Education Forum closing yet again...

[Cliff Varnell]

My argument is that the headwound/s study, within the JFK Critical Community, has become mono-manical at the expense of the study of the more revealing back/throat wounds.

I think it is and I also think the input you offer here doesn't live up to it or respectfully reflect what it has shown. You've diverted to Wecht but what I was talking about was Horne's collective evidence that showed there was a pre-autopsy designed to hide head wounds. There's no false equivalence involved here because such a drastic manipulation of evidence, as a covert pre-autopsy, is strong evidence in itself that is usually enough to prove guilt.

"Collective evidence" is not as valid as "prima facie evidence."

You should be able to answer the questions -- who performed the pre-autopsy surgery, at what location and at what time?

I don't think Lifton and Horne are in perfect agreement with this, are they?

I acknowledge Lifton's and Horne's work on the throat and back wounds, although I disagree with their conclusions.

Complexity is no sin as long as the offerer is capable of that complexity, and I think Horne is.
But the evidence for the pre-autopsy isn't really that complex anyway. I feel all the evidence in its totality is stronger than just the shirt damage evidence. But if we were to ask what we personally prefered as the single-most example of evidence I would say the brain evidence myself. I think it is much more damning than the shirt evidence personally.

I'll take the Pepsi Challenge on that one, Albert!

The shirt resides in the National Archives.

Where does the brain reside?

The bullet hole in the shirt is too low to be associated with the throat wound. This establishes the throat wound as an entrance, leading to the central issue of the case -- what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

According to the historical record there are two possible explanations -- the the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy, or JFK was struck with a high tech weapon -- a round which didn't show up on x-ray.

So the clothing evidence demands we view how the Secret Service and the US military handled the body, but we should also be looking at those who had access to high tech weaponry in 1963.

To paraphrase E. Martin Schotz -- all waters of knowledge flow from the clothing evidence.

Why?

Because the clothing evidence is that which is knowable.