I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum. IMO, their political leanings have influenced in one form or another their view of the WC conclusions. To date I'm not aware of any criticism or rejection from the right of the conclusions reached by the WC other than that offered by Roger Stone with his theory that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination. The one common denominator that the most prominent WC critics have in common is that they're intelligent people. Of all the WC critics none I believe fit the intelligent balance sheet more than Dr. Cyril Wecht.( With this observation I'm revealing my bias toward those who are doctors in medicine whom I admire very much.) This is why I'm puzzled by the position taken by Dr. Cyril Wecht when it comes to the JFK assassination. There's no political angle that can be ascribed to his motive. At least none that I have seen.
So, what is it that makes Dr. Wecht an outlier among those in his proffession? By this I'm referencing his colleagues who worked with him in the HSCA. Why is it than even when his observations and conclusions are successfuly challenged does he still maintain the same view? If there's someone who should abide by the rule of scientific method is a medical doctor I would think. Yet, Dr. Wecht stuck stubburnly to the fourth shooter conspiracy angle.
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side 'could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.' In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President's head, a front shooter firred into the wound created by the rear bullet.* That is Wecht's way of explaining why there is not another entry hole in JFK's head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit wound for such a bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that 'the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.' He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which may have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.' Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible - except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination."!
*I saw Wecht arguing this point in the televised trial when being cross-examined by Vincent Bugliosi.
! From superficial research I could only find that plastic bullets were invented by the British and first used in 1971 as crowd control in Northern ireland.
So, even when people of superior intelligence reamain stubbornly immune to common sense what explanation can be used to reveal why this is so?
