To any posters who have some legal background, e.g. as an attorney, etc.
John Canal
should be interpreted. Anyone who helps out here doesn't have to be
knowledgeable about the issues...I'm just looking for someone to interpret what
was written in the paragraph. Thanks.
More specifically:
I argue that the writer (Dr. Humes) was most likely saying that numerous
fragments [bone] resulted from complete fractures radiating from **BOTH**
the entry wound in the occiput and the large (mostly parietal) wound.
DVP argues (I think) that, while the writer clearly stated complete
fractures radiated from both wounds, he most likely tried to say that
numerous fragments resulted **ONLY** from the fractures that radiated from
the large wound.
It's possible that the writer was ambiguous and what was written could be
interpreted both ways...if that's what you think, fine, I'd be
appreciative to know that's how you interpret it.
Here's the paragraph:
"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to
radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at
the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest
measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of numerous
fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest
diameter." -- FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY'S 1963 AUTOPSY REPORT
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
I don't think you need a lawyer to interpret "these" as referring to
"both" of *them*. A medical opinion from someone who doesn't know what
case the paragraph is from would be better. :-)
Barb :-)
>
Herbert Blenner
Fractures radiating from a bullet hole never cross to form fragments. So
the extensive fragmentation of the skull had to occur from the crossing of
fractures that radiated from separate bullet holes.
Herbert
Ray
THESE result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size
from a few millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter." --
Humes's said "these fracture lines produce numerous fragments."
What fracture lines is he referring to?
Why the ones that "radiate from both the large defect... and the smaller
wound."
John Canal is obviously a man who understands plain English.
Now I am not suggesting that Humes is neccessarily correct in what he
says, and in fact this question caught my eye because this statement from
Humes happens to contradict one of my pet theories. But even if it means
denting my pet theory, I have to admit that Mr. Von Pein's interpretation
would not be sanctioned by America's greatest philosopher, Charles Sanders
Peirce, who wrote the book on interpretation.
Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't see this as a legal issue.
If two people are disputing the meaning of the terms of a written contract
and a court feels that it is unable to determine what was the intent
behind the language of the contract, there are methods required or
suggested by the law of interpreting or giving meaning to such language.
But this isn't language stemming from a contract -- it is a report written
by a third party about his observations about the subject matter in
question.
Perhaps another forensic pathologist would be more readily able to follow
another one's thought processes and state what he had in mind, but I am
not so sure about that either.
But in any event, I regard this as a factual issue and not a legal one,
and the meaning of the language in question is entirely in the eye of the
beholder. A legal background can't help give meaning to it or interpret
it.
John Canal
says...
Hi Barb,
Yes, you're right about an opinion on this from someone unfamiliar with
this case being better...but, I've been thinking (too much of that can be
a bad thing) that we both, and Paul too, probably have already wasted too
much time trying to convince the unconvinceble there was a BOH wound. You
know..you've been there with McA.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Take care,
:-)
JC
Ray
Fractures radiating from a bullet hole never cross to form fragments. So
the extensive fragmentation of the skull had to occur from the crossing of
fractures that radiated from separate bullet holes.
Herbert
But in this case the separate bullet holes described by Humes could
have been caused by a single bullet, no?
Herbert Blenner
Read what Humes wrote:
"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen
to
> radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at
> the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest
> measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of numerous
> fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest
> diameter."
So tell us whether he was talking about one or two bullets.
Herbert
Ray
whether he was talking about one or two bullets.
Herbert
He is definitely talking about two "wounds", but the reason I asked
the question is that I am not sure whether this neccessarily means one
bullet or two.
Anthony Marsh
Can't tell just from that description. Could have been one bullet or
two. Randy Robertson thinks the pattern of intersecting fractures
indicates two bullets. He did not know about antipodal focusing.
> Herbert
>
Herbert Blenner
Humes is talking about one bullet that entered at the occiput and made
the large defect at the vertex of the head. Kellerman's observations
in the morgue are consistent with a bullet entering near the rear
hairline and exiting the top of the head. His testimony makes a
fascinating read.
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your
observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.
Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval
Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5
inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by
this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes.
About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect
to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed
or absent?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to
this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.
Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch
and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir.
. . .
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any conversation of any sort between you and
Colonel Finck which would be helpful to us here?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, from Humes, who was the other gentleman out
there, from the entry of the skull, from this hole here.
Mr. SPECTER. You are now referring to the hole which you describe
being below the missing part of the skull?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; it was confirmed that the entry of the shell
here went right through the top and removed that piece of the skull.
Mr. SPECTER. And who confirmed that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. One of the three gentlemen; I don't recall.
Mr. SPECTER. You don't recall which one, but it was one of the three
doctors doing the autopsy?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. So you are saying it confirmed that the hole that was
below the piece of skull that was removed, was the point of entry of
the one bullet which then passed up through the head and took off the
skull?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right, sir. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Then that was all done by one bullet, based on what you
are telling us at this moment?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
End of source.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
What separate bullet holes? If you mean a fictional hole in the back of
the head and a massive hole in the top of the head, then yes it is
possible for that to be caused by one fictional bullet.
Anthony Marsh
Fractures from a bullet impact start at the site and also start at the
antipodal point and cross to form fragments.
> Herbert
>
David Von Pein
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
Vince Bugliosi (who was quoting Dr. Michael Baden); Page 408 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
Stresses from the exiting bullet disrupted fractures propagating toward
the antipodal point before reaching the halfway point. But this
consideration is academic since damping of the oscillations prohibited
focusing effects from playing a role. In layman language this means that
the longest fracture was shorter than a half circumference of the skull.
You should stick with the simple falsehoods, such as pressure or an
enormous radial velocity converting bone fragments from the President's
head into secondary missiles.
Herbert
David Von Pein
ADDITIONAL "HEAD WOUND" DISCUSSION:
Apart from the above-linked autopsy X-ray, which (by itself) proves
that John Canal's odd "BOH/LN" theory is inaccurate, John has another
very big photographic problem in trying to fit all of the pieces of
his BOH/LN puzzle together cohesively and believably....
And that problem is: the autopsy photograph linked below, which shows
President Kennedy's SCALP on the back of his head to be completely
INTACT (including the entire area of the head/scalp at the far-right-
rear portion of JFK's head where John Canal insists a large hole
existed, with that large hole being easily visible and viewable by the
various doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63):
But when examining the photo linked above, it's quite evident that
JFK's scalp was undamaged (except for the perforating entry hole near
the cowlick, of course, which was where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5mm
bullet entered the President's head).
This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
Robert McClelland)?:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/MD264_thumb.jpg
In my view, the best explanation for the admittedly-major discrepancy
that exists re. this controversial "BOH" matter between the official
record and the observations of the Parkland witnesses was probably
given by Dr. Michael Baden (during a telephone conversation he had
with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on January 8, 2000).
Baden said the following to Bugliosi during that phone call:
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as
the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have
autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this.
Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at
Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of
the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain
tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the
occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push
his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably
assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from
the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy
surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area.
There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than
the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; 01/08/2000
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
John Canal would probably be better off if he were to believe what
many conspiracy theorists firmly believe -- i.e., that the autopsy
photo and X-ray linked earlier are fakes (and/or have been "altered"
in some manner).
Because just one good look at each of the two photos linked above (the
X-ray and the color image of the back of John Kennedy's head after he
died) should be enough visual proof right there to know that Mr. Canal
is barking up the wrong tree as he searches for a hole in the
President's head that simply was never there.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
David R. Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History
John Canal
>This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
>Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
>fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
>observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
>
>Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
>SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
>perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
>at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
>somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
>Robert McClelland)?:
No, here's real nonsense: me taking more of the moderator's time to
explain to you, once again, that, in the first place, that photo was taken
late in the procedure, and, in the secaond place, the scalp was eventually
successfully stretched and sutured to close up openings (the photo was
obviously taken after some of that occurred). And I find it remarkable
that you keep flaunting this photo as some sort of proof that dozens of
doctors were lying or hallucintaing about seeing a BOH wound.
Unbelievable...and you wonder what fuels the arguments of the CTs--if you
do, it's this B/S you keep shoveling out!
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's real nonsense: me taking more of the moderator's time to
explain to you, once again, that, in the first place, that photo was taken
late in the procedure, and, in the second place, the scalp was eventually
successfully stretched and sutured to close up openings (the photo was
obviously taken after some of that occurred)." <<<
All together now -- "LOL!!"
>>> "And I find it remarkable that you keep flaunting this photo as some
sort of proof that dozens of doctors were lying or hallucinating about
seeing a BOH wound." <<<
This photo (which you, John C., SHOULD be running from as fast as you
possibly can) is a very good photo to "flaunt", as it (all by itself)
proves that your BOH/LN theory is full of holes (pardon the pun):
And when the above photo is viewed in conjunction with the lateral X- ray
of JFK's head (which, just like the above pic, shows not even a hint of
the large BOH hole that John Canal imagines)....well, the math then
becomes pretty easy to do.
It should be fairly easy math for everybody--even John Canal. But,
evidently, John prefers to ignore the BEST, HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
concerning this particular matter (the authenticated photographs and X-
rays). Instead, John would rather latch onto the evidence that isn't
nearly as good, or "hard", or "physical", or definitive -- the subjective
observations of witnesses.
Also:
Incredibly, John Canal thinks (a la the similar mindset exhibited by
author David S. Lifton, it would seem) that somebody at the autopsy
stitched up the rear of JFK's head so PERFECTLY and so SEAMLESSLY that
EVERY LAST TRACE of the huge, gaping hole that John believes was present
in the far-right-rear part of Kennedy's head became completely INVISIBLE
and UNDETECTABLE in the above color photograph.
Worth a replay ---
Incredible!
>>> "...And you wonder what fuels the arguments of the CTs--if you do,
it's this B/S you keep shoveling out!" <<<
After that nonsense you just tried to push about the huge hole in JFK's
scalp being "sutured" to utter perfection, so as to eliminate all traces
of your make-believe gaping hole (and, remarkably, it eliminated every
trace of the SUTURING as well...those surgeons were sure good at stitching
up a scalp!) within the autopsy photo linked above (and the one linked
below as well), you still have the gonads to say that it is *I* who is
shovelling the "B/S"??
That's rich! Really rich.
~Time for another LOL Break~
Where's the scalp damage here, John? (Just more good fortune for Humes &
Company?):
=========================================================
RELATED LOGICAL DVP ARTICLES FOR JOHN CANAL TO CALL "B/S":
A VERY IMPORTANT AUTOPSY X-RAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
MORE "BOH" TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
A VERY INTERESTING INTERVIEW WITH DR. PIERRE FINCK (FROM MARCH 1978):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
=========================================================
John Canal
foot-in-mouth tendencies and shows that his research is mainly based on RH and
or cherry picked tidbits usually linked to Baden's questioning.
For your enlightenment, if that's possible, the testimony of Humes, Boswell and
the morticians says that they were able to close up almost all of the openngs by
stretching and suturing the scalp. NO one, including you, even though I think
you must dream you were in the morgue during the evening/night of 11-22-63,
knows if the BOH photo was taken ****after**** some of that closing up and
suturing of the scalp was done...DO
THEY?????????????????????????????????????????????
Does that sound so impossible to you? Of course it does, because, if that were
true it might reconcile the BOH photo with what about 28 witnesses, including
Humes, said they saw--A BOH WOUND.....and the last thing you want to do is to
admit they might have been correct!
You've taken your stand--they were halucinating--and your going to defend that
wierd position with every piece of B/S you can think to throw out here.
>After that nonsense you just tried to push about the huge hole in JFK's
>scalp being "sutured" to utter perfection, so as to eliminate all traces
>of your make-believe gaping hole (and, remarkably, it eliminated every
>trace of the SUTURING as well...those surgeons were sure good at stitching
>up a scalp!) within the autopsy photo linked above (and the one linked
>below as well), you still have the gonads to say that it is *I* who is
>shovelling the "B/S"??
>
>That's rich! Really rich.
>
>~Time for another LOL Break~
But your B/S isn't a bit funny--it's truly sad.
Anthony Marsh
> [.... deleting the B/S]
>
>> This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
>> Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
>> fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
>> observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
>>
>> Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
>> SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
>> perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
>> at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
>> somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
>> Robert McClelland)?:
>
> No, here's real nonsense: me taking more of the moderator's time to
> explain to you, once again, that, in the first place, that photo was taken
> late in the procedure, and, in the secaond place, the scalp was eventually
> successfully stretched and sutured to close up openings (the photo was
You are explaining it as a fact that the scalp was sutured? Prove it.
> obviously taken after some of that occurred). And I find it remarkable
> that you keep flaunting this photo as some sort of proof that dozens of
> doctors were lying or hallucintaing about seeing a BOH wound.
> Unbelievable...and you wonder what fuels the arguments of the CTs--if you
> do, it's this B/S you keep shoveling out!
>
So, like all inventors of wacky theories your only way out when
confronted with evidence is to claim that all the evidence is fake.
> John Canal
>
>
Anthony Marsh
No, maybe you didn't understand my point. The fractures are created on
the opposite side of the head while the bullet is still in the head,
BEFORE it exits.
Anthony Marsh
> DVP, IMO, re. the regurgitation below, once again, demonstrates his
> foot-in-mouth tendencies and shows that his research is mainly based on RH and
> or cherry picked tidbits usually linked to Baden's questioning.
>
> For your enlightenment, if that's possible, the testimony of Humes, Boswell and
> the morticians says that they were able to close up almost all of the openngs by
> stretching and suturing the scalp. NO one, including you, even though I think
> you must dream you were in the morgue during the evening/night of 11-22-63,
> knows if the BOH photo was taken ****after**** some of that closing up and
> suturing of the scalp was done...DO
> THEY?????????????????????????????????????????????
>
Great theory. Can you prove it? If not, then stop stating it as a fact.
> Does that sound so impossible to you? Of course it does, because, if that were
> true it might reconcile the BOH photo with what about 28 witnesses, including
> Humes, said they saw--A BOH WOUND.....and the last thing you want to do is to
> admit they might have been correct!
>
> You've taken your stand--they were halucinating--and your going to defend that
> wierd position with every piece of B/S you can think to throw out here.
>
Oh, you mean the same witnesses who said that the throat wound was an
entrance? So, if they all agreed on that point, it proves that is a fact,
right?
>> After that nonsense you just tried to push about the huge hole in JFK's
>> scalp being "sutured" to utter perfection, so as to eliminate all traces
>> of your make-believe gaping hole (and, remarkably, it eliminated every
>> trace of the SUTURING as well...those surgeons were sure good at stitching
>> up a scalp!) within the autopsy photo linked above (and the one linked
>> below as well), you still have the gonads to say that it is *I* who is
>> shovelling the "B/S"??
>>
>> That's rich! Really rich.
>>
>> ~Time for another LOL Break~
>
> But your B/S isn't a bit funny--it's truly sad.
>
Time to killfile everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's
99.999999999% of the population.
>
David Von Pein
>>> "So, like all inventors of wacky theories..." <<<
El-Oh-El! Pot and Kettle are having a meeting here.
Marsh telling somebody else their theory is "wacky". That's a howl.
Marsh's theory, of course, is one of the "wackiest" of them all (much
wackier than John Canal's, in fact) -- i.e., NO hole in the BOH at all
(not even an entry), with JFK shot in the front of the head while
turning toward the TSBD. And somehow Tony DOESN'T think the Z-Film has
been faked? I wonder how that scenario can be reconciled? Has Anthony
ever said?
I guess JFK is really looking back toward the Depository here, huh?:
www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "So, like all inventors of wacky theories..." <<<
>
> El-Oh-El! Pot and Kettle are having a meeting here.
>
> Marsh telling somebody else their theory is "wacky". That's a howl.
>
> Marsh's theory, of course, is one of the "wackiest" of them all (much
Which wacky theory? You mean my theory that the Zapruder film is
authentic? Or you mean my theory that ALL the photographic evidence,
including the X-rays, is authentic? Ask John Canal about that one.
> wackier than John Canal's, in fact) -- i.e., NO hole in the BOH at all
Or do you mean my theory that there was a cover-up? Or do you mean my
theory that Humes and Boswell lied?
> (not even an entry), with JFK shot in the front of the head while
> turning toward the TSBD. And somehow Tony DOESN'T think the Z-Film has
As usual you snip out the context to leave the false impression that I
said that JFK was shot in the front of the head while turning toward the
TSBD. What I said was that some people would have to make that up
exactly as they had made up the idea that the throat wound was an
entrance wound when JFK turned his head to look back at the TSBD.
Actually, just for fun one day I invented an even wackier theory to
annoy some WC defenders. I proposed that JFK was shot in the front of
the head with a shot from the TSBD when the bullet ricocheted off the
chrome topping. I predict that in your next message you will snip out
this context and claim that I believe this theory myself.
> been faked? I wonder how that scenario can be reconciled? Has Anthony
> ever said?
>
Have I ever reconciled your distortions with the truth? Can't be done.
>
> I guess JFK is really looking back toward the Depository here, huh?:
>
We did not have the Zapruder film then.