Coast to Coast AM radio – Thursday-Friday, November 22-23rd – 2008
With George Noorey.
Cyril Wecht – In response to an assertion that there was a "massive conspiracy" behind the assassination of President Kennedy.
Wecht: I don’t think that’s the case. I have no knowledge who the specific individuals were involved; as to the political philosophies or ideologies of the people who felt that it was necessary for John Kennedy to be removed from office. But I would be willing to bet that if God were to come back and give us the answer that there weren’t six people, there could have been three or four, who plotted this, who made the decision to undertake this. Now then other people were assigned tasks to perform and certainly some people at some point in time, came to understand what it was that they had done and what they were involved in, but I do not believe it was a massive conspiracy in the sense that large numbers of people made this decision and undertook this coup d’etat.
John Zigler: Dr. Wecht, John Zigler, I have a question for you.
Wecht: Yes.
Zigler: You’re the absolute best in the world when it comes to picking apart the single-bullet-theory, we both agree that’s bunk. For people who don’t remember that’s the theory that the second shot fired by Oswald went through his back, his throat and then went through every portion of John Connally’s body and then came out pristine. My question for you is, if the single-bullet theory is not correct, and I believe it’s not and you believe it’s not, why does that in your mind, somehow prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin? Because I don’t think it proves that, why do you think it does?
Wecht: Well, I was quite fascinated, Mr. Zigler, by your comments, because here-to-fore, to my knowledge and to subsequent guests into the morning hours here on this show, to get into some of the details, but I have never heard before, anybody from any of the earliest defenders of the government and official protectors of the Warren Report since 1964, to the present time, and that goes through all the way through some people who have been extremely outspoken, some very articulate, some who have written very serious books, like Gerald Posner, and more recently Vincent Bugliosi, whose numbers have doubled Posners, 1600 pages, I’ve never heard anybody dispute the facts as were originally worked out at the temporal sequence that was ascertained by virtue of many things, some of which have been…..
Zigler: Well let me throw my theory out at you and this is by the way is a theory I came up with some years ago, and Mark Furman of OJ Simpson infamy, wrote a book last year that dovetails almost exactly with this theory. Here’s what I believe happened. I believe the first shot ended up being what we now think of as the "magic bullet." It was lodged in Kennedy’s back, fell out in the stretcher – that no one knows whether it was Connally’s or Kennedy’s, it only went in a couple of inches. And that was the entire first shot. The second shot was the shot that hit Connally, did all that damage and never touched John F. Kennedy, and a third shot blew off Kennedy’s head. There was plenty of time, probably about seven seconds, for those three shots to be fired. There was no missed first shot, the evidence of that to me is meager at best and one of the greatest red herrings of all time is that people actually think Kennedy grabs his throat early on in the Zapruder sequence, he does no such thing. He has his fists clenched, they never come close to his throat. And through one of the most amazing coincidences of all time, and it is a coincidence, he happened to have a small hole in his throat that was used as a tracheotomy at Parkland Hospital, therefore rendering it of no evidentiary value, but a hole that was far too small to be an exit wound, did not line up with the hole in the back, could not have been as you’ve said many times been an exit wound for the single bullet or the pristine bullet, what is wrong with that particular theory? Where’s the hole there, Dr. Wecht?
Wecht: Well, ha, ha, ha, what’s wrong with it is the hole, to play on your words. What’s wrong with it Mr. Zigler, is not a matter of what you think or I think, the fact of the matter is, there were some eighteen physicians there at Parkland Memorial Hospital, including of course the key surgeons, and there has never been, to my knowledge, quite sounded by what you are saying.
Zigler: That’s not true.
Wecht: There has never been any question about there having been a perforating wound in the anterior, neck line area at the level of the tie.
Zigler: Right. You are right. But what that was, was a bone fragment from the shot to the head. There was no metal traces in the tie, no metal traces in the shirt, the reality is the hole was way too small to be an exit wound. You know that, that’s why it was used as a tracheotomy.
Wecht: No, I must disagree. The head would not have led to a fragment. The anatomy is such that the head wound, producing as much damage as it did, would not have produced a piece of bone functioning as a spin off missile, so to speak. Also, the wound, in addition to its anatomic location and the physical inability of a piece of bone to make its way down…..
Zigler: Dr. Wecht, do acknowledge that Kennedy never grabbed his throat?
Wecht: Well, I can only go by the Zapruder film, I……I…..
Zigler: He never comes close to grabbing his throat.
Wecht: ….I would not argue with you that he doesn’t actually touch his throat, I can’t see that, but I would disagree when you say that he never came close. I don’t have it in front of me, of course, but my recollection…….
Zigler: Take another close look at it Dr. Wecht, not even close.
Wecht: …..the hands come up close. Going back to the hole, you have what has been described by trauma surgeons at Parkland ER as a circular, symmetrical wound, and that too belies the theory of a fragment, there is no reason why it would be so circular and symmetrical. Regarding to the size, you are right overall Mr. Zigler, when you think of exit wounds being generally larger, but believe me, it is not at all rare, or even infrequent, for a variety of reasons, for an exit wound to be no larger than an entrance wound. As a matter of fact, if you talk to any experience forensic pathologist, you pick the person, who doesn’t know crock about JFK, just ask this question: Have you had some cases sir, in which you had difficulty where the shots been fired from some distance, so you do not have tattooing or stippling, and therefore no powder burns, have you had some difficulty sometimes, upon first visualization of the body, in differentiating between entrance and exit wounds? For one reason, in this particular case, it was partially shored up so to speak, by Kennedy’s collar. A shored up exit wound can visually mimic an entrance wound.
Zigler: Dr. Wecht, there’s a question I’ve got to ask you. And that is, with the pristine bullet, would you have done a better job of mocking anybody in the history of all these theories, to your knowledge has there ever been extensive DNA testing on that bullet, because it is my strong belief we will find no DNA of John Connally on that bullet. Has that ever been done, and if not, why not?
Wecht: That’s a good question. To my knowledge, DNA testing has never been done. We have suggested this many, many times, including some people who are kind of neutral on the issue, like my dear friend and highly respected colleague Dr. Henry Lee. We’ve talked about this a thousand times, and its quite appropriate for you to ask this question, and to join the ranks of those of us who have urged forever and ever for it to be done.
Zigler: Why don’t they do it, sir?
Wecht: For the listeners, they should know that DNA testing can be done on objects decades, sometimes even centuries, so…..
Zigler: Why don’t they do it?
Wecht: Well, here, you and I join ranks in questioning why the government back then did things which were so incorrect, and why they refuse to do things now. Here we get into admittedly non-forensic scientific theory. I believe, simply put, this case is still too hot to handle for the United States government.
Zigler: You are absolutely correct, so.
Wecht: I used to say, when I was younger, and maybe more optimistic, really, I mean when I was 35-40, I would say, we’ll see, we’ll come to know the truth. I say now, with great unhappiness, great sadness, that it’s going to be long after I’m gone. I think it’s going to take another generation or two even for a complete revisiting. All the progenery, all first and second generation of the people involved will have had to have left this earth before the people in government will feel that nobody’s toes will be tread upon, nobody’s reputations will be……
Zigler: You are absolutely right. John Zigler.com editorials has all the answers you need. The answer there, how Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.
Noorey: You’re not going to change your mind, are you?
Zigler: Dr. Wecht is great, but I’m right on this.
Noorey: Allright, we’ll be back in a moment, we have more guests tonight.
xxxxxxxxxx
