Paul Seaton And Ida Dox
Jerry
article with illustration: The Dox Drawing as it should have been
drawn: http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/diagrams/kennedy_graphics6.htm
Paul's article, while insightful misses the crucial point about the
nature of the wound changing as the autopsy proceeded.
Does not PS see that Dox drew the DEFECT that existed before the scalp
was reflected and the brain removed?
The larger defect that he outlines in yellow - earlier, he correlates
this defect to Boswell's drawing and measurements - is what I'll call
DEFECT2, ie that larger defect that resulted from the reflection of the
scalp and the crumbling of shattered bone.
The skull was generally shattered - though indeed more so in the area
PS marks in yellow - and thus as the autopsy proceeded the wound
changed.
This explains why people describe different wounds - because they saw
*the* wound at different times.
Jerry
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Paul Seaton
Jerry.....
Jerry <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92qt3b$ho3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If one visits Paul Seaton's outstanding website,
........I like it so far...
one finds the an
> article with illustration: The Dox Drawing as it should have been
> drawn:
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/diagrams/kennedy_graphics6.htm
>
> Paul's article, while insightful misses the crucial point about the
> nature of the wound changing as the autopsy proceeded.
>
> Does not PS see that Dox drew the DEFECT that existed before the scalp
> was reflected and the brain removed?
>
> The larger defect that he outlines in yellow - earlier, he correlates
> this defect to Boswell's drawing and measurements - is what I'll call
> DEFECT2, ie that larger defect that resulted from the reflection of the
> scalp and the crumbling of shattered bone.
OK. I'm pretty near agreeing with you. The problem I have with that drawing
is that is doesn't make the extent of the 'shattered' skull clear. One would
think, merely by looking at that picture, that the skull 'behind' the
entrance wound was 'solid'...maybe cracked..but solid bone that would not be
'removable' from the head without a good deal of sawing.
This is what I object to.
It's misleading.
On the feasability of getting the brain out *with no sawing* if that much
skull were still 'solid'...see
http://users.southeast.net/~cheryl/riley.html
...where I find that Joe Riley (a neuroanatomist) said some years ago what I
have pointed out here a few times. If the boh was as 'intact' as that
drawing might lead you to believe, it would be impossible to get the brain
out. (quote)
" These interpretations fail to appreciate basic neuroanatomical
relationships (unfortunately, there was no neuroanatomist on either panel --
parietal foramina alone are enough to orient the photographs), are
contradictory, and ignore the obvious ###########(it would be irresponsible
and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much skull were left, as it must
be in the official interpretations of the photographs)########. "
(Riley seems to be entirely wrong about the projection angle of the AP xray,
incidentally.)
>
> The skull was generally shattered - though indeed more so in the area
> PS marks in yellow - and thus as the autopsy proceeded the wound
> changed.
>
> This explains why people describe different wounds - because they saw
> *the* wound at different times.
OK.
[There is another piece of sleight of hand about the Dox drawing.
The large late arriving bone fragment, which Angel described as 'plainly
frontal' (which diagnosis no one ever challenged and which Riley confirms.)
has somewhat miraculously become parietal (entirely posterior to the coronal
suture) in the drawing...which has the effect of making it appear as if all
the 'blown away' bone from the head was eventually recovered. Not true.
It also doesn't square with the use of that large frag in determining the
site of the exit wound.
Finally the drawing is billed as a drawing of 'a human skull'....not even as
a drawing 'of Kennedy'..(unlike some of the other HSCA artwork).]
I think it's a sloppy piece of work at best...not the artwork itself, but
whoever was telling Dox what to depict was half
asleep/careless/ignorant/devious/intentionally deceptive or some combination
thereof.
That picture has become THE DEFINITIVE HEADWOUND to many who aren't
interested in going through all the details of what the FPP got up to.
It has decieved many into believing the 'back of the head was intact'
line...and into believing there is reason to doubt the broad thrust of the
witness statements from Parkland, from people who saw part of the wound but
not all of it, that the skull was indeed shattered somewhat above & behind
the right ear.
--
® Þ§
art:¿
http://users.breathemail.net/paulseaton/
jfk:¿
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/
R2JUDGE
>From: Jerry jer...@my-deja.com
>Date: 1/1/01 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <92qt3b$ho3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
***Is it really about the changing nature of the wound, or the fact that
there were fractures caused by the bullet along a wide area of the skull?
That there were wide areas of the skull fractured does not change the area
that was blown out by the bullet exiting the head. the Harper fragment was
not occipital bone.
The fractures extend into the back of the head, but there was no blowout
of the back of the head. While one may have been able to remove the scalp
and some of those pieces in the rear of the skull may have fallen out, the
back of the skull was intact when the back of the head photo was taken, as
well as the scalp in the back of the head, which shows to be untorn,
unlike the top and right side of the head.
***Ron Judge
Paul Seaton
R2JUDGE <r2j...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010106145701...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
Ron,
Ok here's a few things..
1). The rear head is *apparently* intact on the photos which show the back
wound.
2). The back wound was found *late*--------well after Finck arrived.
3). The brain was out when Finck arrived.
This means that if the boh really *is* intact in those boh pictures, they
got the brain out *with the boh intact*.
From what I know of the mechanics of removing brains...that's hardly
possible.
I agree that all the rear skull is present on the xrays (taken first
thing, before the head was touched).
On the rear scalp...you can't actually see it since they didn't shave the
head. So it's anyone's guess how ripped, lacerated it might be beneath all
that hair.
m...@softhome.net
> This means that if the boh really *is* intact in those boh pictures,
they
> got the brain out *with the boh intact*.
>
> From what I know of the mechanics of removing brains...that's hardly
> possible.
But wasn't a fairly large proportion of the brain destroyed and blown
away in the fatal shot, thereby enabling the doctors to remove the
remainder from the skull?
MEH
Paul Seaton
<m...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message news:93a3e4$ltb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > This means that if the boh really *is* intact in those boh pictures,
> they
> > got the brain out *with the boh intact*.
> >
> > From what I know of the mechanics of removing brains...that's hardly
> > possible.
>
> But wasn't a fairly large proportion of the brain destroyed and blown
> away in the fatal shot, thereby enabling the doctors to remove the
> remainder from the skull?
The left hemishere was virtually intact. You can see this on the HSCA
drawings of the brain. Remember we're talking about *surgically* removing
the brain, which as I understand it is a fairly meticulous operation. The
back of the head being intact would basically prevent Humes being able to
surgically disconnect the blood vessels at the base of the brain and the
brain stem itself. He would simply be unable to access them. Unless he dug
the brain out with a spoon.
All the testimony is that the right rear of the head 'came apart' down to
the eop (-ish). (Which shouldn't be taken to imply any shooters at the
front...)
If so, then getting the brain out without ripping it to shreds would seem
at least possible, and there's no doubt the brain was removed 'with no
sawing'.
Jerry
m...@SoftHome.net wrote:
>
> > This means that if the boh really *is* intact in those boh pictures,
> they
> > got the brain out *with the boh intact*.
> >
> > From what I know of the mechanics of removing brains...that's hardly
> > possible.
>
> But wasn't a fairly large proportion of the brain destroyed and blown
> away in the fatal shot,
Not at all. A portion of the right cerebral hemisphere was blown out.
>thereby enabling the doctors to remove the remainder from the skull?
That's far from the account the docs themselves gave.
Jerry