11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound

[Michael T. Griffith]

No FMJ bullet striking a skull is going to break into dozens of fragments, leave dozens of fragments in the skull, leave a fragment above or below the entry point on the outer table of the skull, and leave sizable fragments in the area outside the skull. That is fantasy. FMJ bullets do not behave like that. No credible, honest forensic pathologist or wound ballistics expert would endorse such a scenario. I cover this matter in detail in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds":

https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm

[Gerry Down]

No FMJ bullet striking a skull is going to break into dozens of fragments, leave dozens of fragments in the skull, leave a fragment above or below the entry point on the outer table of the skull, and leave sizable fragments in the area outside the skull. That is fantasy. FMJ bullets do not behave like that. No credible, honest forensic pathologist or wound ballistics expert would endorse such a scenario. I cover this matter in detail in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds":

https://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm

The problem there is the x-rays are about as useless as could be. It seems like no expert (on either side of the divide) can understand what is in them.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The problem there is the x-rays are about as useless as could be. It seems like no expert (on either side of the divide) can understand what is in them.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculously erroneous.

[Gerry Down]

Sorry, but that's just ridiculously erroneous.

Its not. The x-rays should have been the key to solving the JFK assassination (whether he was shot from the front or back) but instead they tell us JFK was shot with a 6.5mm semi-circular blob that Dr. Mantik has become obsessed about.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
Sorry, but that's just ridiculously erroneous.

Its not. The x-rays should have been the key to solving the JFK assassination (whether he was shot from the front or back) but instead they tell us JFK was shot with a 6.5mm semi-circular blob that Dr. Mantik has become obsessed about.

The x-rays do provide a great deal of information about Kennedy's wounds. They show he was struck by at least two bullets, one coming from the front. They also show that the ammo could not have been FMJ ammo. And, the 6.5 mm object is not a blob: it is a ghosted image that was placed over the image of the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. Dr. Mantik has established this with OD measurements, and has even duplicated how the object was ghosted.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

Its not. The x-rays should have been the key to solving the JFK assassination (whether he was shot from the front or back) but instead they tell us JFK was shot with a 6.5mm semi-circular blob that Dr. Mantik has become obsessed about.

I agree that the medical evidence (the autopsy report, the X-rays, the photographs) in any murder case is of the utmost importance, but in the assassination of the President it has been tainted by stories of destroyed autopsy evidence, missing autopsy evidence, multiple original autopsy reports, altered photographs and X-rays, conflicting witness statements about the location and size of the wounds and so on.

Take the head wound. At autopsy it was determined that the bullet had entered the back of JFK's head LOW, a little above and to the right of the EOP, and created a large exit wound in the parietal bone, extending into the temporal and occipital regions.

The HSCA relocated the entry wound in the skull to the top of the head, while limiting the large exit wound almost entirely to the parietal region - at least that is how it appears in the Dox drawing.

The autopsy photograph of the back and top of the head does not show any of these wounds, except the bone flap which is in the back of the photo. The purpose of the picture is unclear, and the reason the ruler is held near the head and what exactly it is measuring is anybody's guess, as it can't be there to measure the size of the bullet hole in the cowlick, as the pathologists had located the entry wound 4 inches lower.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I agree that the medical evidence (the autopsy report, the X-rays, the photographs) in any murder case is of the utmost importance, but in the assassination of the President it has been tainted by stories of destroyed autopsy evidence, missing autopsy evidence, multiple original autopsy reports, altered photographs and X-rays, conflicting witness statements about the location and size of the wounds and so on.

Take the head wound. At autopsy it was determined that the bullet had entered the back of JFK's head LOW, a little above and to the right of the EOP, and created a large exit wound in the parietal bone, extending into the temporal and occipital regions.

The HSCA relocated the entry wound in the skull to the top of the head, while limiting the large exit wound almost entirely to the parietal region - at least that is how it appears in the Dox drawing.

The autopsy photograph of the back and top of the head does not show any of these wounds, except the bone flap which is in the back of the photo. The purpose of the picture is unclear, and the reason the ruler is held near the head and what exactly it is measuring is anybody's guess, as it can't be there to measure the size of the bullet hole in the cowlick, as the pathologists had located the entry wound 4 inches lower.

All good points. Here are some other problems with the autopsy evidence:

* The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that ran from the EOP to a point just above the right eye, but no such fragment trail is seen on the extant x-rays. Where did it go? Did they somehow incomprehensible "mistake" the fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started at the EOP?

* The autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail now seen on the extant x-rays. So either the autopsy doctors somehow "missed it," or it was not there on the night of the autopsy, or the autopsy doctors saw it but said nothing about it because it did not line up with the EOP entry site.

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region (the occiput), but some of the autopsy photos do not show the large wound coming anywhere near the occiput. It's not even close in those photos. 

* The autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about the 6.5 mm "fragment" clearly seen on the AP skull x-ray. The autopsy doctors swore up and down that they saw no such "fragment" during the autopsy. (Of course, Dr. Mantik has established via OD measurements and stereo viewing that the "fragment" is actually an image that was ghosted over the image of the small, genuine fragment in the back of the head.)

[Jerry Organ]

All good points. Here are some other problems with the autopsy evidence:

* The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that ran from the EOP to a point just above the right eye, but no such fragment trail is seen on the extant x-rays. Where did it go? Did they somehow incomprehensible "mistake" the fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started at the EOP?

    "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."

Sounds like a trail that's pretty high up. And not starting anywhere near the supposed EOP wound. Only makes sense if the entry wound was where the Clark Panel found it showing on the autopsy photos, at the so-called "cowlick" level. Humes made a mistake in feeling for the EOP, normally easy to locate on a skull not disrupted. But this skull had numerous fracture lines running underneath the scalp that could have produced a bump similar to the EOP.

* The autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail now seen on the extant x-rays. So either the autopsy doctors somehow "missed it," or it was not there on the night of the autopsy, or the autopsy doctors saw it but said nothing about it because it did not line up with the EOP entry site.

"The right supra-orbital ridge" sounds pretty high up. Only one "missing" anything is a certain conspiracy theorist//Trump apologist.

* The autopsy report says that part of the large head wound extended into the occipital region (the occiput), but some of the autopsy photos do not show the large wound coming anywhere near the occiput. It's not even close in those photos. 

    "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."

Notice the report stated "occipital region," not "occipital bone". Occipital region can include the rear portion of parietal bone.

    "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to
     radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound
     at the occiput."

Fracture lines travel into the occiput, not missing bone. The "large defect" is "at the vertex. The "smaller wound" is outside the "large defect". Humes (who only felt for the EOP and never exposed it which is why there's no measured vertical distance from it to the entry wound) thought the entry wound was in the "occiput". But it was actually higher in the rear portion of the right parietal bone, according to the Clark Panel and HSCA, and the autopsy photos.