In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
 "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:

I don't see how that is especially significant.  The suturing might be
hidden by the hair, depending on how it was done.

Ah, but on what basis?  We simply have too many witnesses, in the limo,
outside Parkland, inside Parkland, in Dallas and Bethesda, and at
Bethesda only, saying there was a hole in the back of JFK's head for it
to be at all plausible that it wasn't there.  And there can't be a hole
unless there is also a rip or tear in the scalp in that area.  If the
scalp is intact, and not torn, there won't be a hole visible from the
outside, even if there is an underlying hole in the skull.  So unless
you're prepared to dismiss a much larger amount of the evidence than I
am, and claim that this many witnesses, including quite a few medical
professionals, were mistaken about something so incredibly obvious, or
to claim that these autopsy photos were doctored after they were taken
(a claim that I don't think you or I make), then by far the most
plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction is simply that the
witnesses were correct, and that hole was closed when the photos were
taken.  And what is just about the only way it would be closed, so that
there is no hole in the scalp even?  Suturing.  Do you know of any other
method?

I strongly disagree.  It is of crucial importance to resolve this, one
of the most serious controversies ever to arise regarding this
assassination, in a way that involves dismissing the smallest amount of
evidence, because only then will the most plausible explanation be
reached.  It would obviously then be of crucial importance to determine,
as well as we possibly can, when during the autopsy these photos were
taken.  To say they were taken late, perhaps latest, does indeed involve
dismissing the smallest amount of available evidence, since if suturing
was done, it would obviously have been done late.

Exactly.

Yes and no.  It is obviously much larger in the film.  I might agree
that part of it is open in the autopsy photos, but not nearly as much of
it as in the film.  In the film it is quite obvious that some of the
flap extends lower than the level of his right ear.  That is not the
case in the autopsy photos.

Well, that may be, and perhaps I should not be referring to all of that
in the film as "flaps" of scalp and bone only.  Whatever it is, possibly
a combination of flaps and brain matter hanging out, I was still correct
in stating that not only is the film the only photographic evidence of
the damage in front of his right ear being that huge and obvious at any
time before the autopsists worked on exposing the full damage to the
skull, I have also given a quite plausible explanation as to why the
appearance of the size of that damage changed so quickly, so that nearly
all subsequent observers in the limo, outside Parkland, inside Parkland,
in Dallas and Bethesda, and at Bethesda only (prior to the full exposure
of the damage to the skull) were not of the initial impression that the
damage forward of the right ear was as serious as the damage well behind
the right ear.

JRK