The Head Wounds Revisited

[Gordon Gray]

If I might ask another question ... and please do not interpret this as defense of one or the other position in this discussion, it is purely an interrogative: has there been any attempt to reconcile the notion of a single, McClelland/Carrico 5-7 cm occipital exit wound at Dallas with the pattern of debris and skull fragments scattered, not only in the limo, but in Dealey Plaza? If someone could point me to something published which at least addresses this issue, I'd love to give it a gander (if I haven't already and thus am suffering from memory lapse). I know Fiester deals with backspatter, but I don't think her argument is tightly coupled to the dimensions or exact configuration of the rearward-exiting wound. Plus she does not really deal specifically with where the bone fragments landed -- or better, where they were reported to have landed. (Not to complicate this question, I leave aside here the thorny issue of where the recovered fragments actually fit on the cranium, which is certainly a relevant question but is somewhat distinct from the one I'm asking here). Thanks!

Albert, I have found Dr. Aguilar to be one of the best sources for understanding the medical evidence. Perhaps you are already familiar with him. If not here is a link: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jf...rong_6.htm[TABLE="align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Warren Commission Exhibit 386 shows a head entrance wound which is distinct from the large right-side wound. Dr. Boswell told the HSCA in 1977 and the ARRB in 1996 that the entrance hole was actually inferred from beveling present on a late-arriving bone fragment which fit into a wound which was initially much larger than shown here, and which extended down to the entrance hole.
(see CE 386 in WH16, Dr. Boswell's HSCA interview in Vol 7., p. 246, and Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition, p. 80)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

"They didn't just observe a cone-shaped hole in an otherwise intact plate of skull bone, like it appears in the Rydberg diagram. Instead, the beveling was present only on an edge of intact occipital bone. The rest of it was present on the edge of a bone fragment that arrived late during the autopsy, a fragment that "fit into" the rearward skull defect around the edge of the bullet hole. Boswell told the Review Board that the Rydberg diagram (See Figure 1) (which was drawn months after the autopsy,[354] and only from memory) "does not depict any of the skull wounds."[355] Though the rear portion of Rydberg's "skull" appears to show only a small entrance hole in otherwise intact occipital bone, the diagram, Boswell said, was meant only to show the appearance of the scalp in the rear, not the defect in the skull bone. The real defect in Kennedy's skull, he explained, was far larger. " This fragment of occipital bone found on the seat of the limo is evidence IMO of a bone fragment blown out the rear of the presidents' head.

[David Josephs]

Phil

tar zxfv skull.fragments.tgz

Leaving out the bone fragments (the triangular fragment and two smaller ones, for which we have only x-rays) reportedly found in the car (testimony of SS Agents Hill, Behn, Kellerman and Kinney) and brought into morgue later in the autopsy, since their provenance is contested, that leaves us:

Rearward:
1. Fragment on trunk picked up by Jackie
2. Fragment in follow-up SS car (1-2 in)
3. Brehm fragment to left/rear of position at Z313

Forward:
4. Harper Fragment
5. Burris Fragment

I leave aside the spatter of blood and brain matter, and just focus on fragments.

If there was only a wound to the occiput (which accounts for 1 and 2, though maybe not 3), my question was simply, how did 4/5 get where they were reported to be? Are we to discount these forward positions as hearsay? If not, how did it happen? That's all I was really asking.

Albert... someone put them there. At least the Harper Fragment.

Regarding the Harper Fragment - this once again - is the FBI's version of the shots that hit within the limo...

There have been references to a shooter "BEHIND ZAPRUDER" and nehind the Newmans - iow, behind the pergola... Yet, if the Dallas people are even CLOSE to accurate, the Harper fragment was not something that came from JFK. It is simply too large to represent what could have flown off the skull - in any direction.

I submit the Harper fragment disappeared because it could never be biologically matched to JFK... and was only placed there to reinforce the shot from behind blowing the entire top of his head off....

Gruesome yet what about this case isn't?
DJ



[ATTACH=CONFIG]4891[/ATTACH]

[Gordon Gray]

Gordon....

David, you ask for a time line. I have supplied one per Reed. Why not address that? There are serious conflicts between it and your theory of body alteration IMO.

I have, repeatedly.

Reed arrived at the same time as the metal casket... He sees a shipping casket and sees the body with Humes, Ebersole and Boswell among others....
No Sibert, No O'Neill, No ceremonial casket, No Greer... I have Reed's AARB testomony in front of me as anyone can... please quote page and line # for reference

Let's keep this short and sweet...

According to what you understand,
1) when did JFK arrive at the morgue, in which casket, and who brings him in?

2) when was the first xray taken and by whom?

3) when was the last xray taken and by whom?

4) how many xrays were taken?


The President's body wasremoved from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on theautopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and thehead area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood.Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the President'sclothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had beenperformed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of theskull. All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking ofphotographs and X-Rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain inan adjacent room.
Upon completion of X-Rays and photographs, the firstincision was made at 8:15 p.m.

If you will go back and read my post #130 I think you will find my answers to your questions. I think Reed's timeline is a good approximation. The body arrived at 6:35 in a shipping casket. Reed and morgue technicians(probably O'Connor and Jenkins) along with a photographer(Riebe)among others, carry the coffin inside the autopsy room. the body is placed on the examining table. this is around 7:00. Reed and Custer then leave and return 15-20 minutes later and begin taking XRays of the head and neck. This happens between about 7:20 and 7:50. Reed took the first X Rays. They were asked to sit in the gallery for 15 or 20 minutes and then asked to take further XRays of the pelvis and extremities. By the time this is completed and they have returned from developing them, the first incision is beginning at around 8:15. The number of X Rays is irrelevant. The point is if you accept Reed's time line there is no opportunity for a pre autopsy.

[Albert Rossi]

Gordon, lots of questions. Yes, I've read Dr. Aguilar, and Dr. Mantik. I am familiar with what they say and I respect both of their opinions as worthy of consideration. But while Dr. Aguilar would seem to discount any "enlargement", it seems to me (unless he has changed his opinion) that Dr. Mantik isn't entirely ruling out that the head had been subjected to some form of manipulation before the X-rays (see my earlier post #12).

But just to be clear here, and to get back to the question at hand: which bone (if any) in evidence corresponds to that piece of the back of the head found in the car? From Kinney's description it doesn't quite sound like the Harper fragment, though Mantik's positioning of the latter is precisely in that region (see Phil's post #6).

I quote here from Palamara's interview:

Survivors Guilt: The Secret Service and the JFK Murder, pp. 8-9, 28, 55-56, 78-80,81-82, 110-111 --- Sam told me twice that he saw the back of JFK's head come off immediately when the fatal shot struck the President's head. Once at Parkland Hospital, Kinney helped remove the President from the back seat of the limousine along with Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Dave Powers, thereby receiving an extremely vivid, close-up look at the wound on JFK's head. "His brain was blown out," Sam said, " there was nothing left !" I pressed further, to which Sam added: "There was brain matter all over the place...he had no brains left in his head." And, while aboard the C-130 aircraft, he found the piece of the back of JFK's head lying in the rear seat of the bloody limousine! Sam told me it was "clean as a pin" and that it resembled a "flowerpot" or "clay pot" piece. Kinney added: "It was a big piece-half his head was gone." When I pressed him on thispoint and asked him if he was sure of the skull piece's orientation, he said " I don't know what else it could have been but the back of his head."

Now Kinney is not a medical expert, so take his testimony for what it is.

If Kinney's assessment is right (and I'm not saying it is), that fragment cannot be any of the (X-rayed) fragments in evidence that were putatively brought into the morgue later. While there is dispute over where the largest triangular piece would fit, none, as far as I recall, was identified as occipital. (See the John Hunt article I cited at post #44.)

Finally, what of Jackie K? I have been rummaging around trying to find a reference to what happened to that one. I don't trust my memory at this point, so I won't make any statements based on vague recollection ... I need to run this down.

I can understand what David is saying: if you think that 2-3 in hole was all that was there, then all the detritus begins to seem a little like the relics of the true cross, which if gathered up would build a cross 5 stories high.

The amount of debris certainly squares better with a larger wound (not necessarily the 17 cm X 10 cm footprint of Boswell), or perhaps two wounds which became one (as I believe Aguilar also suggests). But in the end it really does feel like Phil's "scattering to the winds"; this stuff is indeed the Sibyl's leaves: as with all the material evidence in this case, it's hard even to make scientific deductions with surety because authenticity (chain of custody) is always crumbling in our fingers.

David, is the (one way or another) phonied Harper fragment your own theory, or have others written about this as well?

Thanks to you both for the input, -Al

[Albert Rossi]

I was going to edit the previous post, but something went wrong with the database.

So I'll just add a tag line. If the plotters or their abetters took the Harper fragment from the seat of the limo or from the trunk or the follow-up SS car or wherever, and planted it further down the street in order to make it look like it was blown forward, then those particular individuals weren't very sophisticated, since the bone is most probably occipital (almost everyone who has examined it or the photo of it, with the exception of the FPP, says so), and it just does not make sense that bone from the back of the head would end up way down the street.

[Magda Hassan]

I was going to edit the previous post, but something went wrong with the database.

So I'll just add a tag line. If the plotters or their abetters took the Harper fragment from the seat of the limo or from the trunk or the follow-up SS car or wherever, and planted it further down the street in order to make it look like it was blown forward, then those particular individuals weren't very sophisticated, since the bone is most probably occipital (almost everyone who has examined it or the photo of it, with the exception of the FPP, says so), and it just does not make sense that bone from the back of the head would end up way down the street.

Yes, I saw that too. Don't know what it was except a 503 error but it seems okay now.

[Phil Dragoo]

Given: That the fragment was found the day AFTER;

Given: That in the analysis by Dr. David Mantik, MD, PhD, (as well as Harper et al) that the fragment is occipital;

(Vince Parietal to the contrary notwithstanding)

Given: That the location of discovery is consistent with Oswald Depository 6 SE;

Given: That the fragment was lost by the FBI;

Therefore: The fragment is occipital indicating a non-Oswald solution, hence was first planted, then destroyed.

[David Lifton]

As attested to by the FBI agents and other witnesses as well, the primary focus of the autopsists appeared to be locating bullets. They seemed genuinely befuddled when they couldn't find any. If they had been the ones to remove the bullets, they were acting was as good as their lying and they have proven to be pretty poor liars. The main reason for the military autopsy IMO, was the fact that Oswald was in custody and awaiting trial. This meant evidence needed to stand up in court and the prosectors could be liable to perjury This was not a part of the original plan. Had Oswald been spirited away and eliminated as planned, it really wouldn't have mattered how many shooters there were, or from what direction they were shooting. As long as Oswald, agent of Castro was identified as one of them, and could supply no rebuttal, the plan was intact. Once Oswald was murdered on Sun. morning they could pretty much say whatever they liked, and they did. They didn't need to alter the body it's not like it was going to be hauled into court. Just their testimony, XRays and photos. Much easier to fake than an actual body. I wish some one could show me creditable evidence that Kennedy's body was in a body bag in a shipping casket at 6:35. Sibert and O'Neil said they assisted in removing the presiden'ts body from the ceremonial casket immediately after they helped carry it into the morgue, and before they were sent out, while X Rays were to be taken.

I read Best Evidence when it was first released. In the beginning it seemed like a major development in the case. My sole criticism at the time was that the book was way too long and contained way too much ego.
Later I came to the conclusion that it was the autopsy photos, etc. that had been altered. That made a whole lot more sense for all the reasons stated here.

Dawn

Dawn:

If it was the autopsy photographs that had been altered (and you'd have to alter the X-rays as well). . but if that was all that had been done, (and nothing had actually been done to the body itself) then:

a) that would not explain the two FBI agens reported that when the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull" . And keep in mind that, when queried by his supriors after I spoke with Sibert in early November, 1966, Sibert said the source of that was statements made by Dr. Humes. (See Chapter 12 of Best Evidence)

b) that would not explain why the head wound descriptions were so different between Dallas and Bethesda (See Chapter 13 of Best Evidence)

c) that would not explain why the throat wound description between Dallas and Bethesda (See Chapter 11 of Best Evidence)

d) that would ot explain why the body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, as evidence by the fact that it began its journey in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket; and (2) it began its journey wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag. (See chapters 25 -28 of Best Evidence).

Merely altering the autopsy photographs would not explain the above data.

Moreover, if the body was in exactly the same condition in Bethesda, as it was in Dallas, then the autopsy doctors would have immediately said ---based on an entry at the front of the throat and an exit at the back of the headwhat the Dallas doctors said: that JFK was shot from the front.

But not only didn't the Bethesda doctors say that, no one in the autopsy room says they said any such thing.

So. . .: if the body had not been altered, then one would be forced to argue that the Bethesda doctors were shammingthat they were bent over a body that was in the same condition as it was when observed by the Dallas doctors six hours earlier, but pretended otherwise.

And there is no evidence to support that sort of thesisi.e., the "shamming" hypothesis.

The only reasonable explanation to support what the Bethesdsa doctors said, and what they testified they saw, is that (a) the body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda and (b) the wounds were altered.

DSL
6/21/13; 2:20 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

[size=12]Lifton writes: Martin, the "facts" you prefer are filtered through a prism of intense personal animus towards me and my work, and it is you who are doing the "huffing and puffing"


Filtered "through an intense personal animus" by whom? Certainly not by me. I feel absolutely nothing about you one way or the other hence the reason why, when you sent me a personal message simply to insult me after I quit the Ed forum, I felt no compulsion to respond. Your daft theories, however, have done damage to to the truth, helped undo much of the good work done by early critics of the Warren Commission, and made it easy for critics of the official story to be lumped in with moon hoaxers and holocaust deniers. So I will continue to show how factually corrupt your work is, and how little basis your ludicrous hypotheses have in fact, in order to help set the record straight.


Lifton writes: "Roger Boyajian's security detail was requested to report to the morgue to handle the arrival of JFK's body. So who's coffin are you attempting to imply was delivered to Bethesda at 6:35 PM EST, and which was the subject of his reportthat ofMickey Mouse?"


I'm not implying anything, I'm merely stating the facts. You may have trouble separating theory from fact but I don't. Boyajian's report does NOT say that the casket he and his men picked up contained the body of President Kennedy. And he did NOT recall the arrival of Kennedy's casket. Those are the FACTS. Additionally, as Jim DiEugenio correctly pointed out, "Bethesda is also a morgue. It did not stop being so just because Kennedy was being transported there that day. Other military men died that day"


Lifton writes: "Dennis David repeatedly said to me that the coffin arrived "a good 20 minutes" before the naval ambulance so that is 6:35 PM (not 6:45 PM, Martin. Do the math, Martin. It will be good mental exercise: 6:55 PM 20 minutes = 6:35 PM."


From ARRB MD177, Call Report Summarizing 2/14/97 Telephonic Interview of Dennis David: "He then got his own duty sailors together, borrowed some more from the dental school, and assembled them outside the morgue at the loading dock by about 6:40 P.M. Five or six minutes later, at about 6:45, he said a black hearse drove up to the loading dock...the Navy sailors (approximately 7 or 8 people) working for him offloaded the casket which was in the hearse. He said it was a simple, gray shipping casket such as he frequently saw used later during the Vietnam war." Your problem is with David, not with me.


Lifton writes: "Paul O'Connor lifted a body out of the shipping casket that arrived at 6:35 PM. That's the preponderanceof the evidence."


According to you, NOT according to Paul O'Connor. Which one of you was there? And, of course, when you say "preponderance of the evidence" you mean Dennis David's story which, given that he had no personal knowledge of who was in the casket he saw, is not all that weighty and doesn't offer much support for your erroneous claim that Kennedy's body arrived when you wish it did.


Lifton writes: "Yes, Martinthe word "security measure"was in fact used."


No need for further comment.

[/SIZE]

Martin Hay:

You're spreading mis-information and disinformation. Let's start with your opening line:

QUOTE:
Your daft theories, however, have done damage to to the truth, helped undo much of the good work done by early critics of the Warren Commission, and made it easy for critics of the official story to be lumped in with moon hoaxers and holocaust deniers. So I will continue to show how factually corrupt your work is, and how little basis your ludicrous hypotheses have in fact, in order to help set the record straight.

This is a give-away that demonstrates you're a follower of the garbage put out by the late Roger Feinmanthat my work, exposing the serious autopsy fraud in this case, somehow has functioned so as to "undo much of the good work done by early critics" . Gee Martin. . why don't you get specific, and tell us what "good work" you are referring to. My work was published in January, 1981, and contained the accounts of the body bag and shipping casket that Robert Blakey had consigned to the classified files, and--were it not for Best Evidence--might have remained there for 50 years. So what are you talking about?

But let's get to your other pots.

First of all: If there was anything "daft," let me assure you that the late Wesley Liebeler, the UCLA law professor and Warren Commission to whom I showed some of this evidence on October 24, 1966, wouldn't have gotten as excited as he did, and then drafted a 13 page memorandum to every member of the Warren Commission, and its legal staff, pointing out thatunbeknownst to themtheir own files contained evidence that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy. (See Chapter 9 of Best Evidence, for a description of that meeting; and Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, for the story of the Liebeler Memorandum). And, although you may not be aware of it, a member of the White House legal staff --Lee White--then suggested that there be a limited reopening of the case, to investigate this particular matter, and LBJ nixed that option. (Perhaps LBJ contacted you, back then, and you assured him that these ideas were "without merit"? And were "daft"?)

Second: if there was anything "daft", let me assure you that my publisher wouldn't have spent the money they did vetting the book, and then putting up the funds to commission a documentary film, in order to get the key witness accounts (about the body bag and the shipping casket) on film, prior to publication.

The truly "daft" idea is in your post post, and is the absurd notionwhich comes from the fevered imagination of Harrison Livingstonethat there was "another" body at Bethesda.

THE FALSE NOTION OF THE "OTHER BODY" -- LIVINGSTONE'S WAY OF AVOIDING MULTIPLE COFFIN ENTRIES

Here's the bottom line, which I have little doubt you will ever accept, because it would mean capitulating to the essential validity of my work, but here it is anyway: Yes, there was one more than one coffin entry at Bethesda that night (i.e., the shipping casket at 6:35 PM, and then the Dallas coffin entering once (empty) at 7:17 PM, and then a second time at 8PM )with JFK's body)but there was no second body.

Let me repeat that: multiple coffin entries, because of a clumsy attempt to hide the prior intercept; but no "second body." The first proposition (multiple coffin entries) is backed up by the evidence; the second ("second body") is a straw man erected by Harrison Livingstone, who you are now blindly following in an attempt to discredit my work.

You ought to understand that point and stop nit picking and making tendentious arguments attempting to introduce "another body." If you want to believe that, then I suggest you purchase an airline ticket and come visit Livingstone on some fruit farm in northern California, and the to of you can meet in the woods, and fry marshmellows and can commune on that notion.

No on to your next point:

QUOTE:

Boyajian's report does NOT say that the casket he and his men picked up contained the body of President Kennedy. And he did NOT recall the arrival of Kennedy's casket. Those are the FACTS. Additionally, as Jim DiEugenio correctly pointed out, "Bethesda is also a morgue. It did not stop being so just because Kennedy was being transported there that day. Other military men died that day" UNQUOTE

DSL RESPONSE: You're dead wrongand you're playing "lawyers games" again. Boyajian and his men were specifically sent to Bethesda to provide security in connection with the arrival of the President's body. (You can even read about this in Manchester's Death of a President, although he doesn't mention Boyajian by name. But he talks about how Admiral Galloway needed Marines for security, and called over to Fort Myer to get a group). Anyway, that's what Sgt. Boyajian was there for, and that's the subject of the after-action report he wrote on November 26, 1963. There was no other body that arrived at Bethesda that night---and there was no other morgue at Bethesda.." Those are simply facts. As for DiEugenio's unfounded conjecture, "Other military men died that day"would you mind supplying a name? Because if there was such a death, that person's body was certainly not brought to Bethesda on the night of November 22, 1963. Your attempt to fuzz up this issue is outrageous, and againgoes to your motives to be even making such an absurd and dishonest argument.

Next Point: I said that Dennis David told me that the black hearse with the shipping casket arrived "a good 20 minutes" before the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, which arrived at the front of Bethesda at 6:55 PM EST. Your response: to cite the time of "6:45 PM" 10 minutes later--which was provided by Dennis David when interviewed over the phone by Doug Horne of the ARRB.

Listen up, Mr. Hay: I interviewed Dennis David on July 2, 1979, by phone; and then on camera in October, 1980: I reported accurately what he said. Right there, in his home, in Hoopston, Illinois, and on camera and you can see that in the home video documentary we released in 1989: that President Kennedy's body arrived, in the black hearse "a good 20 minutes before" the naval ambulance. Are you seriously contending that what Dennis David said to Doug Horne in 1997seventeen years after I interviewed him on camerasomehow undercuts what he told me in 1980? Oh pleez. . .get real.

You can huff and puff all you want Martin Hay. We're now coming up on 50 years after the event. So glad that you have become interested in pursuing the matter. No doubt it offers you some escape from your day job. Unfortunately, you cannot undo a historical record that was established by the Boyajian Report in 1963 and by the journalistic work I did in 1979, and on camera in 1980.

But keep trying. . as I'm sure you will.

DSL
6/21/13, 3 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California

[Dawn Meredith]

As attested to by the FBI agents and other witnesses as well, the primary focus of the autopsists appeared to be locating bullets. They seemed genuinely befuddled when they couldn't find any. If they had been the ones to remove the bullets, they were acting was as good as their lying and they have proven to be pretty poor liars. The main reason for the military autopsy IMO, was the fact that Oswald was in custody and awaiting trial. This meant evidence needed to stand up in court and the prosectors could be liable to perjury This was not a part of the original plan. Had Oswald been spirited away and eliminated as planned, it really wouldn't have mattered how many shooters there were, or from what direction they were shooting. As long as Oswald, agent of Castro was identified as one of them, and could supply no rebuttal, the plan was intact. Once Oswald was murdered on Sun. morning they could pretty much say whatever they liked, and they did. They didn't need to alter the body it's not like it was going to be hauled into court. Just their testimony, XRays and photos. Much easier to fake than an actual body. I wish some one could show me creditable evidence that Kennedy's body was in a body bag in a shipping casket at 6:35. Sibert and O'Neil said they assisted in removing the presiden'ts body from the ceremonial casket immediately after they helped carry it into the morgue, and before they were sent out, while X Rays were to be taken.

I read Best Evidence when it was first released. In the beginning it seemed like a major development in the case. My sole criticism at the time was that the book was way too long and contained way too much ego.
Later I came to the conclusion that it was the autopsy photos, etc. that had been altered. That made a whole lot more sense for all the reasons stated here.

Dawn

Dawn:

If it was the autopsy photographs that had been altered (and you'd have to alter the X-rays as well). . but if that was all that had been done, (and nothing had actually been done to the body itself) then:

a) that would not explain the two FBI agens reported that when the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull" . And keep in mind that, when queried by his supriors after I spoke with Sibert in early November, 1966, Sibert said the source of that was statements made by Dr. Humes. (See Chapter 12 of Best Evidence)

b) that would not explain why the head wound descriptions were so different between Dallas and Bethesda (See Chapter 13 of Best Evidence)

c) that would not explain why the throat wound description between Dallas and Bethesda (See Chapter 11 of Best Evidence)

d) that would ot explain why the body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, as evidence by the fact that it began its journey in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket; and (2) it began its journey wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag. (See chapters 25 -28 of Best Evidence).

Merely altering the autopsy photographs would not explain the above data.

Moreover, if the body was in exactly the same condition in Bethesda, as it was in Dallas, then the autopsy doctors would have immediately said ---based on an entry at the front of the throat and an exit at the back of the headwhat the Dallas doctors said: that JFK was shot from the front.

But not only didn't the Bethesda doctors say that, no one in the autopsy room says they said any such thing.

So. . .: if the body had not been altered, then one would be forced to argue that the Bethesda doctors were shammingthat they were bent over a body that was in the same condition as it was when observed by the Dallas doctors six hours earlier, but pretended otherwise.

And there is no evidence to support that sort of thesisi.e., the "shamming" hypothesis.

The only reasonable explanation to support what the Bethesdsa doctors said, and what they testified they saw, is that (a) the body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda and (b) the wounds were altered.

DSL
6/21/13; 2:20 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California

David: The medical evidence re JFK is hopelessly without value, for me. As I said- (and as I wrote to you in the 80's)- I read your book and was impressed with this development. I was also impressed with the Leggit story on the Men who killed Kennedy. That said it is impossible to know. I am no expert on medical evidence. Far from it. So I mostly stay away from this area. All one can do is speculate. Nothing can be proven including your belief of body alteration. We also do not need to prove any of this to prove conspiracy. All we can say with certainty is that the autopsy photos do not match with what we know happened to JFK's head and neck.
How the discrepancy came to be so deep is open to much speculation. As was the plan. I perfer to look at the RFK case, where what happened is clear cut. An honest autopsy.
I will have no further comment on this as it is a subject that is too open to one's interpretation. And one needs expertise in the medical field. I have zero. But I imagine Xrays could also be faked. I just do not know what happened with JFK from Parkland to Bethesda. I know that you are wedded to your ideas presented in your book. Such is your right.
I am way beyond discussing the evidence. Conspiracy was proven decades ago. I am concerned with what happens now. On 11/22 the world will be watching as the powers that be take over Dallas and the media spouts its lies. What do you plan to counter THIS?
Dawn