Would you be in favor of exhuming JFK for a second autopsy?

[Dennis Donovan]

Given all the unanswered questions that surround the assassination of John F Kennedy, would you be in favor of exhumation of his body for a second, heavily monitored autopsy?

[Cant trust em]

1. Now, or in 1965? nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. After 46 years, would there be much left to work with?

Sorry to be so morbid about it, but it seems to be a relevant question?

[Dennis Donovan]

19. There's been disagreement between the Drs at Parkland and those who did the autopsy

...about the location and the nature of the massive head wound. Was it an entrance or exit wound?

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. I agree that the "official story" of the shooting is a steaming pile of horseshit

I just question whether or not there would be enough forensic evidence left to look at, after 46 years.

Now, if the rumors of JFK's brain going "missing" are true, that's probably the best piece of evidence out there. And it's probably in a jar of formaldehyde, buried deep in a vault in Langley VA. Or posssibly Poppy Bush's basement in Kennebunkport.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Three words: Neutron activation analysis.

And if it were anyone OTHER than Oswald, why has there been ZERO credible evidence of that in the past forty-five years? The only thing that's a steaming pile of horseshit is the conspiracist argument, which seems to be based as much as anything on an absolute unwillingness to believe that a loser with a cheap mail-order rifle could possibly have killed the President of the United States.

[Politicalboi]

48. Yes I hate it when losers

Have the SS stand down so he can shoot the president easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Lets hope 9/11 doesn't go the way JFK did.

[Mimosa]

63. Too late

Sebastian, I'd read the brain was burned and Bobby Kennedy took charge of the ashes.


I would like the truth to come out but I think I already know it. I've read a lot of books pertaining to the JFK and RFK assassinations. I believe they are linked.

Anyhow, there's no reason to disbelieve the Parkland doctors.

[librechik]

3. hell yes, it was botched before--maybe we can find new info

I'm always in favor of investigating the powerful.

[Taverner]

4. No - but not for the reason specified

There is no information that we could gain from a corpse that has decayed this long. There might still be some bones, and chances are they will jive with the initial autopsy report. The devil has always been in the details with the JFK assassination.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Absolutely not

[Silent3]

6. Could you try a little harder...

...to strengthen the bias in the only two poll choices provided? Your original bias didn't hit me over the head quite hard enough.

[Dennis Donovan]

15. The bias is your own...

It's a simple yes/no question...:eyes:

[Kaleva]

22. But you added "the truth is no longer relevant"

and "we need to know the truth" which made it more then a yes or no question.

[Dennis Donovan]

26. I added that because most of the players from that era are dead...

...NOT because I was trying to sway opinion.

[Silent3]

34. What does "most of the players... are dead" have to do with it?

Do we need to re-investigate the Hamilton-Burr duel or disinter Archduke Ferdinand because all of the players from those times are dead?

[Silent3]

24. It's not a simple yes/no...

...when you tie apathy about "truth" to not wanting to do a new autopsy.

One can be interested in truth yet believe there's nothing to gain from a new autopsy.

Only if you left the choices at a straight-forward yes/no, do/do not perform autopsy, without the editorial comments interpreting specific motivations or attitudes attached to those choices, would the poll be unbiased.

[Dennis Donovan]

28. I know my motives...

...it's your interpretation that is suspect.;)

[NWHarkness]

42. No, it is not

The question includes an assumption that there are "unanswered questions."

There are no unanswered questions of any relevance.

[Frosty1]

7. Truth is never irrelevant

But still.... let him rest in peace.

[armyowalgreens]

8. The first autopsy had proper measurements. There is no need for another.

[Xipe Totec]

9. Way to frame the choices

DO you work for Gallup?

:eyes:

[cali]

10. that should be left to his daughter.

[Dennis Donovan]

17. I agree. I was going on the premise that she would give her okay...

By law (I believe), only she could give the go-ahead.

[smalll]

54. i think, you know, you actually might, you know, be right about, you know, that.

[rucky]

11. Up to the family. n/t

[michreject]

12. No

Any and all people who had any knowledge are dead.

[DireStrike]

13. Didn't they "lose" his head? Or skull, or brain or something

Whatever it was that could have been looked at for proof.

[Dennis Donovan]

21. The brain supposedly is missing...

...although there's speculation that Bobby put it into the casket during the reburial of the casket in 1967.

[timeforpeace]

14. For the last time, he did NOT commit suicide, got it? Another autopsy will not prove otherwise.

Why won't this crazy notion die?

[HopeHoops]

16. Why bother - everyone knows it was Clinton's fault.

Oh, sorry, I don't think I was supposed to reveal tomorrow's FOX talking points. Oops.

[WI_DEM]

18. It's not up to me so there. If Caroline Kennedy wants it then fine.

[dysfunctional press]

20. get OVER IT already! he had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or the collapse of building 7.

nt

[Dennis Donovan]

23. I refuse to believe otherwise...

:tinfoilhat:;)

[BlooInBloo]

25. Only if a legally binding agreement is signed requiring people to STFU about it is given.

[Dennis Donovan]

39. Hahaha!

:D

[boppers]

27. Tinfoil.

12,000 autopsy records wouldn't be enough to convince some people.

See: Birthers.

[Dennis Donovan]

30. You believe the Warren Commission?

[boppers]

38. I went further.

I went to the Book Repository.

I worked for agencies.

I dug deep and hard, and came to similar conclusions...

But hey, 2,000 years later and people are still arguing about a "conspiracy" to nail some guy to a cross, and I don't expect this kind of imaginative thinking and rethinking of facts to go away in my lifetime.

[S_E_Fudd]

29. Third choice...not necessary because the official investigation...

Is largely accurate...

No second shooter

Oswald acted alone in that he was not directed by others to commit the act. His political views and the groups he was associated with certainly motivated him...

Even if another autopsy were conducted it would not satisfy conspiracy people...it is now a huge business...if they ever acknowledged what the overwhelming amount of evidence shows...they would be out of business...


Same with UFO people, Big Foot people, Moon landing hoax people...it has become a livelihood for many and so they are financially invested in keeping some semblence of controversy alive...

[frogmarch]

33. Great post!

:thumbsup:

[S_E_Fudd]

37. Thanks

:)

[hlthe2b]

31. I"ve read the different accounts by the docs on site and

the various pathologists who have investigated... I do not believe an exhumation would tell us much, but an inquest to review both the published and unpublished accounts or what was observed in the ER by those who treated him and what was found at autopsy might be useful.

[conspirator]

35. Why bother? One cannot prosecute a criminal like dick cheney coming from fresh crimes

Why do you think you will be able to prosecute some rich elite families that killed JFK in the 70's.

[IntravenousDemilo]

36. ...killed JFK in the '70s?

Wow, you must be really young.

[Obamanaut]

53. So if we can't tax the rich sufficiently, we suspect them of murder? nt

[H2O Man]

41. Other.

I would not favor this for a variety of reasons. One of these is that there is already more than enough evidence to build to and support one's conclusions already. There is zero chance of any study of his remains changing that reality.

[Dennis Donovan]

47. Very good point.

:thumbsup;

[AntiFascist]

43. I have a better idea...

declassify everything related to the Castro assassination plots.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.morley.html

...

Had Whitten been permitted to follow these leads to their logical conclusions, and had that information been included in the Warren Commission report, that report would have enjoyed more credibility with the public. Instead, Whitten's secret testimony strengthened the HSCA's scathing critique of the C.I.A.'s half-hearted investigation of Oswald. The HSCA concluded that Kennedy had been killed by Oswald and unidentifiable co-conspirators.

...

[Vidar]

44. Leave it up to the family.

[JuniperLea]

45. This has clearly been moved to the woo woo file...

Anything that you don't want looked at closely needs to be lumped in with all the truly ridiculous CT's of the world... then you can poo poo on the lot in one fell swoop.

[WeDidIt]

46. Neither of YOUR push poll choices

No, we already know the truth.

[midnight]

49. The truth is relevant. Continue that quest, but I don't know why

exhuming President Kennedy is important?

[deaniac21]

50. Wake me when it's over.

[obliviously]

51. And while we are at it

why not Morrison, Presley and what the heck give Jackson his brain back while we are at it!

[Rhiannon12866]

52. I have always hoped that we'd learn the definitive truth in my lifetime,

But I'm not counting on it. There was hope when Gerald Ford was still alive, but now all we have is forensic evidence, which was compromised since the beginning. :-(

[Samantha]

55. There are disturbing facts about the assassination an exhumation could not explain

At this point in time, people are pretty entrenched with their own conclusions about the Kennedy assassination. I believe at some point in the future, the American people will learn the truth, but it will not be in most of our lifetimes. Jackie Kennedy did not believe the Warren Commission Report. She commissioned the French to conduct a private investigation, and to release the report only to her. At the time, the French were considered to be the best investigatory personnel in the world. She hired a private agency, and said the report could only be released to the public 50 years (I believe) following her death. (There was a 50 year deadline and I believe the clock starting clicking upon her death, but it has been some time since I read about this so I stand to be corrected.) I do remember thinking with sadness I would not live to see the release of this report.

Sometime thereafter, I submitted a thread to DU (link below), three paragraphs of which I have included beyond the link. I personally believe a number of people conspired in his death.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3120010&mesg_id=3121565


"Once one learns of LBJ's total history, he or she will no longer disallow the possibility it was within his makeup to eliminate a President of the United States. One of the most compelling motives was his literal hatred of the Kennedy family and the fact he was facing almost immediate indictment over his dealings with the corrupt practices of Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. An ascendancy to the Presidency would protect him from prosecution, so Johnson felt.

"Johnson was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation in 1984. The Order in the case directly stated that he (Johnson) was one of the suspects in a murder, but that no further action could be taken since he was deceased. "Based on the testimony presented today, which was not presented to the previous grand jury, it is the decision of this grand jury, that Henry H. Marshall's death was a homicide, not a suicide. That the parties named as participants in the offense are deceased, and therefore it is not possible for the grand jury to return an indictment." This is a literal document presented in the back of the book referenced in the subject line as grand jury action on Johnson. It is the author's assertion that LBJ had to eliminate Henry H. Marshall, who was a participant in the assassination of President Kennedy, and here is the author's description of this exhibit (also pictured):

"30--Johnson subject to indictment for murder
Thirteen years after Marshall's vicious murder, the grand jury again reviewed the case and concluded it was not suicide but murder. Estes and Texas Ranger Clint People provided the key evidence. Johnson could not be indicted because he was dead. Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace also escaped indictment because they, too were dead." (at page 320)

Sam

[Rhiannon12866]

57. Thanks for all the info., Samantha! RFK also would not let his brother's murder rest,

became quite obsessed with finding the truth:


Brothers
By David Talbot

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years will be one of the most talked about books of 2007. It tells the inside story of the Kennedy administration, from the perspective of the inner circle of men who served President Kennedy. And it reveals Robert F. Kennedy's dramatic secret search for the truth about his brother's assassination.

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/

[Mimosa]

64. Brothers: I'm looking forward to the book

The motive for RFK's assassination will become more obvious.

I have a friend who believes that the Chappaquiddick death of Kopechne was a set-up. He has some logical reasons which he explains very well. I used to sort of laugh at his theory but the more I learned about the CIA in those days, the less I laughed.

[Rhiannon12866]

65. It's out in paperback, got it for my BF at Christmas

(at Barnes & Noble). (He's a JFK-RFK admirer-buff.) Bobby was obsessed with finding out the truth about his brother's murder. He hoped to have the leverage to learn more if he was elected president in 1968, but, of course, his campaign was tragically cut short. ;(

I don't really remember Chappaquiddick, but nothing would surprise me. I was once in Barnes & Noble when a young worker there was attempting to find information about Chappaquiddick on the computer for a group of high school kids. He was having no luck, didn't even know how to spell it, so I gave him the spelling and told them what it was about... :eyes:

[Boddingham]

56. Yes

I am totally into full investigations, full disclosure, and the truth. Unlike that investigation into 911 that never happened.

[JVS]

58. Oh yeah, like we'd find his body there. We'd probably discover that the grave is occupied by...

Jimmy Hoffa.

[1]

59. hell yes. dig that dude up.

[apocalypsehow]

60. For Fuck's Sake: when will you ghouls be willing to let the man rest in peace?

:shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

61. Wait for it....wait for it.... "when all the questions are answered"

Which means: never.

JFK obsessives are like Fundamentalist Christians - different Messiahs, same fervid secular phenomena.

[Political Tiger]

62. I doubt if those who disbelieve the first autopsy will believe the second one. n/t

[stopbush]

66. Exactly. No amount of evidence will ever dissuade the JFK CTists.

They'll always believe there's still something being hidden.

There isn't a single CT theory about the JFK assassination that's worth it's weight in dog shit, yet the easily deluded persist on this board, spouting non-evidence, theories and - my fav - "I think I read somewhere that..."

Yep the JFk CTs are right up there with the "moon landing was faked" and "the chupacabra is real" crap.

At least the admins move these lunacies to the woo-woo file as soon as they're posted. This thread is another major embarrassment for DU.

[WolverineDG]

67. I say let the man rest in peace nt

[spanone]

68. fuck, we can't go after cheney and bu$h* for blantant crimes..what's the point?

[GoneOffShore]

69. Leave it alone - or do you have any more dead horses you'd like to beat?

[Texasgal]

70. HELL NO!!

[Baclava]

71. Hell yes! - if the killing shot entrance wound was to the back of the skull ...

The conspiracy ends. No second shooter needed.

New skull X-rays for bullet path via entrance and exit woulds would do the trick.

Simple, really.

[stopbush]

73. Examination of JFK's skull showed an entrance wound in the back of the head.

There is beveling at the point of entrance as shown in JFK Exhibit F-61, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations:




Case closed.

It's that simple.

[Curtland1015]

72. The real question is, IF there was a second autopsy, and nothing new was found...

...would anyone believe it anyways?

[Blasphemer]

74. No - it would not make a difference

The existence of a conspiracy isn't really dependent on the number of shooters involved. Definitive proof of a conspiracy will not come from forensic evidence even if it were possible to get new forensic evidence (which I doubt is even possible at this point).