David VP, big favor to ask you
John Canal
whether or not any BOH wound (besides the entry) existed in Dallas. I even
learned a few more details that I had missed previously, because in order
to make constructive replies to you, I needed to go back and re-read some
related testimony....an, like I said, came across some important details
that actually strengthened the BOH wound agument.
Anyway, whether or not I was able to convince you that one did exist, I'm
not sure, because you didn't let on, either way.
That being said, what I am pretty certain of is that you did understand my
points and pretty much the wound I was trying to describe.............so,
because I kind of get the feeling that you and E. Cage, probably have
exchanged private emails, or perhaps even phone calls, would you pleeeeese
"un-confuse" him re. the wound you think I described to you.
Heck, even if you were not totally sure of what I was describing, after 5
or 6 weeks, he has no clue whatsoever....and we are wasting our time and
that of the moderators going around in cicles.
I'd be grateful for ANY help you could give US on that.
Regards,
John Canal
David Von Pein
or not any BOH wound (besides the entry) existed in Dallas. ... Would you
pleeeeese "un-confuse" him {Ed Cage} re. the wound you think I described
to you. ... I'd be grateful for ANY help you could give US on that." <<<
Hi John C.,
I enjoyed our prior discussions re. the "BOH" matter. I know that I
remained a bit ambiguous about some things. (And I'm still not convinced
that Boswell ever specifically claimed he replaced "BOH" skull fragments
on JFK's head...but I guess that's not for this thread.) ;)
Anyway, to comply with your request.....
It's my impression from our discussions in the past that you (John Canal)
believe there was a LARGER THAN JUST AN ENTRY-SIZED BULLET HOLE (the size
is undetermined to a large extent, per your beliefs) in the right-rear
portion of JFK's head after the President was shot in the head one time
(from behind) by Lee Oswald's Carcano bullet.
You also, of course, believe there was a smaller wound (of entrance) at
the back of the head.
The larger BOH wound is IN ADDITION to the TOP/FRONT/RIGHT head wound on
JFK's head, which you believe was probably not visible (or at least not AS
readily visible) to the Parkland people due to Jackie Kennedy likely
"holding JFK's head on", as Jackie said she tried to do.*
* = I am also inclined to believe this explanation re. the right-front
exit wound, as I alluded to in past posts and in my review of Jim Moore's
book, while trying to debunk Mr. Moore's absurd explanation of the
Parkland witness observations.
But I want to also stress that the "Jackie masked the front-right wound"
explanation still doesn't entirely satisfy me....because it's rather
amazing that her "holding the head on" in the car would have COMPLETELY
masked the blood/ooze/brain that I still think would have at least been
PARTIALLY visible to the Parkland personnel.
But the Parkland people seem to see ONLY a large BOH wound...and not the
right-front wound. Very curious indeed.
But I'll also reiterate that there's just as much evidence (if not more)
that reveals the Parkland witnesses to be mistaken (in mass, as incredible
as that thought might be).
Other evidence such as: Autopsy report, X-rays, photos, Z-Film, and the
Bethesda doctors' unwavering testimony for decades on end....including the
NON-"testimony" statements made by Dr. Humes on national TV in June
1967).....
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side
of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967
The autopsy picture below is one that you (John) think is obscuring the
damaged right-rear BOH wound (a wound that I think you say could even
extend all the way up to the EOP area of the head, behind the scalp here,
which is being held up in place to hide the hole).....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
If I have misinterpreted your head-wound beliefs, I apologize....but I
think that's correct re. your thoughts on where the wounds were on JFK's
head on 11/22/63.
This thread also affords me the chance to state for the unambiguous record
my own thoughts (to date) re. the controversial "BOH" matter.....
As of this date (May 7, 2007) I do not think there was ANY "large BOH"
wound at the back of President Kennedy's head.
If there had been a large hole at the back of JFK's head, would we have
all of the following testimony in the public record from the autopsy
doctors? (I've culled parts of testimony from Humes and Finck below, but
not Boswell....because we covered Boswell's statements thoroughly in other
threads):
DR. HUMES.......................
WC TESTIMONY:
DR. HUMES -- "We concluded that the large defect to the upper right side
of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit. ... As this
missile penetrated the scalp, it then came upon a very firm substance, the
hard skull, and I believe that this track depicted by the dotted lines on
Exhibit 388 was a portion of that missile which was dislodged as it made
its defect in the skull. And that...a more major portion made its exit
through the right lateral side of the skull."
========
HSCA:
MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and only
one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did enter in
the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those three points,
to the best of your knowledge?
DR. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
========
ARRB:
DR. HUMES -- "This is the wound of exit from the skull, the big gaping
hole in the right side of the temporo-parietal area."
QUESTION -- "Do you have any knowledge as to where the missing skull-- or
missing scalp was?
DR. HUMES -- "No. It wasn't that much, I'm telling you. It was more torn
than missing."
QUESTION -- "The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best
you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp."
DR. HUMES -- "They went in every direction. They were-- I think I
described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the
whole area was lacerated."
QUESTION -- "For the scalp?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--"
DR. HUMES -- "Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily.
Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"
DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."
=====================================================
DR. FINCK..........................
WC TESTIMONY:
DR. FINCK -- "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear.
The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side
of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of which was
approximately 13 centimeters."
========
HSCA:
DR. FINCK -- "Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right
side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters
in diameter, it was a very large one -- the fractures were so extensive,
there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have
much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do."
========
ARRB:
QUESTION -- "We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that
were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit
wound and the entrance wound?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Three holes or just two?"
DR. FINCK -- "Two."
========
CLAY SHAW TRIAL:
DR. FINCK -- "The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head,
disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high velocity
goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them seen on
X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and also recovered
by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President, and that
projectile produced that wound of exit on the RIGHT SIDE AND TOP of the
head." (DVP's emphasis.)
QUESTION -- "Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late President
Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you have described
to me any other wounds on the body of the late President?"
DR. FINCK -- "I did not, no other bullet wounds."
DR. FINCK -- "Gentlemen, you are looking at a letter-sized paper
reproduction of a drawing labeled here "D-29". It represents the right
side of the head and the right shoulder and upper chest of President
Kennedy. For demonstration purposes, the drawing shows the wounds in a
general way, arrows indicate the direction of the missile, the arrow
behind the back of the head has the word "in", and the arrow you see in
front of the wound on the right side and top of the head is labeled "out".
You see a relatively small wound of entry in the back of the head and you
see a much larger wound of exit irregular on the right side of the head.
This indicates the direction of the bullet striking the back of the head
coming out on the right side. If you take the middle of this wound of
exit, the general direction of this missile path, is from the rear to the
front going downward."
======================================================
[END DOCTOR QUOTES.]
Now, I forthrightly admit that the observations of the Parkland witnesses
drive me nuts. I just cannot FULLY explain them...not even to my own 100%
satisfaction (within my otherwise very firm "LN" beliefs on the case).
I think that I (and others), however, have at least provided a possible
explanation for why those Parkland witnesses saw what they said they saw.
But I must confess it's never fully satisfied me either.
It sure would have been nice if somebody at one of the various official
inquiries (including the Shaw trial) had simply asked one of the autopsy
doctors, point-blank -- "Doctor {Humes/Boswell/Finck}, did you observe ANY
large, gaping wound (i.e., HOLE) at the back of the President's head
underneath the scalp?"
The closest I think we can find to that type of point-blank question would
be this exchange at Humes' ARRB session:
QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
over the occipital bone?" DR. HUMES -- "No. No." QUESTION -- "None
whatsoever?" DR. HUMES -- "No."
Now, "laceration" doesn't equate to "hole". It means "a torn and ragged
wound" (per Merriam-Webster Online). And, of course, that inquiry was
referring to the "scalp lacerations" only...not the skull under the scalp
(I would assume). So, it's still not totally definitive.
But that ARRB exchange does confirm what we can see in the BOH autopsy
photo; i.e., no torn, lacerated scalp in the BOH.
Perhaps Vincent Bugliosi, who has studied the case for 21 years in writing
his book "Reclaiming History", will have a more definitive "BOH"
solution/explanation that will be more satisfying to me. I have no idea at
this point. But we'll soon see when the book comes out.
Chapter 3 of Vincent's book is 68 pages long and is titled "President
Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And Governor
Connally".
I'm a little surprised that chapter takes up only 68 pages (in relation,
that is, to the overall huge size of the book). It's probable, however,
that the subject of JFK's wounds will also surface in other chapters as
well. I'd have to believe that that sub-topic will emerge in various
places within the tome, in fact.
But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH wound (i.e.,
a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's head.
Because if it did exist, IMO the LNers (including myself of course) have
got a very, very big problem. And that problem is: THREE LYING AUTOPSY
DOCTORS.
And I just don't think we have that in this case. I simply cannot wrap my
brain around the idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors, from Humes to
Boswell to Finck, for whatever reason, would tell what amounts to 40- plus
years worth of deception with respect to the true nature of the wounds of
an assassinated U.S. President.
Perhaps John Canal is 100% correct and I'm dead wrong. That's
possible...I'll admit it. But I just cannot embrace the as-yet-
unsupported notion that HB&F could be that deceptive (for years on end)
with respect to the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform
in their entire lives. "Military orders" or not.
Thank you.
David Von Pein
May 7, 2007
David Von Pein
=============================================
A CTer SAID:
>>> "And please don't tell me he {VB} is a 'back of the head intact' person..." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
I fully expect Vince to support an "INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD" (i.e., no
large HOLE back there). That's because: there was NO LARGE HOLE in the
back of Kennedy's head. The autopsy report, the photos, the Z-Film,
and the never-changing testimony and statements of all three
autopsists prove this fact.
And, in my view, there would have been absolutely no good ENOUGH
reason whatsoever (as John Canal purports) for those autopsy doctors
to skew the truth or dance around a large-sized BOH wound IF THE LONE
HEAD SHOT PROVABLY CAME FROM THE REAR (which it positively did...also
per the autopsy report, photos, Z-Film, and doctors' testimony).
If a large BOH wound did exist, and the doctors were also confronted
with just the ONE entry hole at the back of the head (whether it be at
the cowlick or the EOP), the doctors could quite easily explain the
reasons why there was a large BOH wound within the context of "ONE
HEAD SHOT FROM THE REAR".
Why do I say this? Because it would have been THE TRUTH!
Therefore, WHY THE HELL AVOID THIS TRUTH? Deceiving people within a
LEGIT and TRUE scenario of one shot hitting JFK in the head from the
rear is just ..... STUPID!
Such deception within such a scenario could ONLY be disastrous for the
doctors and the ensuing investigation, IMO. Because they'll always
need to cover their tracks re. this deception. And ALL FOR NO GOOD
REASON....because the "One Head Shot From The Rear" conclusion would
still be true whether they lied or told the truth.
So, IMO, if Mr. Bugliosi supports ANY type of "Large BOH Wound" on
Kennedy's head...he's probably going to be in major trouble. (Unless
he's got an extremely good and convincing reason for believing in such
a thing in light of the autopsy report, the doctors' statements, the
Z-
Film, and the photos/X-rays.)
Why? Because such a "BOH" declaration would make all 3 autopsy doctors
absolute liars and deceivers when it came to that autopsy report and
their various verbal pieces of testimony over the years.
And WHY would Dr. Humes go on TV (voluntarily!) and say this, when he
obviously didn't have a gun to his head, forcing him to talk to Dan
Rather?:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right
side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967
If Humes, the primary autopsy doctor, had been trying to deceive
America re. any kind of large BOH wound, he would have never gone on
TV and said the above words. He merely would have turned down the
offer to appear on CBS-TV in 1967.
John Canal
says...
>
>>>> "You and I had a fairly fruitful exchange not too long ago re. whether
>or not any BOH wound (besides the entry) existed in Dallas. ... Would you
>pleeeeese "un-confuse" him {Ed Cage} re. the wound you think I described
>to you. ... I'd be grateful for ANY help you could give US on that." <<<
>
>Hi John C.,
Hi David,
Thanks for getting back to me on this...considering it was such a strange
request, I wouldn't have had any hard feelings if you just ignored it and told
me to handle my own problems. Thanks again.
>I enjoyed our prior discussions re. the "BOH" matter.
Well me too, and I learned a few thing when I re-read some of the material...and
I wouldn't have done that had you not stood your ground so firmly.
>I know that I
>remained a bit ambiguous about some things. (And I'm still not convinced
>that Boswell ever specifically claimed he replaced "BOH" skull fragments
>on JFK's head...but I guess that's not for this thread.) ;)
Well, that revelation hasn't been exactly accepted across the board...in fact I
think only a few of us believe he did....we're talking about evidence tampering,
and the last I knew that was illegal. :-)
>Anyway, to comply with your request.....
>
>It's my impression from our discussions in the past that you (John Canal)
>believe there was a LARGER THAN JUST AN ENTRY-SIZED BULLET HOLE (the size
>is undetermined to a large extent, per your beliefs) in the right-rear
>portion of JFK's head after the President was shot in the head one time
>(from behind) by Lee Oswald's Carcano bullet.
That works...and you're right the exact size of any right-rear hole will never
be known...my best guess, and with what that's worth and a buck you can get a
cup of coffee...is that it was about the size of a small fist, but perhaps
changing in size somewhat due to the jostling around his body/head was subjected
to, especially during the transfer from the limo to TR1.
>You also, of course, believe there was a smaller wound (of entrance) at
>the back of the head.
Exactly
>The larger BOH wound is IN ADDITION to the TOP/FRONT/RIGHT head wound on
>JFK's head, which you believe was probably not visible (or at least not AS
>readily visible) to the Parkland people due to Jackie Kennedy likely
>"holding JFK's head on", as Jackie said she tried to do.*
So far, so good....I wasn't that unclear afterall.
>* = I am also inclined to believe this explanation re. the right-front
>exit wound, as I alluded to in past posts and in my review of Jim Moore's
>book, while trying to debunk Mr. Moore's absurd explanation of the
>Parkland witness observations.
>
>But I want to also stress that the "Jackie masked the front-right wound"
>explanation still doesn't entirely satisfy me....because it's rather
>amazing that her "holding the head on" in the car would have COMPLETELY
>masked the blood/ooze/brain that I still think would have at least been
>PARTIALLY visible to the Parkland personnel.
I agree, it's a leap...you're right. But...well, let me read on before I finish
my thought.
>But the Parkland people seem to see ONLY a large BOH wound...and not the
>right-front wound. Very curious indeed.
Yes, but...I finish that after reading more of what you have to say.
>But I'll also reiterate that there's just as much evidence (if not more)
>that reveals the Parkland witnesses to be mistaken (in mass, as incredible
>as that thought might be).
Yes, that whould be somewhat incredible, especially when you add in Clint Hill's
and Ebersoles testimony.
>Other evidence such as: Autopsy report, X-rays, photos, Z-Film, and the
>Bethesda doctors' unwavering testimony for decades on end....including the
>NON-"testimony" statements made by Dr. Humes on national TV in June
>1967).....
Yes, hard to swallow...but that must be weighed against the liklihood all those
aftorementioned witnesses were wrong....and you know that because that's why
you're unsure.
>"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side
>of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967
OK.
>The autopsy picture below is one that you (John) think is obscuring the
>damaged right-rear BOH wound
Let me interupt. Not exactly my feelings...When you say, "obscuring" I get the
feeling you think they were hiding the BOH wound....technically, I think that
was a purposeful, and authentic of course, photo.....but it had nothing to do
with any BOH wound...its purpose was to show the entry in the scalp and it did
just that.
My problem is that they should have taken a photo of the BOH immediately after
the body was received....then, if there was no BOH wound, they could have told
the Parkland docs to stuff it and watch what they're saying....but, no they
didn't take any such picture, not did they either say unambiguously in their
report or testimony that when the body was received there was ONLY an entry
wound in the BOD. Moreover, where'e the pic of the BOH from the rear with the
scalp removed??? Now, David, if you want "curious", there you go. :-)
>(a wound that I think you say could even
>extend all the way up to the EOP
The EOP is typically a little above or near a line going across the BOH from the
middle of one ear to the middle of the other.
>area of the head, behind the scalp here,
>which is being held up in place to hide the hole).....
Well, I wouldn't have said they were holding it to hide the hole...they were
just showing the entry in the scalp.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
Well, I couldn't open your graphic...I'll try doing it again after I send this.
But my guess is you're read me right.
>If I have misinterpreted your head-wound beliefs, I apologize....
It wouldn't be your faul, entirely...I've been accused by some as being, "all
over the map" on this.
>but I
>think that's correct re. your thoughts on where the wounds were on JFK's
>head on 11/22/63.
>This thread also affords me the chance to state for the unambiguous record
>my own thoughts (to date) re. the controversial "BOH" matter.....
Caught me off guard...but I'm always willing to listen and offer any
explanations if I can.
>As of this date (May 7, 2007) I do not think there was ANY "large BOH"
>wound at the back of President Kennedy's head.
If you got that "large" part from me, I didn't mean to use that
adjective...because the really "large" wound was the blow-out in the
top/right/front....IMO, the BOH wound was only about one fourth to one fifth as
large.
>If there had been a large hole at the back of JFK's head, would we have
>all of the following testimony in the public record from the autopsy
>doctors? (I've culled parts of testimony from Humes and Finck below, but
>not Boswell....because we covered Boswell's statements thoroughly in other
>threads):
>
>DR. HUMES.......................
>
>WC TESTIMONY:
>
>DR. HUMES -- "We concluded that the large defect to the upper right side
>of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit. ... As this
>missile penetrated the scalp, it then came upon a very firm substance, the
>hard skull, and I believe that this track depicted by the dotted lines on
>Exhibit 388 was a portion of that missile which was dislodged as it made
>its defect in the skull. And that...a more major portion made its exit
>through the right lateral side of the skull."
>
>========
Ok. But that dotted line, IMO, goes to what they call a "fragment"...that wasn't
there...yes, David that's the mysterious 6.5 mm opacity. But, let's not open
that can of worms, before we try to close the can we've already opened...at
least here now. :-)
>HSCA:
>
>MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and only
>one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did enter in
>the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those three points,
>to the best of your knowledge?
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
And that's true...technically. There was only one entry wound in the BOH. The
right-rear BOH wound was, for lack of a better describtion, IMO, "collateral
damage"...that probably became noticeable more due to the jostling around of his
head. IOW, yes the bullet fragmented the BOH bone and probably made a tear in
the scalp...but my best guees is that the "out-of-place" BOH bone pieces didn't
get "out-of-place" until he was bounced around....I wish Zapruder could have
followed them all the way into TR1 so I could tell you exactly when that BOH
wound opened up. :-)
>========
>
>ARRB:
>
>DR. HUMES -- "This is the wound of exit from the skull, the big gaping
>hole in the right side of the temporo-parietal area."
>
>QUESTION -- "Do you have any knowledge as to where the missing skull-- or
>missing scalp was?
>
>DR. HUMES -- "No. It wasn't that much, I'm telling you. It was more torn
>than missing."
Yes, obviously, as we can see that in the BOH photos.
>QUESTION -- "The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best
>you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp."
>
>DR. HUMES -- "They went in every direction. They were-- I think I
>described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the
>whole area was lacerated."
>QUESTION -- "For the scalp?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Yes."
>
>QUESTION -- "In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily.
>Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
Which sounds a little conflicting, IMO, with his earlier, "way back"
description. And did he forget that the AR said the defect went back somewhat
into the temporal and occipital bones?
>QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
>over the occipital bone?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
>
>QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."
Ok then throw out the autopsy report?
Boswell must be more religious or something than Humes. It's Boswell who tells
all, not Humes. :-)
>=====================================================
>
>DR. FINCK..........................
>
>WC TESTIMONY:
>
>DR. FINCK -- "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear.
>The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side
>of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of which was
>approximately 13 centimeters."
>========
That's true those are the wounds the entry and exit....the right-rear BOH wound
was neither.
>HSCA:
>
>DR. FINCK -- "Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right
>side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters
>in diameter, it was a very large one -- the fractures were so extensive,
>there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have
>much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do."
>
>========
Exactly...and that equates to loose bone under the scalp....David, the leap from
that to a right-rear BOH wound is a baby step...IOW, it wouldn't have taken a
whole lot for one or two of those loose pieces to move out of position....and,
if they were adhered to the underside of the scalp, then Boswell could have
"smoothed" the scalp back into place (along with the adhered pieces of bone) in
a jiff.
>
>ARRB:
>
>QUESTION -- "We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that
>were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit
>wound and the entrance wound?"
>
>DR. FINCK -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "Three holes or just two?"
>
>DR. FINCK -- "Two."
Exactly, David, because by the time Finck arrived the right-rear BOH wound was
just a memory....and all the previously loose, fragmented BOH bone had come out
thereby giving them access to the brain for its removal.
>========
>
>CLAY SHAW TRIAL:
>
>DR. FINCK -- "The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head,
>disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high velocity
>goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them seen on
>X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and also recovered
>by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President, and that
>projectile produced that wound of exit on the RIGHT SIDE AND TOP of the
>head." (DVP's emphasis.)
>
>QUESTION -- "Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late President
>Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you have described
>to me any other wounds on the body of the late President?"
>
>DR. FINCK -- "I did not, no other bullet wounds."
Perfectly true.
>DR. FINCK -- "Gentlemen, you are looking at a letter-sized paper
>reproduction of a drawing labeled here "D-29". It represents the right
>side of the head and the right shoulder and upper chest of President
>Kennedy. For demonstration purposes, the drawing shows the wounds in a
>general way, arrows indicate the direction of the missile, the arrow
>behind the back of the head has the word "in", and the arrow you see in
>front of the wound on the right side and top of the head is labeled "out".
>You see a relatively small wound of entry in the back of the head and you
>see a much larger wound of exit irregular on the right side of the head.
>This indicates the direction of the bullet striking the back of the head
>coming out on the right side. If you take the middle of this wound of
>exit, the general direction of this missile path, is from the rear to the
>front going downward."
>
>======================================================
>
>[END DOCTOR QUOTES.]
Do you think they rule out the possibility a right-rear BOH wound existed? I
agree...they don't. :-)
>Now, I forthrightly admit that the observations of the Parkland witnesses
>drive me nuts. I just cannot FULLY explain them...not even to my own 100%
>satisfaction (within my otherwise very firm "LN" beliefs on the case).
Again, their testimony, and least we forget Hill's and Ebersole's, is
consistent, IMO, with Boswell replacing pieces of rear skull just after the body
arrived. Heck, David, he didn't Super Glue them back...he just probably
"smoothed" the rear scalp back...the loose pieces were adhered to the scalp and
ewent easily back into place...at least that's the way I imagine it...but, yes,
that's speculation....but the game we play here is "The Best Speculation Wins",
right? I'll match the believability of that speculation up against the idea all
those doctors and other witnesses could be wrong anytime. :-)
>I think that I (and others), however, have at least provided a possible
>explanation for why those Parkland witnesses saw what they said they saw.
>But I must confess it's never fully satisfied me either.
Ya, and especially if 10 witnesses, including two neurosurgeons, said they saw
cerebellum.....kind of hard to see that part of the brain, DDavid, from a hole
up top doncha think? :-)
>It sure would have been nice if somebody at one of the various official
>inquiries (including the Shaw trial) had simply asked one of the autopsy
>doctors, point-blank -- "Doctor {Humes/Boswell/Finck}, did you observe ANY
>large, gaping wound (i.e., HOLE) at the back of the President's head
>underneath the scalp?"
IMO, they didn't want to hear about any such wound. Ever heard the saying, if
you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question?"
I'm kind of an old guy now and if it's one thing I've learded about the
government or some groups of people in the government, it's that the old, "in
the best interests of the nation" can justify just about anything....and, NO,
CTs, I didn't mean that including killing JFK.
>The closest I think we can find to that type of point-blank question would
>be this exchange at Humes' ARRB session:
Wouldn't have helped, IMO.
>QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears
>over the occipital bone?" DR. HUMES -- "No. No." QUESTION -- "None
>whatsoever?" DR. HUMES -- "No."
"But, why did you say that, Dr. Humes...because it says right hear in your
report that the wound extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal bones?"
>Now, "laceration" doesn't equate to "hole". It means "a torn and ragged
>wound" (per Merriam-Webster Online). And, of course, that inquiry was
>referring to the "scalp lacerations" only...not the skull under the scalp
>(I would assume). So, it's still not totally definitive.
Yup.
>But that ARRB exchange does confirm what we can see in the BOH autopsy
>photo; i.e., no torn, lacerated scalp in the BOH.
There could have been a tear there and if the scalp was smoothed back can you be
sure you could still see the laceration in the scalp?
I was once going to do an experiment. I was going to take a wig and cut a
"laceration" in it and then take a pic of that scalp with the flap forced open
and another with the smae flap smooted closed...just to see if you could
tell....like P. Seaton recently suggested, you couldn't see a laceration in the
scalp because the hair obscures it.
>Perhaps Vincent Bugliosi, who has studied the case for 21 years in writing
>his book "Reclaiming History", will have a more definitive "BOH"
>solution/explanation that will be more satisfying to me. I have no idea at
>this point. But we'll soon see when the book comes out.
No, there are not too many researchers or authors as obsessed enough about the
conflicts in the medical ev. to try to explain them reasonably, probably besides
myself, Barb, and P. Seaton.
>Chapter 3 of Vincent's book is 68 pages long and is titled "President
>Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And Governor
>Connally".
Bet you a cup of coffee on free coffee night that his take on the wounds is the
same as Posner's. :-) We'll see, though...especially if he had F8 examined by an
expert or two before he wrote that chapter.
>I'm a little surprised that chapter takes up only 68 pages (in relation,
>that is, to the overall huge size of the book). It's probable, however,
>that the subject of JFK's wounds will also surface in other chapters as
>well. I'd have to believe that that sub-topic will emerge in various
>places within the tome, in fact.
>
>But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH wound (i.e.,
>a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's head.
Well, don't feel like the lone stranger, but, of course we disagree...and I hope
someday we find out who's right. :-)
>Because if it did exist, IMO the LNers (including myself of course) have
>got a very, very big problem. And that problem is: THREE LYING AUTOPSY
>DOCTORS.
David, David, David, when did they lie? They pretty much told the truth about an
entry and exit wound....they were never asked directly if there was a opening in
the BOH when they received the body...so why would they volunteer such (alarming
to some) information?
>And I just don't think we have that in this case. I simply cannot wrap my
>brain around the idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors, from Humes to
>Boswell to Finck, for whatever reason, would tell what amounts to 40- plus
>years worth of deception
In the best interests of the nation? And when Boswell finally did get his little
not-so-legal BOH bone piece replacing deed off his chest...it was pretty dam
subtle, IMO....nothing like "Hey guys, I had to replace some rear bones or else
the press would have gone nuts thinking there had been a shot from the front".
>with respect to the true nature of the wounds of
>an assassinated U.S. President.
>
>Perhaps John Canal is 100% correct and I'm dead wrong.
Classy of you to say that...I won't show as much class, though, in return...but
will go as far to say, I'm 99% sure it happened the way I just described, which
is pretty much, I believe, what Barb and P. Seaton believe as well.
>That's
>possible...I'll admit it. But I just cannot embrace the as-yet-
>unsupported notion that HB&F could be that deceptive (for years on end)
>with respect to the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform
>in their entire lives. "Military orders" or not.
But did Boswell replace rear pieces of skull, including one that was a 10 cm
piece,....in a skull that didn't need to have rear skull pieces replaced?
That's the bridge, David...to let those many Parkland eyewitnesses leave that
island of delusion, that so many think they were on for all those years. :-)
I understand you position....no problem.
>Thank you.
And thanks again back at you.
John Canal
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>ADDENDUM/FOLLOW-UP TO MY LAST POST...............
<TOP POST>
David, I'll bite my tongue for now, because I didn't know you were so certain
there was no right-rear BOH wound. Perhaps Barb and/or Paul Seaton wants to
discuss this issue with you? Evidently my arguments weren't that convincing.
Oh well, we'll see.
John Canal
John Canal
:-)
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Moreover, where'e the pic of the BOH from the rear with the scalp
removed??? Now, David, if you want "curious", there you go." <<<
Right. But, then again, we must all realize that NONE of this current
crop of "Fox" autopsy photos is supposed to be available AT ALL.
The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
day.
So, my question would be: How do we know there aren't SEVERAL more
autopsy pictures apart from the so-called "Fox set" of pictures? How
can we know that? The autopsy people don't even seem to know exactly
how many pictures were taken.
>>> "Again, their testimony {i.e., Humes & Finck}, and lest we forget
Hill's and Ebersole's, is consistent, IMO, with Boswell replacing pieces
of rear skull just after the body arrived." <<<
But there's the rub -- I don't think it's been firmly established that
Boswell DID, in fact, replace any "BOH" skull fragments. And BEFORE the
X-rays were taken?? Was he truly THAT stupid (and/or deceptive)? To do
that with scads of other people watching, no doubt?! And then ADMIT to
doing it (albeit ambiguously as hell) in 1996?!! And all FOR NO GOOD
ENOUGH REASON WHATEVER (IMO)?!
It's just...dumb. Again, IMO.
If the TRUTH was: One entry wound in head (from behind)....then there's NO
good reason to tell false tales about ANYTHING. There just ISN'T. Because
these guys could easily explain the damage to the head via an "OSWALD
COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS FROM THE DEPOSITORY" fashion.
The major problem that I would continue to have with the autopsy doctors
IF your scenario re. the "larger BOH" wound is correct is this --- If they
"fudged" on telling the WHOLE story/truth about the BOH, then how can we
know for certain these guys didn't fudge on telling the whole story and
the whole truth someplace else within their examination of the President?
As I've said many times in the past when talking about Oswald's tons of
lies that he told in Nov. '63 after he was arrested -- ONE LIE FEEDS
ANOTHER. (Like when CTers insist on misinterpreting Oswald's infamous "I'm
just a patsy" statement...which was uttered just a single second after he
told a PROVABLE lie about having been "taken in because I lived in the
Soviet Union"....I ask CTers: WHY would you suddenly start BELIEVING a
known liar re. the "patsy" thing, esp. when he told a lie just one SECOND
prior to telling us he was a patsy?!)
I'd ask the same thing with respect to the autopsy doctors (times THREE
men) -- If they weren't forthright about something like the BOH wounds on
JFK's head...how can we know what other secrets they might be keeping to
themselves.
My $0.02 (or more).
YMMV. (And it probably will, too.)
Regards,
DVP ;)
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>Hi again John,
Hi David,
But, I'm confused....in an earlier post you seemed to write with an angry tone.
If I brought that out of you, I regret it.....and if I said something that
offended you, I didn't mean to.
I have respect for you and your logical thought processing abilities.
Anyway, let's see what you've got.
>>>> "Moreover, where'e the pic of the BOH from the rear with the scalp
>removed??? Now, David, if you want "curious", there you go." <<<
>
>Right. But, then again, we must all realize that NONE of this current
>crop of "Fox" autopsy photos is supposed to be available AT ALL.
>The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
>public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
>day.
Yes, that's undoubtedly true, but the most "grisley" pics, IMHO, are the one of
the inside of his head with the brain removed and the one of the top of his head
just after the body arrived at Bethesda. The one I think that may have helped to
prevent discussions like this would have been much less grisley, again, IMO.
>So, my question would be: How do we know there aren't SEVERAL more
>autopsy pictures apart from the so-called "Fox set" of pictures?
Well, while I believe the photographer's, whom, BTW, I interviewed in person,
recollection on that seems to be a little unclear, as I recall, there were
inventories taken and they confirmed that there were no other pics taken than
the ones available. But I'm not positive about the record on that...perhaps A.
Marsh is....where is he when you need him? :-)
>How
>can we know that? The autopsy people don't even seem to know exactly
>how many pictures were taken.
I tend to agree, but am just not certain whether or not there could be pics
missing....anything's possible.
>>>> "Again, their testimony {i.e., Humes & Finck},
David, if I mentioned Finck's testimony re, this, I shoudn't have because by the
time he got there any such wound would have been history. The only thing he said
relevant is that there was ittle or no sawing done and he must have gotten that
from Humes r Boswell. Now that just means that the rear bone fell out when they
reflected the scalp to remove the brain...meaning the rear skull was shattered
when the body arrived......which makes any connection, IMO, with Boswell's
having to "replace" (I think he just easily "smoothed" the rear scalp with the
adhered bone fragments into lace) rearbone pieces and one or two of them being
out of place in Dallas, hardly a stretch of the imagination...especially when we
consider what all those eyewitnesses said.
But, I'm recycling old points that didn't sway you before, so I might be wasting
both of our time by this repetition.
>and lest we forget
>Hill's and Ebersole's, is consistent, IMO, with Boswell replacing pieces
>of rear skull just after the body arrived." <<<
>
>But there's the rub -- I don't think it's been firmly established that
>Boswell DID, in fact, replace any "BOH" skull fragments. And BEFORE the
>X-rays were taken??
I take his testimony literally...and just don't see any other way to read it.
>Was he truly THAT stupid (and/or deceptive)?
>To do
>that with scads of other people watching, no doubt?! And then ADMIT to
>doing it (albeit ambiguously as hell) in 1996?!! And all FOR NO GOOD
>ENOUGH REASON WHATEVER (IMO)?!
Yes, you make a good point. But, here's my opinion on that. The BOH wound
wasn't, again, IMO, where a bullet went in or came out...it was "collateral
damage...sort of. Maybe, he didn't think that BOH mess was relevant to their
determining the cause of death? Is that possible? IOW, kind of like a
"no-big-deal" event for him, "smoothng" that scalp with the adhered pieces back
where it should have been....heck, David, doing so would probably helped the
x-rays better reveal the true entry and exit wounds...maybe it was the smart
thing to do.....why should he have cared what perpetual arguments such an action
miht have precipitated...not his problem. His probem was determining the cause
of death.
>It's just...dumb. Again, IMO.
Maybe.
>If the TRUTH was: One entry wound in head (from behind)....then there's NO
>good reason to tell false tales about ANYTHING. >There just ISN'T.
Well, you might be right on his reasoning...I don't know..I just look at the
record and try to connect the dots with reasonable speculation.
The prevalent motive assigned to any replacing of those rear bones is that he
did it to make sure any BOH wound wasn't misinterpreted, by those who didn't see
only one entry and one exit for themselves on the body, as ev. of a frontal
shot. I believed that for some time, althoughI didn't really focus on his
motivation perhaps as much as I should have.
In any case, what I said about him possibly thinking any such wound was sort of
cluttering up the real ev. that they were trying to show, i.e. the enry hole and
the exit wound, and simply smoothed it over. I'm just providing my best guess on
that.
>Because
>these guys could easily explain the damage to the head via an "OSWALD
>COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS FROM THE DEPOSITORY" fashion.
You know Daid, John McAdams, J. Fiorentino, not to mention the Clark Panel and 9
forensic docs on the HSCA's FPP, thought/think HB&F were unqualified, if not
idiots...so maybe they weren't so comfortable that their explanations about
there only being one entry and exit would be accepted. I'm not sure.
But wat I'm sure of is that its not a major leap to go from JFK arrving at
Bethesda with a totally fragmented BOH....to one or two of those pieces being
moved out of place in Dallas.
Remember, most of those Parkland eyewitnesses, as well as Hill and Ebersole,
were certain of a right-rear gaping wound......to say that they couldn't have
been [cerain] would be calling them liars. NO body really lied, David...and that
includes the autopsy docs....H & B just didn't volunteer information about what
they may have considered a wound irrelevant, in their opinions, to the cause of
death.
In your other "still smokin" post you mention the Z-film, the BOH photos, and
the x-rays. We've been over this "ev." I'm almost positie the wound opened up
after Zapruder stopped filming, when JFK was being jostled around.
The BOH photos were taken after the brain was removed and any tear in the scalp
might not be noticable if the flap were smoothed back....not to conceal
anything, but to make photographing the entry more effective.
The x-rays. Well, I've read what Boswell said an I believe him...because,
previous to his revelations, they were the only hard ev. that blocked the bridge
from the BOH wound to what the current NO-BOH-WOUND conclusion.
>The major problem that I would continue to have with the autopsy doctors
>IF your scenario re. the "larger BOH" wound is correct is this --- If they
>"fudged" on telling the WHOLE story/truth about the BOH,
But what if they opined that the BOH wound was just clutter and not relevant to
the cause of death? IOW, to them it wasn't that important and describing any suh
wound wasn't necessary to telling the whole [important] truth...,in fact, I'll
bet they left out many details. Again, just guessing.
>then how can we
>know for certain these guys didn't fudge on telling the whole story and
>the whole truth someplace else within their examination of the President?
Well there are x-rays that only show one entrance that I know of and photos that
show one entry....and about 10 eyewitnesses who say THE bullet entered naer the
EOP on the BOH. And, of course, that's all consistent with the ton of other ev.
proving he was hit in the head only once.
>As I've said many times in the past when talking about Oswald's tons of
>lies that he told in Nov. '63 after he was arrested -- ONE LIE FEEDS
>ANOTHER. (Like when CTers insist on misinterpreting Oswald's infamous "I'm
>just a patsy" statement...which was uttered just a single second after he
>told a PROVABLE lie about having been "taken in because I lived in the
>Soviet Union"....I ask CTers: WHY would you suddenly start BELIEVING a
>known liar re. the "patsy" thing, esp. when he told a lie just one SECOND
>prior to telling us he was a patsy?!)
>
>I'd ask the same thing with respect to the autopsy doctors (times THREE
>men) -- If they weren't forthright about something like the BOH wounds on
>JFK's head...how can we know what other secrets they might be keeping to
>themselves.
Not being forthright and volunteering answers to diect questions that weren't
asked is not, IMHO, the same as lying. When Humes was asked if there were any
other wounds, he probably assumed the questioner was referring to entry and exit
wound....therefore, because the BOH wound was neither where a bulet entered or
exited, he could truthfully say, "no other wounds".
>My $0.02 (or more).
Beats my $0.01 all to Hell.
Take care,
John Canal
>YMMV. (And it probably will, too.)
P.S. What's "YMMV" mean?
>Regards,
>DVP ;)
>
>
David Von Pein
No, you didn't offend me in any fashion. And I didn't realize my
earlier post was "smoking" (angry) in any major way. I didn't mean for
it to be....but sometimes things can come out that way, although
unintentionally. (It's the "Nuthouse Forum" effect perhaps.) ;)
>>> "I have respect for you and your logical thought processing abilities." <<<
And I yours. I just cannot wrap my mind around your theory re. Boswell
and the BOH. And that's mainly due to the fact that (as I mentioned
previously, probably several times) I just cannot see the overwhelming
and compelling REASON for any such deception.
>>> "Maybe they {Humes & Boswell} weren't so comfortable that their explanations about there only being one entry and exit would be accepted. I'm not sure."
I suppose that is a possibility (from your POV on this BOH thing). But
I don't think that reasoning necessarily follows. For, why on this
Earth were the H&B boys picked to perform this critical autopsy in the
first place if they didn't have a pretty decent amount of experience
inside an autopsy room?
Why not pick someone else with more experience? Or were H&B all that
Bethesda had to offer on 11/22/63? It was either H&B or a couple of
guys in their teens who'd never seen a dead body previously, with
Homer Simpson asked to assist? (Sorry, just a little humor
there...very little probably.) <g>
Yes, I know that question (re. "gunshot-wound" experience) HAS been
asked by many a-CTer too (re. Humes especially). And, I suppose, it IS
a valid question from either side. But if these guys were picked to do
this important job (the most important autopsy in history), surely the
pickers of the men had a good deal of confidence in the autopsists to
get it right. Didn't they?
Who exactly DID pick Humes & Boswell anyway? I'm not even sure, to be
honest with you. I assume it must have been the head of Bethesda who
made those assignments, correct? And then someone also asked Finck
from the Army to join them an hour or so into the procedure.
In any event, surely the person(s) who chose H&B weren't total
moron(s). They didn't choose some first-year orderly to perform the
biggest autopsy ever.
>>> "But what if they opined that the BOH wound was just clutter and not relevant to the cause of death? IOW, to them it wasn't that important and describing any such wound wasn't necessary to telling the whole [important] truth." <<<
Yikes. I'm having lots of trouble wrapping my (perhaps) feeble brain
around the above scenario.
A hole in President Kennedy's head was considered "just clutter" by
the men assigned to do this ultra-important autopsy and report all of
their findings??
~deep breath~
Can a take another deep breath as I contemplate that possibility for a
while longer?
(Thank you.)
>>> "In fact, I'll bet they left out many details." <<<
But a big ol' hole (or even not so big) at the back of his head?
They'd feel compelled to just ignore THAT? And write it off as "just
clutter"?
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Esp. in light of what I've said
previously....i.e., the scenario of the doctors knowing the true SOLO
entry point for the only bullet (coming undeniably from the rear).
Would lying (or shall we say just "not being forthright", if you want
a milder term) actually be BETTER than just telling the SINGLE-
ASSASSIN-FAVORING TRUTH??
It just makes no logical sense to me. I do fully understand your
position re. the BOH matter, however. I just can't abide the notion
that a President's autopsy (via the provably non-conspiratorial-
leaning conditions you subscribe to; i.e., just one shot hit JFK in
the head) would be subverted in ANY way by the autopsists.
And Humes' voluntary interview on TV in '67 is crazy on his part if
what you're saying is true. I know you'll say that he didn't lie there
either (when he told Dan Rather that the exit wound was "front &
right"), he just didn't offer a FULLER view of where ALL the hole
resided.
But if your scenario were the truth of the matter, do you really think
Dr. Humes would volunteer to go on TV and continue the "BOH spin",
when he could have just kept his yap shut?
>>> "Not being forthright and volunteering answers to direct questions that weren't asked is not, IMHO, the same as lying." <<<
Perhaps not. But it's pretty darn close to it.
And the doctors have to carry around that burden of not being fully
forthright for the rest of their lives. Plus everybody else in that
autopsy room has to do the same, too. The place was packed with
people...Burkley, photographers, technicians, military bigwigs,
etc. .... they all know the "BOH" truth (probably), but say nothing
about it (save Ebersole)?
Military orders I guess. Is that it?
(Am I getting testy again? Sorry. It's habitual. Not personal. I deal
regularly with the "Anybody But Oswald" CTers at the nuthouse
remember. So you'll have to cut me the slack.) ;)
>>> "When Humes was asked if there were any other wounds, he probably assumed the questioner was referring to entry and exit wound....therefore, because the BOH wound was neither where a bullet entered or exited, he could truthfully say, "no other wounds"." <<<
Hmmm. Now THAT I just cannot buy either. Sorry. I can't. There's
simply not a good enough reason to hold this information back. There
isn't. (IMHO.)
>>> "P.S. What's "YMMV" mean?" <<<
"Your Mileage May Vary".
Regards,
DVP
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>>"I'm confused....in an earlier post you seemed to write with an angry tone. If I
>>>>brought that out of you, I regret it....and if I said something that offended
>>>>you, I didn't mean to." <<<
>
>No, you didn't offend me in any fashion. And I didn't realize my
>earlier post was "smoking" (angry) in any major way. I didn't mean for
>it to be....but sometimes things can come out that way, although
>unintentionally. (It's the "Nuthouse Forum" effect perhaps.) ;)
>
>
>>>> "I have respect for you and your logical thought processing abilities." <<<
>
>And I yours.
Thanks.
>I just cannot wrap my mind around your theory re. Boswell
>and the BOH.
David, I fully realize it's not an easy pill of a theory to swallow. About eight
years ago, I felt the same way as you on this issue.
>And that's mainly due to the fact that (as I mentioned
>previously, probably several times) I just cannot see the overwhelming
>and compelling REASON for any such deception.
Well, I guess I never really paid nearly as much attention to the motivation for
them doing that, as I have to whether or not the ev. showed that they did or
didn't do it.
>>>>"Maybe they {Humes & Boswell} weren't so comfortable that their explanations
>>>>about there only being one entry and exit would be accepted. I'm not sure."
>I suppose that is a possibility (from your POV on this BOH thing). But
>I don't think that reasoning necessarily follows. For, why on this
>Earth were the H&B boys picked to perform this critical autopsy in the
>first place if they didn't have a pretty decent amount of experience
>inside an autopsy room?
>
>Why not pick someone else with more experience? Or were H&B all that
>Bethesda had to offer on 11/22/63? It was either H&B or a couple of
>guys in their teens who'd never seen a dead body previously, with
>Homer Simpson asked to assist? (Sorry, just a little humor
>there...very little probably.) <g>
>
>Yes, I know that question (re. "gunshot-wound" experience) HAS been
>asked by many a-CTer too (re. Humes especially). And, I suppose, it IS
>a valid question from either side. But if these guys were picked to do
>this important job (the most important autopsy in history), surely the
>pickers of the men had a good deal of confidence in the autopsists to
>get it right. Didn't they?
>
>Who exactly DID pick Humes & Boswell anyway? I'm not even sure, to be
>honest with you. I assume it must have been the head of Bethesda who
>made those assignments, correct?
Once Jackie dedided that, because her husband was former Navy, the autopsy
should be performed at the "National Naval Medical Training Center", which
happened to be at Bethesda, events were set in motion that pretty much had to
result in Humes being in charge of the autopsy. That's because he was the
supervisor of all labratory operations, which included the morgue operations.
Captain Stover was in charge of the medical center and it was probably a
no-brainer for him to have Humes run the show. Then, speaking of no-brainers,
the Chief of Pathology was Boswell, so there you go on that.
Evidently, General Blumberg, the Commanding Officer of the AFIP, offered the
services of Finck, who happened to be the Chief of the Wound-Ballistic Branch at
AFIP.
IMO, contrary to the thinking of folks like Dr. McAdams, J. Fiorentino, and the
members of the Clark Panel and HSCA, they had the people there who were
qualified to to the job.
>And then someone also asked Finck
>from the Army to join them an hour or so into the procedure.
I think his services were offered..but I'm not positive on that.
>In any event, surely the person(s) who chose H&B weren't total
>moron(s). They didn't choose some first-year orderly to perform the
>biggest autopsy ever.
Well, that's my position, FWIW.
>>>>"But what if they opined that the BOH wound was just clutter and not relevant to
>>>>the cause of death? IOW, to them it wasn't that important and describing any
>>>>such wound wasn't necessary to telling the whole [important] truth." <<<
>
>Yikes. I'm having lots of trouble wrapping my (perhaps) feeble brain
>around the above scenario.
>
>A hole in President Kennedy's head was considered "just clutter" by
>the men assigned to do this ultra-important autopsy and report all of
>their findings??
>
>~deep breath~
>
>Can a take another deep breath as I contemplate that possibility for a
>while longer?
>
>(Thank you.)
OK, OK, your point is made quite well. And, yes, that did sound stupid. You've
just cought me off guard on this motivation angle vs. whether or not the
physical ev. and the testimony showed a BOH existed.
Can I retract the word, "clutter"? I'll never ever use that again.
>>>> "In fact, I'll bet they left out many details." <<<
>
>But a big ol' hole (or even not so big) at the back of his head?
>They'd feel compelled to just ignore THAT? And write it off as "just
>clutter"?
>
>Sorry, I just can't buy that.
Ok, I'll bet you that when they were manuvering him to take the x-rays, if a
large gob of brain tissue were hanging out of the wound, they removed it. If you
agree with that, then technically they were tampering with evidence, were they
not?
Look, I'm still not trying to sell the "c_ _ _ _ _ r" theory, but the only
alternative I can think of is that they were told to do so or thought on their
own that any BOH wound could be misinterpreted as ev. of a frontal shot and
therefore shouldn't be reported unambiguously....even though they felt that
their one-shot-to-the-head conclusions should be accepted without question.
>Esp. in light of what I've said
>previously....i.e., the scenario of the doctors knowing the true SOLO
>entry point for the only bullet (coming undeniably from the rear).
But, would you buy the fact that they may have thought a BOH wound NOT caused by
a bullet coming from the front would be tough to sell...especially since by the
time they started the autopsy, a qualified Parkland doctor had said to the
national media the wound could have been an entry or exit?
>Would lying (or shall we say just "not being forthright", if you want
>a milder term) actually be BETTER than just telling the SINGLE-
>ASSASSIN-FAVORING TRUTH??
We're guessing, David. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that I'm right and
there was a BOH wound. Ok, taking your approach, let's also say that they
reported it, but said that wound was caused by a shot from the rear. IMO, that
conclusion may well have been taken as an attempt at a cover-up.
Think about it, the ev. record clearly shows that many, if not most of the
investigators actually thought, especially early on, that LHO did not act
alone....then, on top of that, you'd have the autopsists trying to sell a
BOH....from a rear shot? I wonder.
>It just makes no logical sense to me. I do fully understand your
>position re. the BOH matter, however. I just can't abide the notion
>that a President's autopsy (via the provably non-conspiratorial-
>leaning conditions you subscribe to; i.e., just one shot hit JFK in
>the head) would be subverted in ANY way by the autopsists.
Yes, I know.
>And Humes' voluntary interview on TV in '67 is crazy on his part if
>what you're saying is true. I know you'll say that he didn't lie there
>either (when he told Dan Rather that the exit wound was "front &
>right"), he just didn't offer a FULLER view of where ALL the hole
>resided.
I disagree. Grassy Knoll shots had been circulated...he tried to put them to
rest, i.e. one entry in the BOH and one exit...end of story! He might have
considered that, in view of the frontal shot theories, a BOH wound caused by a
bullet fired from the rear might have gone over like a "aliens landed in my
backyard last night" story....I don't know, David, exactly what was on his
mind....I can only guess.
>But if your scenario were the truth of the matter, do you really think
>Dr. Humes would volunteer to go on TV and continue the "BOH spin",
>when he could have just kept his yap shut?
Yes, because not going on TV would have told a story in itself...and I know you
can figure out which one.
>
>>>>"Not being forthright and volunteering answers to direct questions that weren't
>>>>asked is not, IMHO, the same as lying." <<<
>
>Perhaps not. But it's pretty darn close to it.
Not illegal...not perjury.
>And the doctors have to carry around that burden of not being fully
>forthright for the rest of their lives.
As compared to the nation possibly convinced their "BOH wound caused by a bullet
fired from the rear" story was bullshit, especially considering other suspicious
events in the case, like JFK rocking back after being hit by a bullet from the
rear, spectators and officers of the law running up the GK, not to mention the
SBT, had not been reasonably explained at the time?
>Plus everybody else in that
>autopsy room has to do the same, too. The place was packed with
>people...Burkley, photographers, technicians, military bigwigs,
>etc. .... they all know the "BOH" truth (probably), but say nothing
>about it (save Ebersole)?
I don't think too many of them were called over to the body for a good look, and
again, I think what Boswell did as far as replacing pieces of rear skull was not
that obvious...I think the out of place rear skull pieces were still adhered to
the underside of the scalp and all that he did was "smooth" the scalp into its
proper position and the loose, adhered, and previously out-of-place skull pieces
would have gone into place.
>Military orders I guess. Is that it?
Perhaps...but maybe on his own or their (H & B) own.
>(Am I getting testy again? Sorry. It's habitual. Not personal. I deal
>regularly with the "Anybody But Oswald" CTers at the nuthouse
>remember. So you'll have to cut me the slack.) ;)
No, but we're starting to go in circles...kind of....IOW, I don't have much to
offer to support the BOH theory that you haven't already disagreed with. We
might just end up, soewhat shortly, just agreeing to disagree.
>>>>"When Humes was asked if there were any other wounds, he probably assumed the
>>>>questioner was referring to entry and exit wound....therefore, because the BOH
>>>>wound was neither where a bullet entered or exited, he could truthfully say, "no
>>>>other wounds"." <<<
>
>Hmmm. Now THAT I just cannot buy either. Sorry. I can't.
Excuse me...I fell out of my chair in surprise.
>There's
>simply not a good enough reason to hold this information back. There
>isn't. (IMHO.)
Ok, so while you've basically dissed off the testimony/statements of about 20
Parkland witnesses can you listen to these again:
Ebersole: "I personally held the head or the scalp. The physician then kept my
hands in place."......"...my recollection is more of a gaping occipital
wound..."
Hill: "There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other
wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right-rear portion of
the head".
Autopsy report: "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions."
Note that the use of the words, "somewhat" and "regions", in arguably the most
impoirtant autopsy in the 20th century, got my goat years ago and still does.
Didn't they have any frickin rulers handy? "Somewhat" and "regions" are vague
and unclear terms.....maybe used precisely for that reason.
AND HERE'S WHY, IMO, THE X-RAYS APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH ALL THAT:
Q. "So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point that
you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was taken"?
Boswell. "Yes".
Q. "What size fragments and where did you place them at the...."
Boswell. "Well, the that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-centimeter piece
I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of these smaller
fragments down at the base of that diagram..."
David, I know you don't think he was saying he replaced pieces of rear skull
before the x-rays, but consider these points:
1. Exhibit 1 is his face sheet and there is a 10-centimeter piece illustrated at
the BOH in that disgram.
2. When the x-rays were taken, the bone from essentially the cowlick forward all
the way to past the coronal suture was not in the morge...IOW, any bone pieces
he replaced had to be behind that missing bone, and, IOW again, in the BOH.
3. He didn't exactly say something like, "Hey I know replacing rear skull pieces
was tampering with evidence and showed that we were not being forthright about
the BOH all these years...."
No, he said he replaced rear skull pieces in sort of a non-chalant, so-what,
tone.
Bottom line for me, is that replacing those pieces of bones did not affect their
cause of death conclusion (one entry to the BOH and one exit to the
top/right/front), one single iota.
>
>>>> "P.S. What's "YMMV" mean?" <<<
>
>"Your Mileage May Vary".
Ok.
>Regards,
Back at you,
John Canal
>DVP
>
>
David Von Pein
Yes, I guess we're beginning to go 'round in circles here. And for now
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as you suggested.
And thanks for the "chain of command" type of info you provided re.
the selection of the Bethesda autopsy team. I should have looked that
info up myself...but I turned lazy for the moment. <grin>
I'm truly hoping that Vince Bugliosi, at some point since 1986 when he
started researching his book, has been able to secure an interview
with Dr. Boswell.
That interview could very likely clear up a lot of stuff....especially
if Vince asked Boswell point-blank (and got a forthright reply):
Did you, Dr. Boswell, see any kind of large or semi-large hole in the
back of JFK's head on Nov. 22?
Of course, via the scenario you advocate John, how are we now supposed
to know with 100% certainty that Boswell (if asked that specific
question by Vince B.) would be providing a truthful answer? For, if he
wasn't forthright and totally above-board in 1963-1964, how can we
trust him in 1986 or 1997 or whenever?
That might be a large snafu to overcome. (Maybe VB was able to get the
good doctor to submit to a polygraph examination. That might help.)
<g>
Let me close these BOH discussions for now by saying (again)......
Perhaps John Canal is 100% accurate in his "BOH" assessment...and
perhaps I am wrong. I'll admit that possibility indeed. But the facts
as they exist as of right this minute lead me to think that there was
no larger-sized BOH wound in President Kennedy's head on
11/22/63...and, therefore, via the "One Assassin From Behind" scenario
which I am convinced beyond every shred of a doubt is true re. the
assassination of JFK...this must mean that there is some way to
logically explain the Parkland witness observations (plus those of
Clint Hill and Mr. Ebersole) with respect to the head wounds to JFK
within the "LHO WAS A LONE SHOOTER FROM THE DEPOSITORY" point-of-view.
If, at some later date, something comes up to cause me to change my
mind about this BOH matter, I will gladly eat my fair share of crow
and I shall readily admit I was incorrect re. this topic.
DVP
May 9, 2007
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>Thanks for your thoughtful reply, John.
No problem....I only wish Barb and P. Seaton had chimed in...they are BOH wound
theorists as well and may have thought of a few points of argument I didn't
think of or forgot.
>Yes, I guess we're beginning to go 'round in circles here. And for now
>I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as you suggested.
The mods will be happy. :-)
>And thanks for the "chain of command" type of info you provided re.
>the selection of the Bethesda autopsy team. I should have looked that
>info up myself...but I turned lazy for the moment. <grin>
Piece of cake...glad to have helped.
>I'm truly hoping that Vince Bugliosi, at some point since 1986 when he
>started researching his book, has been able to secure an interview
>with Dr. Boswell.
Besides exchanging a few letters with him, I interviewed him about eight years
ago. I think he was beginning shows signs of senility. He acted like he didn't
even seem to realize that the HSCA, not to mention the Clark Panel, had
officially refuted the entry wound location on the head (near-EOP) that he,
Humes, and Finck had reported.
That said, unless VB got to him before that, I don't think he'd get muh
constructive out of him.
>That interview could very likely clear up a lot of stuff....especially
>if Vince asked Boswell point-blank (and got a forthright reply):
>
>Did you, Dr. Boswell, see any kind of large or semi-large hole in the
>back of JFK's head on Nov. 22?
I' afraid, we're too late.
>Of course, via the scenario you advocate John, how are we now supposed
>to know with 100% certainty that Boswell (if asked that specific
>question by Vince B.) would be providing a truthful answer? For, if he
>wasn't forthright and totally above-board in 1963-1964, how can we
>trust him in 1986 or 1997 or whenever?
Maybe someone will come up with a photo of the BOH when the body was first
received at Bethesda that was taken and hid away all these years?
Ya, right.
>That might be a large snafu to overcome. (Maybe VB was able to get the
>good doctor to submit to a polygraph examination. That might help.)
><g>
I don't think he'd [Boswell] would even know if he was lyting or not.
>Let me close these BOH discussions for now by saying (again)......
>
>Perhaps John Canal is 100% accurate in his "BOH" assessment...and
>perhaps I am wrong. I'll admit that possibility indeed. But the facts
>as they exist as of right this minute lead me to think that there was
>no larger-sized BOH wound in President Kennedy's head on
>11/22/63...and, therefore, via the "One Assassin From Behind" scenario
>which I am convinced beyond every shred of a doubt is true re. the
>assassination of JFK...this must mean that there is some way to
>logically explain the Parkland witness observations (plus those of
>Clint Hill and Mr. Ebersole) with respect to the head wounds to JFK
>within the "LHO WAS A LONE SHOOTER FROM THE DEPOSITORY" point-of-view.
>If, at some later date, something comes up to cause me to change my
>mind about this BOH matter, I will gladly eat my fair share of crow
>and I shall readily admit I was incorrect re. this topic.
I understand how a bright individual like yourself could come to those
conclusions.
Enjoyed it.
John Canal
>DVP
>May 9, 2007
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Yes, once Jackie decided. But please tell us exactly what time Jackie
decided? They had assumed the body would go to Walter Reed. Give us a
specific time.
Anthony Marsh
> Hi again John,
>
>>>> "Moreover, where'e the pic of the BOH from the rear with the scalp
> removed??? Now, David, if you want "curious", there you go." <<<
>
> Right. But, then again, we must all realize that NONE of this current
> crop of "Fox" autopsy photos is supposed to be available AT ALL.
>
> The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
> public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
> day.
As I said before, your position is to cover up the evidence.
That's how the WC got away with its lies for so many years.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <1178605735.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, David Von
>Pein says...
>>
>>ADDENDUM/FOLLOW-UP TO MY LAST POST...............
>
><TOP POST>
>
>David, I'll bite my tongue for now, because I didn't know you were so certain
>there was no right-rear BOH wound. Perhaps Barb and/or Paul Seaton wants to
>discuss this issue with you? Evidently my arguments weren't that convincing.
>
>Oh well, we'll see.
I'm pretty sure he's a;ready ignored me on the BOH, John, but if Paul
si willing for a few rounds ... I guess I am too.
Oh Paul? (C'mon, you know we always have fun.<g>)
Barb :-)
John Canal
says...
>
>On 8 May 2007 18:00:30 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1178605735.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, David Von
>>Pein says...
>>>
>>>ADDENDUM/FOLLOW-UP TO MY LAST POST...............
>>
>><TOP POST>
>>
>>David, I'll bite my tongue for now, because I didn't know you were so certain
>>there was no right-rear BOH wound. Perhaps Barb and/or Paul Seaton wants to
>>discuss this issue with you? Evidently my arguments weren't that convincing.
>>
>>Oh well, we'll see.
>
>I'm pretty sure he's a;ready ignored me on the BOH, John, but if Paul
>si willing for a few rounds ... I guess I am too.
>
>Oh Paul? (C'mon, you know we always have fun.<g>)
I think both of you would enjoy discussing this with David...he's poilite and
smart.
See ya,
:-)
John
David Von Pein
"The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
day."
TONY SAID:
"As I said before, your position is to cover up the evidence. That's
how the WC got away with its lies for so many years."
DVP NOW SAYS:
In Tony's oft-used parlance -- Nonsense.
I'm not advocating that anything should have been "covered up". My
comment -- "nor SHOULD they {autopsy pics} really be available to us
right to this very day" -- was only referring to the fact that the
Kennedys didn't want them released for public scrutiny (ever). The
comment wasn't meant to imply or to mean anything more than that.
And I've said in the past that it's my opinion that the SINGLE
silliest/dumbest/most ignorant decision made during the whole WC
investigation was the decision to not have the autopsy photos made
available to the very Commission assigned to look into JFK's murder.
That was absolutely idiotic!
There's no reason whatsoever that those pictures couldn't have been
used and examined by the Commission and its staff during the 10-month
WC probe.
An agreement with the Kennedy family could have easily be arranged (I
would surmise) that would have given the WC access to them, but at the
same time would have prohibited the photos from being published
anywhere in the WR or its supporting volumes.
In addition to such a proposed stipulation, a simple one-paragraph
passage could have been added to the final WC Report, fully explaining
WHY the autopsy photos have not been printed in the WCR or the 26
volumes, with that same paragraph also noting that "THE COMMISSION
HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN ABLE TO EVALUATE ALL OF THESE MATERIALS AT ITS
LEISURE TO DETERMINE THE FACTS IN THE CASE, BUT THE PHOTOS CANNOT BE
PUBLISHED DUE TO THE WISHES OF THE KENNEDY FAMILY".
I ask: What in the world would have been wrong with the above
stipulation? Why would the Kennedy family have possibly objected to
such an arrangement re. the pictures?
The fact that Arlen Specter had to BEG for (and still not receive)
permission to see the autopsy photos (and X-rays even, which is even
more preposterous; what's so grisly about an X-ray??) is something
that still burns both sides of my toast to this day. It's utterly
ridiculous.
Earl Warren, who apparently might have seen the photos briefly if I
understand things correctly re. that, should have demanded full access
to those critical materials during the WC's investigation. And he
should have never given up until the damn pictures were made available
to the WC and its staff.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Just a side note: Has anyone read the recent Earl Warren biography by
Jim Newton? It's titled:
Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made (2006)
Los Angeles Times editor and reporter Newton delivers the definitive
biography of Earl Warren (1891–1974) for this generation. Newton's
masterful narrative synthesizes Warren in all his contradictory
guises: the dynamic and outsized California prosecutor and attorney
general whose own father's mysterious murder perhaps derived from that
ambitious career.
Maybe I'll go over to one of the mega bookstores and flip through the
pages. Maybe there is a chapter on the Warren Commission.
PF
>
Anthony Marsh
> DVP SAID:
>
> "The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
> public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
> day."
>
> TONY SAID:
>
> "As I said before, your position is to cover up the evidence. That's
> how the WC got away with its lies for so many years."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> In Tony's oft-used parlance -- Nonsense.
>
> I'm not advocating that anything should have been "covered up". My
> comment -- "nor SHOULD they {autopsy pics} really be available to us
> right to this very day" -- was only referring to the fact that the
> Kennedys didn't want them released for public scrutiny (ever). The
> comment wasn't meant to imply or to mean anything more than that.
>
No, that's not what you said. You did not say that the Kennedy family
still objects to their being published. They do.
You said that the autopsy photos should not be available to us this very
day. That is a cover-up. That is what you support.
> And I've said in the past that it's my opinion that the SINGLE
> silliest/dumbest/most ignorant decision made during the whole WC
> investigation was the decision to not have the autopsy photos made
> available to the very Commission assigned to look into JFK's murder.
> That was absolutely idiotic!
>
But certain select people saw them.
> There's no reason whatsoever that those pictures couldn't have been
> used and examined by the Commission and its staff during the 10-month
> WC probe.
>
Too dangerous. There might be some junior lawyer who notices that the
back wound is incompatible with the SBT and spills the beans.
> An agreement with the Kennedy family could have easily be arranged (I
> would surmise) that would have given the WC access to them, but at the
> same time would have prohibited the photos from being published
> anywhere in the WR or its supporting volumes.
>
It was Earl Warren who made the decision to not use the autopsy
photographs, not the Kennedy family.
> In addition to such a proposed stipulation, a simple one-paragraph
> passage could have been added to the final WC Report, fully explaining
> WHY the autopsy photos have not been printed in the WCR or the 26
> volumes, with that same paragraph also noting that "THE COMMISSION
> HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN ABLE TO EVALUATE ALL OF THESE MATERIALS AT ITS
> LEISURE TO DETERMINE THE FACTS IN THE CASE, BUT THE PHOTOS CANNOT BE
> PUBLISHED DUE TO THE WISHES OF THE KENNEDY FAMILY".
>
No, we know why the autopsy photographs were not used.
> I ask: What in the world would have been wrong with the above
> stipulation? Why would the Kennedy family have possibly objected to
> such an arrangement re. the pictures?
>
Are you a lawyer? Are you smarter than Earl Warren? Do you know the
difference between ABOVE and BELOW?
> The fact that Arlen Specter had to BEG for (and still not receive)
> permission to see the autopsy photos (and X-rays even, which is even
> more preposterous; what's so grisly about an X-ray??) is something
> that still burns both sides of my toast to this day. It's utterly
> ridiculous.
>
Oh, I guess the Z-rays are too gruesome for a lawyer. Fact is that
ordinary citizens have to see much more gruesome autopsy photos every day.
The thing they did not want is for the public to ever get a change to see
them. That is why they have not been officially declassified after so many
years of being published. So that their experts like Chad can say things
like, "Well you are only looking at fifth generation prints, whereas I
have seen the originals and can tell you that the wound was ABOVE the top
of the shoulders, just as Dale Myers depicted it."
> Earl Warren, who apparently might have seen the photos briefly if I
> understand things correctly re. that, should have demanded full access
> to those critical materials during the WC's investigation. And he
> should have never given up until the damn pictures were made available
> to the WC and its staff.
>
Earl Warren was the one who made the decision. Earl Warren was not an
idiot.