Micah Mileto

Why did they bother making this? Nobody who doesn't care cares, and nobody who cares cares. Who is the target market here?

Could Dr. Finck have been talking about Air Force general Godfrey McHugh?

An overlooked discussion that was not included here: "Deep throat Dave": http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DeepThroat/ Not a big loss. Obvious xxxx.

Did Dr. David Stewart tell you anything about the information about a wound in the left temple? He always said it was discussed among the Parkland staff but he quotes I have now don't specifically name any witnesses. Will any new information bout that be in Final Charade? I made this long discussion on information suggesting small wound(s) on the front of the head: This is as complete as I could manage to get it.

Dr. Mantik said that he thinks this dark path is a bone fracture (Medical Research Archives, Vol. 7, Issue 9, September, 2019, The Robertson Hypothesis: A Joyless Review [link 1] [link 2]).

I know Boswell's testimony is just Arlen Specter asking "do you agree with everything Humes just said? Yes? Good. NEXT". But, I am not sure which other witnesses were mishandled in this way.

I am looking for where exactly it says that some witnesses testified to the Warren Commission in the presence of other witnesses (which could have influenced the fidelity of the information provided by the witnesses). Specifically, I want to know if Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck testified in eachother's presence.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26815-small-wounds-in-the-front-of-jfks-head/

See here

I feel like that ID of Oswald was faked by Nagell by cutting it out of a published book, drawing over it with pencil, and recopying it several times.

Thank you. Here's what I find in Best Evidence, page 109 of the 1992 signet edition: I turned to the wound in the throat. O’Connor described it as “a great big hole in his larynx. . . . They said they tried to do a tracheotomy—it was already blown open. I don’t know how they could have done anything with it . . . there was nothing. The esophagus was laid open. . . .

The trachea was deviated to one side, not the esophagus. The esophagus is behind the trachea, so if it is true that the esophagus could be seen beneath the defect in the throat at Bethesda, there was definitely some alteration to the throat done.

That's crazy. Is there any more info about the Dr. Curtis interview you're ok with sharing at this time?

Huber has his own chapter, seen above. I feel sure that Huber wasn't talking about the right side of the head. The left side of the head was of course covered in blood and hair, which might have made it difficult to see any wounds that might exist, but Huber was quoted as saying there was a "blotch of blood" or a "blood clot" on the "left forehead". So, an area on the left front of the head where there was a small coagulation of blood that resembled a wound.

Thanks. While your website perfectly illustrates that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were describing the large head wound and not any small head wounds, there is a lot it doesn't include about the Parkland witnesses. Drs. Robert Shaw and David Stewart both claimed to have heard the other staff members discussing a wound in the left temple. Dr. Jenkins, at the very least, said there was blood on the left temple, that he placed his finger there, and that he suspected a wound there. Dr. McClelland said that he heard Jenkins say "there's a wound in the left temple" (in another version of the story, he said he just heard Jenkins say "there's a wound here" while seeing the finger on the temple, and thought he was pointing to a small wound). Dr. Ronald Jones inexplicably told the ARRB that him and Dr. Lito Porto having some knowledge of a wound in the left temple, a story which he never told before or after since (Jones is still alive from what I understand, but I couldn't find a working phone number to contact him). Gene Akin, even if you want to call him a xxxx, did claim to see an "entry wound" in the "forehead", and also claimed a temple wound was seen by Dr. Kemp Clark. A couple of early newspaper articles printed unsourced claims that a wound in the left temple/forehead was seen.

Here is a pdf version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7VkiCR50DhuXRpVjrYJj4BHoeH9Rs-W/view?usp=sharing This does not include the Dealey Plaza witnesses because they was already handled perfectly in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt. They were almost certainly describing the LARGE head wound, not any small wounds.

Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head 120 pages CONTENTS PART 1.1 - Intro PART 1.2 PART 1.3 PART 2 - Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy’s personal physician; Malcolm Kilduff, White House press secretary PART 3 - Tom Robinson, mortician PART 4 - James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy lab technician PART 5.1 - Dennis David, William Pitzer, and Jerrol Custer PART 5.2 PART 5.3 PART 6 - Joe O'Donnell PART 7 - Quentin Schwinn PART 8 - Roy Kelleman, Secret Service PART 9 - Janie Taylor's witness PART 10.1 - Parkland Drs. Robert McClelland, Marion Jenkins, Malcolm Perry, Kemp Clark, Robert Shaw, David Stewart Gene Akin, Ronald Jones, Lito Porto, and various other media reports PART 10.2 PART 10.3 PART 10.4 PART 11 - Father Oscar Huber PART 12 - Hugh Huggins

I've been trying to figure out, I'm wondering if you can help me, but do you know any documents on who were the ones who discovered the (officially) three bone fragments in the Limo and delivered them to the autopsy room? All I can find is this "three inch triangular section of skull' document - but nothing on exactly who was the first to find it and who was the one to deliver it.

Thanks, but do you know how press film holders are different from duplex ones?

So far, all I'm getting is that "press packs" are thin with numbers displayed while "duplex holders" are thick and unnumbered.

In Best Evidence, Paul O'Connor said he could see the esophagus through the defect in the throat. I don't know if he ever specifically said the esophagus was damaged. John Ebersole was the one who initially said he remembered the body arriving with the throat sewn up, but in his last interview he changed his mind and said it wasn't.

I'm trying to understand the issue with the brain photographs. I know John Stringer said he never used Ansco film, which is the brand of film used for the brain photographs in the official collection today. But he also said he didn't use a "press pack" and instead used a "duplex film holder". What does that mean, and what is the difference between the two? Search engines are not helping me visualize the difference.

Thank you, Paul. I'm trying to see if I can make a perfect essay on this, putting the finishing touches on it and hoping it can be out on the anniversary.

Yet another bombshell hiding in plain sight. The theory of one or more temple wounds is more alive than ever. I found this link to the quote, but a scan of the original magazine issue would be better: http://www.reminiscethis.co.uk/history?start=3

Humes said in his WC testimony that he had to do "virtually" no work with a saw to remove the brain. The word "virtually" implies he had to cut some bone. Humes told the ARRB "we had to cut some bone". Floyd Riebe and Tom Robinson claim they saw the pathologists using a saw to cut bone.