Jump to content
The Education Forum
Michael Walton

For Debate - The Hairline Spot Seen in the Autopsy Photo

Recommended Posts

MD 20 - Humes/Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel (9/16/77)
Page 19 of 23

Humes.jpg

dallas-texas-usa-22nd-nov-2013-diagram-of-the-morgue-at-the-us-naval-DJ6A40.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While the scalp is normally reflected forward in an autopsy, Robin, it is also normally reflected back. The "mystery photo" proves it was not reflected back. Well, it follows that the normal procedure was not employed and that we have no reason to believe it was reflected forward.

And then there's all that other stuff on my website like the measurements and the proportions of the drainage hole, etc. All of this proves the photo was not taken from above looking down on the forehead.

Of course none of that prepared me for my most unexpected discovery--that the supposed crack on the forehead was really the handle of a medical instrument sticking out of the cranium.

crackinthefacade.jpg

From the HSCA interview with Humes and Boswell:

 

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite--oh, it must be, I can't read it--but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

 

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

 

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

 

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get

 

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

 

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the sinaller fragment fit this piece down here......

 

From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

 

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 6:08 PM, David Josephs said:

All this discussion of the big hole and the small one over the right eye...

Father Huber claims to have seen a "terrible wound" over the left eye...  despite the claims that all damage was to the right of mid-line...

The embalmer notes no left side work done...  how can that be missed when 2 small shrapnel holes are filled... some feel those were from glass when a shot goes thru the windshield.

There is also testimony that HUMES took a saw and just cut across the top of the forehead...

That crack and "wound" on the left side is not connected to anything...  the HUMES cut?

David, compare the notes of Robinson and the priest. The old guy was probably dozing in the rectory when he was suddenly jerked out of his sleep and sent on down to the hospital.  There, he sees Kennedy dead and wounded grieviously.  So I think it'd be very easy for him to get the "left" mixed up with "his left" vs. "Kennedy's left" meaning the *right* side of Kennedy's face. Huber probably meant Kennedy's right because that photo you posted shows no damage at all.  Plus, Huber had no time to closely inspect the wounds - he was probably in and out after waving his hands around over the corpse.

Then look how detailed Robinson's notes are - right this and right that.  It's obvious the guy knows what he's talking about having been involved in the mortuary business for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

David, compare the notes of Robinson and the priest. The old guy was probably dozing in the rectory when he was suddenly jerked out of his sleep and sent on down to the hospital. [/quote]

Father Huber.

"I returned to the rectory—ate a brief lunch—and had just finished when Father James N. Thompson, C.M., one of my  assistants, who had finished lunch previously and was watching TV—came to the rectory and announced that the president had been shot. We went to the recreation room where we heard, over TV, the president had been taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital. 

There, he sees Kennedy dead and wounded grieviously.  So I think it'd be very easy for him to get the "left" mixed up with "his left" vs. "Kennedy's left" meaning the *right* side of Kennedy's face. Huber probably meant Kennedy's right because that photo you posted shows no damage at all.  Plus, Huber had no time to closely inspect the wounds - he was probably in and out after waving his hands around over the corpse.

"I think"- "probably (x2)" What a lot of conjecture.

Then look how detailed Robinson's notes are - right this and right that.  It's obvious the guy knows what he's talking about having been involved in the mortuary business for years.

The wound in the back was 5 to 6inches below the shoulder to the right of the backbone.- Seems to confirm the back wound was where the autopsy sheet et said it was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

There, he sees Kennedy dead and wounded grieviously.  So I think it'd be very easy for him to get the "left" mixed up with "his left" vs. "Kennedy's left" meaning the *right* side of Kennedy's face. Huber probably meant Kennedy's right because that photo you posted shows no damage at all.  Plus, Huber had no time to closely inspect the wounds - he was probably in and out after waving his hands around over the corpse.

"I think"- "probably (x2)" What a lot of conjecture.

Thanks Ray.  Look at the autopsy photo.  The left side of the face has no damage to it even though Josephs is making a huge leap by drawing an arrow from JFK's cheek to the x-ray. The priest clearly got his vs my left mixed up.

Look at the funeral guy's notes - very consistent right this and right that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 12:58 PM, Micah Mileto said:

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence. 

 

From the HSCA interview with Humes and Boswell:

 

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite--oh, it must be, I can't read it--but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

 

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

 

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

 

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get

 

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

 

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the sinaller fragment fit this piece down here......

 

From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

 

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone. 

So we have a very good basis for believing that the scalp was reflected to the left, as is shown in the posterior interpretation of the skull photos. 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×