimony, there is something very strange in it: 

I was looking to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. My husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, and he had this sort-of quizzical look on his face. And his hand was up; it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything.

How could she follow saying that she saw a piece of his skull with "he just looked as if he had a slight headache"? It makes much more sense if you take out the middle part. 

And all I remember is seeing my husband, and he had this sort-of quizzical look on his face. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. 

Doesn't that make more sense? So what was going on? What was going on was she was describing the interval, the rather long interval, between when he was shot in the back and when he was shot in the throat. His left hand (and his right hand) went up in response to being shot in the throat. But, they wanted it to be that there was no interval. So, they edited her statements and moved stuff around. 

So, she looked at him right after he was shot in the back, and she had no sense that he was shot with a bullet. She just thought that he was feeling bad, like he had a headache. If he had been shot in the back with a bullet, don't you think she would have known it? And don't you think he would have known it? If you were shot in the back with a bullet, don't you think you would know it? 

 

So, Jackie's testimony was very likely corrupted to conform to the official story and to hide the fact that JFK rode down the hill having been shot in the back only and not with a bullet. 

Allen Dulles was running the whole Warren Commission investigation, not Earl Warren, who was a reluctant participant. Dulles knew what really happened. He knew about the heart attack gun. It was developed during his tenure. He knew exactly what went down. They shot Kennedy in the throat, knowing that the story was going to be "no frontal shots" so, they must have planned beforehand to claim that the frontal entrance wound was an exit wound. I'm not saying they planned in advance to go with a single bullet for Kennedy and Connally. How could they, when they weren't even planning to shoot Connally?  But, they did plan to unite the two shallow wounds in Kennedy into one traversing wound. 

Remember that the night of the autopsy at Bethesda, they didn't know about Tague yet, but they did know that they could not allow Humes to dissect the back wound or the throat wound. Those wounds had to be one continuous wound, and the federal agents knew that. So, they prohibited Humes from dissecting those wounds.  

In the criminal trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969, one of the pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, was cross–examined by an assistant district attorney, Alvin Oser. His testimony, part of which is reproduced below, is remarkable for two reasons:

• He states that senior military officers had taken an active part in proceedings, and he implies that they were in charge of the autopsy.
• He admits, after trying hard to avoid the question, that the pathologists were forbidden to dissect the president’s back and throat wounds and the connecting tissue.

Mr. Oser: How many military personnel were present?

Dr. Finck: The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Mr Oser :

Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from the Army General that was there directing the autopsy?

Col. Finck :

No, because there were others, there were Admirals.

Mr Oser :

There were Admirals?

Col. Finck :

Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told — as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kenney, the Surgeon General of the Navy — this is subject to verification — we were told not to discuss the case.

Mr Oser :

You were told not to discuss the case?

Col. Finck :

— to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General.

(State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, 198–059 1426(30) section C, transcript, pp.51f)

Mr Oser :

Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President’s throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?

Col. Finck :

I don’t know.

Mr Oser :

Do you have an opinion?

Col. Finck :

There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.

Mr Oser :

Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

Col. Finck :

I did not dissect the track in the neck.

Mr Oser :

Why?

Col. Finck :

This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

Mr Oser :

Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct.

Judge :

That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

Col. Finck :

We didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser :

Why not, Doctor?

Col. Finck :

For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the —

Mr Oser :

Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

Judge :

Let him finish his answer.

Col. Finck :

I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and the chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

Mr Oser :

You have said that they did not. I want to know why didn’t you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

Col. Finck :

I had the cause of death.

Mr Oser :

Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

Col. Finck :

As I recall I didn’t remove these organs from the neck.

Mr Oser :

I didn’t hear you.

Col. Finck :

I examined the wounds but I didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser :

You said you didn’t do this; I am asking you why didn’t [you] do this as a pathologist?

Col. Finck :

From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn’t dissect or remove these organs.

Mr Oser :

Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

Col. Finck :

As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.

Mr Oser :

You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?

Col. Finck :

Right.

Mr Oser :

Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

Col. Finck :

I don’t recall.

Mr Oser :

Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

Col. Finck :

Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser :

You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

Col. Finck :

I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

Mr Oser :

But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

Col. Finck :

From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.