Autopsy Photos and X-rays

[John Mytton]

    I like his Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck. Angela Lansbury sleuth work.

You know I didn't say that, why would you lie, or don't you simply understand what's being discussed?

It's more like;

Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck PLUS skin blemishes PLUS facial features PLUS Facial size PLUS head size PLUS ear shape PLUS etc etc etc...

Btw have you ever been able to prove any of your photo baloney?

JohnM

[Gary Craig]

The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.

I think Humes urged a review.** Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.

Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.

By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?

The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.

I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.
** It was actually Boswell who wrote the letter to the Justice Dept. urging a review. It was dated January 26, 1968, a full year after the "Military Review".
That 1967 three-pathologist "Military Review" was done at the request of the Justice Dept.

    "The undersigned physicians have been requested by the Department of Justice to examine
     the x-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent
     with the autopsy report."

Concerning his 1968 letter, Boswell claimed to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board:

    "I was asked by ... one of the attorneys for the Justice Department that I write them
     a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe,
     or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley."

That seems strange since the "Military Review" came about as a direct request from Justice.

"By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?"

No, that's not what I mean. Although there are competent people who believe they were, I'm not qualified to know either way.

By moved I mean the Panel decided a trail of metal particles across the top part of JFK's head x-ray was the path of a bullet that entered

at the cowlick. If they aren't fake the conclusions reached at the autopsy and by the Panel indicate 2 bullets hit JFK in the head. One

entering at the EOP and one above that traveled across the top of the skull, leaving a trail of metal particles.

IMO




 

[Jerry Organ]

"By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?"

No, that's not what I mean. Although there are competent people who believe they were, I'm not qualified to know either way.

By moved I mean the Panel decided a trail of metal particles across the top part of JFK's head x-ray was the path of a bullet that entered

at the cowlick. If they aren't fake the conclusions reached at the autopsy and by the Panel indicate 2 bullets hit JFK in the head. One

entering at the EOP and one above that traveled across the top of the skull, leaving a trail of metal particles.

IMO

Simply wrong to characterize the Clark Panel's findings as supportive of two bullets hitting the head of the President:

    "The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head
     was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the
     occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm.
     above the external occipital protuberance."

All the Panel did was determine the true location of a wound Humes erroneously sited through palpation. Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP (is there a ruler with "slightly" markings?)

[Gary Craig]

Simply wrong to characterize the Clark Panel's findings as supportive of two bullets hitting the head of the President:

    "The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head
     was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the
     occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm.
     above the external occipital protuberance."

All the Panel did was determine the true location of a wound Humes erroneously sited through palpation. Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP (is there a ruler with "slightly" markings?)

"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO

[Jerry Organ]

"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO

Prior to the four-inch-discrepancy (actually the correction of a palpation error) business, almost all the WC critics criticized the Bethesda doctors as incompetent and unqualified. The CTs changed their tune because they want the EOP in-shoot to be real as it challenges the LN conclusion.

I bet Finck in 1967 thought there "should have been" a photo taken of the outside table of the rear skull after reflection. In reference to the lateral X-ray that was examined at autopsy, they seem to have only studied the metallic trail.

    "Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments
     along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small
     occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge."

They had Humes' word that he located the wound "slightly above" something his fingers (or a finger) felt (it wouldn't surprised me he felt to behind the head as the body lay supine) was the EOP. The X-rays examined by the Clark Panel and HSCA say the metallic line of fragments are high in the skull, much higher than the EOP, and that they correspond to the "cowlick" wound.

Interesting that they made a big deal in the autopsy report about the metallic fragment line corresponding to the near-EOP entry wound, but all they say about the metal fragment line in 1967 is:

    "The x-ray films established that there were small metallic fragments in the head."

I think they thought they had the head wound established rather quickly and easily through Humes' palpation and the documentation of the head wound with photography and X-rays. They were more concerned and mystified with the back wound and where the bullet went.

[Royell Storing]

"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO

    55+ years after the Fact and I am still waiting for a logical explanation as to WHAT Humes was trying to display in the Autopsy Photo where that gloved hand is pulling the hair of JFK. All that did was completely Hide the entire back of JFK's head/skull.

[Gary Craig]

Prior to the four-inch-discrepancy (actually the correction of a palpation error) business, almost all the WC critics criticized the Bethesda doctors as incompetent and unqualified. The CTs changed their tune because they want the EOP in-shoot to be real as it challenges the LN conclusion.

I bet Finck in 1967 thought there "should have been" a photo taken of the outside table of the rear skull after reflection. In reference to the lateral X-ray that was examined at autopsy, they seem to have only studied the metallic trail.

    "Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments
     along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small
     occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge."

They had Humes' word that he located the wound "slightly above" something his fingers (or a finger) felt (it wouldn't surprised me he felt to behind the head as the body lay supine) was the EOP. The X-rays examined by the Clark Panel and HSCA say the metallic line of fragments are high in the skull, much higher than the EOP, and that they correspond to the "cowlick" wound.

Interesting that they made a big deal in the autopsy report about the metallic fragment line corresponding to the near-EOP entry wound, but all they say about the metal fragment line in 1967 is:

    "The x-ray films established that there were small metallic fragments in the head."

I think they thought they had the head wound established rather quickly and easily through Humes' palpation and the documentation of the head wound with photography and X-rays. They were more concerned and mystified with the back wound and where the bullet went.

Humes

------

------

------


---------------------------

Finck

-------------

[Jerry Organ]

Is one of the words illegible in the area lassoed in red?