Robert Prudhomme

You tell us, Craig, we're all ears.

Translated from jimbo speak: "I can't even begin to refute this..." Please explain oh all knowing jimbo.. Your explanation is sure to be the stuff of legends! Now don't be shy jimbo.... Tell us why. Roflmao! Better yet, make your own and actually prove your point instead of running your completely uninformed mouth. I see they will let almost anyone onto this forum...... Yep, here you are bob.... And I see you are still peddling the same tired junk for the same people....

Translated from jimbo speak: "I can't even begin to refute this..." Please explain oh all knowing jimbo.. Your explanation is sure to be the stuff of legends! Now don't be shy jimbo.... Tell us why. Roflmao! Better yet, make your own and actually prove your point instead of running your completely uninformed mouth. I see they will let almost anyone onto this forum......

Mr. Josephs Long time no see, my friend. As you are likely aware, I was permanently banned from the JFK Assassination Forum for repeatedly having the audacity to suggest that the Lone Nutters on that forum were likely in the employ of the CIA or some other government agency. I was considered such a threat to the Free World, every single post I ever made on that forum was disappeared along with me. Ho hum.... I would like to offer support for your analysis of the backwards motion of JFK following the fatal head shot. From my perspective, the actual recoil of JFK away from the impact of the bullet is very short and brief. The "back and to the left" motion we see following this brief recoil is, IMO, JFK's stiffly corseted torso falling over due to the force of gravity. As I have mentioned before, I have a great deal of experience with rifles, most of it hunting deer. For many years, I have handloaded my own rifle cartridges. I have never shot an animal with a full metal jacket bullet, as this is illegal and inhumane, so I cannot speak for the results of impacting a living skull with an FMJ bullet. Most of my hunting has been done with soft tipped bullets. These will expand on impact and I have only witnessed slight backward recoil on deer struck in the head with them. However, I did experiment for a brief period with 110 grain .30 calibre hollow point bullets for a .308 calibre deer rifle. Once you've shot a deer in the head with a hollow point bullet, witnessed the results and examined the damage to the deer, the head shot at z312 of the Zapruder film makes far more sense. Because hollow point bullets expand so much and so rapidly, they push far more matter ahead of them inside of a skull wound and slow down that much quicker, imparting almost all of their energy to the matter inside of the skull. The results are often explosive and, in some cases, the bullet does not even exit the skull. The recoil action away from the impact with the bullet is far more exaggerated with hollow point bullets. I have literally seen one smaller deer lifted off of his front feet and propelled away from the impact point. This is what we are seeing in the film as JFK makes a sharp and short recoil away from the impact point, prior to falling to his left. Needless to say, my experiment with hollow point bullets was short lived, as the results were somewhat obscene.

Mr. Speer Mr. Hill's story just gets better and better as time goes by. In his statement of November 30, 1963, Jackie is merely raising out of her seat as if reaching for something that has blown out. By April 6, 2012, we get this grand embellishment of the same event. "When the President was hit in the head with the third bullet, the explosion was so severe in the head that bone fragments and blood and brain matter erupted from the wound. Some of it came off and went to the right rear, across the trunk of the car. She saw that and she was trying to reach some of that material." Of course, before you go about defending Mr. Hill's remarks of 2012, think of how hard it would be for matter ejected upwards and forwards from JFK's skull, from a shot from the rear and an exit wound toward the front of the head, to land behind him on the trunk of the limo. This is why witness testimony from a week or a few months following an event is so much more reliable than testimony from the same person fifteen or forty-nine years after that same event. People age, and their memory suffers for it. Mr. Hill would also be under great pressure, over the years, to accept the official story, perhaps to the point he would begin to doubt his own memory. I find it very interesting that you describe Mr. Hill's original description of JFK's head wound, in his WC testimony and his original statement of Nov. 30, 1963, to be vague. They are nothing of the sort. He clearly states the wound to be in the right rear, not the right side and near the top as he recalls fifty years later. The reason I find your reference of Mr. Hill's description as being "vague" interesting is that this seems to be the standard Lone Nut answer whenever Mr. Hill's descriptions of the wound are discussed. I spent a good deal of time on the JFK Assassination Forum, a veritable hotbed of Lone Nuts and insanity, and this was always how Mr. Hill's testimony was described. Mr. Speer, do Lone Nuts have a handbook they work from? Are there instructions in it to always refer to Mr. Hill's early statement and testimony as "vague" and thereby denigrate what is damaging evidence to the Warren Commission?

Daniel, you need to put down the CT books you've been reading, and continue your research. Here is my discussion of Jackie's statements in chapter 18c: Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together," an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound. Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's notes, released to the public in May 1995 and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” Now, this would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy. But that's not all she had to say. According to White's notes, she also said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." White's notes then detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said the wound was at the "top" of her husband's head--not once but twice... And that wasn't the last time she described the wound in such a manner. In her interview with White Mrs. Kennedy worried that the history of her husband's Presidency would be written by the likes of AP correspondent "Merriman Smith, that bitter man," who, irony of all ironies, would soon thereafter win a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the assassination. This no doubt contributed to her subsequent decision to hire an historian of her own, William Manchester, to write an authorized book on the assassination. She was interviewed by Manchester on 4-7-64, 5-4-64, 5-7-64, 5-8-64, and 7-20-64. While Manchester's notes on these interviews have never been released, it's clear she told him, as White, that the fatal wound was at the top of Kennedy's head. In late 1966, she had a falling out with Manchester over his use of these interviews. His book could not be released without her approval. This, then, led to her reading a draft of his book, The Death of a President, and giving it her personal approval. Here is how the final draft described her husband's death: "The First Lady, in her last act as First Lady, leaned solicitously toward the President. His face was quizzical. She had seen that expression so often, when he was puzzling over a difficult press conference question. Now, in a gesture of infinite grace, he raised his right hand, as though to brush back his tousled chestnut hair. But the motion faltered. The hand fell back empty. He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there any more." Now this can't be any more clear. Mrs. Kennedy had told Manchester that the fatal wound she saw was at the top of her husband's head. That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses. As for Hill... he has discussed Kennedy's head wound dozens of times over the last decade, and has claimed over and over again that the wound he saw was at the top of the head above the ear. He has even pointed out this location on TV. Claiming him as a "back of the head" witness based upon a few early statements, in which he was never asked to specify the location, and failing to admit he has long disputed your interpretation of his earliest statements, is a bit desperate, IMO. From the statement of SA Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service, November 30, 1963: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:30 p.m., Dallas time. I looked forward to the jump seats and noticed Governor Connally's chest was covered with blood and he was slumped to his left and partially covered up by his wife. I had not realized until this point that the Governor had been shot." From the Warren Commission testimony of SA Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service: "Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Would you not agree, though, that the drawing Dr. McClelland agreed to showed a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head that would have involved occipital AND parietal bone? Would you also not agree that the majority of Parkland medical witnesses described, in their testimony to the Warren Commission, a head wound that was in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head?

Mr. Carroll Do you think it possible that Mr. Posner was paid to write disinformation in his book "Case Closed", in order to bolster and promote the Warren Commission findings?

I discuss this at great length in chapters 18c and 18d of my free online book, and have discussed this in probably hundreds of posts on this forum. When one studies ALL the statements of those viewing Kennedy's head wounds on 11-22-63, it seems almost certain the Parkland witnesses thinking this wound to have been on the far back of the head were wrong. The reasons for this are: 1. Those seeing the actual shooting described a wound on the right side of the head--where the Parkland witnesses failed to report a wound--that matched the size and nature of the wound SOME of the Parkland witnesses thought they saw on the back of the head. 2. The wound described by these witnesses to the shooting was in the location of the wound depicted in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. 3. A few of the Parkland witnesses made statements more suggestive of the wound portrayed in the autopsy photos than the wound on the back of the head described by some of their colleagues. 4. A number of the Parkland witnesses describing a wound on the back of the head--Carrico, Perry, and Jenkins--later made statements suggesting they'd realized their error. 5. A number of other Parkland witnesses purportedly claiming the wound was on the far back of the head, e.g. Peters, Jones, described a wound higher up on the skull than pushed by most CTs, and refused to claim the autopsy photos were faked. 5. The "star" witnesses--the Parkland witnesses sticking to their claim the wound was on the far back of the head--McClelland, Crenshaw, and Bell--have tremendous problems with their credibility. McClelland originally said the wound was on the left temple, and Crenshaw and Bell made no statements at all for decades after the shooting. When asked to mark the location of the wound on anatomy drawings by the ARRB, even worse, Crenshaw and Bell marked the drawings in different locations on the rear view and lateral viewings. In other words, they either had no grasp of anatomy, or their memory of the wound's location differed from minute to minute. FWIW, I, as most CT's, started out thinking the Parkland witnesses were the key. When I looked at it closer, and realized that very few of the "back of the head" witnesses ever claimed the wound was in the occipital location pushed by most CT writers on the medical evidence, however, I realized I'd been had. In time I decided to add chapters 18c and 18d to my website, which discuss the "back of the head" witnesses in detail, and expose the many lies told about these witnesses in order to prop up the myth the wound observed at Parkland was low on the back of the head. I do acknowledge, however, that a majority of the Parkland witnesses believed or came to believe the head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos. That, to me, is irrefutable. Should a researcher wish to run with this--and make the argument the wound was where these witnesses said it was--he or she would receive very little complaint from me. No, my complaint is with those pretending these witnesses said the wound was low on the back of the head, in a location compatible with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. That is pure nonsense, and should be exposed as such. Mr. Speer Do I understand your last paragraph to say you consider the possibility of a wound in the rear of JFK's head where no wound exists in the official autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head, as long as it is not solely confined to the occipital bone but possibly inclusive of some occipital bone?

Mr. Jeffries When you explain the matter this way, I can only respond by saying I support your statement 100%.

Mr. Speer Please provide documentation showing Robinson never saw a gaping hole in the back of the head until after his never interviewed colleague had performed reconstruction on JFK's skull. You might wish to re-read the ARRB Medical exhibits regarding Robinson and VanHoesen (ARRB medical documents 63, 180 and 181.) They sat several yards back from the left side of the body, at ground level, whereby the doctors attending the president blocked off their view. By their own admission, they didn't examine the head until after its reconstruction, which was performed by their colleague Ed Stroble. As a result, it's impossible to consider them credible witnesses regarding the condition of the skull at the beginning of the autopsy. There are three things wrong with your argument: 1. Regardless if there was some amount of reconstruction in JFK's skull, Mr. Robinson still saw a large gaping hole in the back of JFK's head where no hole exists in the autopsy photo. Care to explain this to us? I already did. The hole he saw on the back of the head was not there at the beginning of the autopsy, when the photos were taken. 2. Do you not think his colleague's reconstruction work might be somewhat obvious to Mr. Robinson, as it was necessary to finish closing the wound in JFK's head? NO ONE disputes that the right side of the skull was torn apart during the autopsy, so that the brain could be removed. It follows, then, like night from day, that the relatively small orange-sized hole observed by Robinson was the condition of the skull after some reconstruction had taken place. Doug Horne, in his book, embarrasses himself, IMO, when he asserts that the orange-sized hole between the ears observed by Robinson was the large head wound at the beginning of the autopsy, but the orange-sized hole between the ears observed by VanHoesen was the large head wound during reconstruction. Hubba-wha? 3. If Mr. Robinson was present during the autopsy, where was he following the autopsy, to allow his colleagues to perform reconstruction work in his absence? Documentation on this point would be appreciated, as well. Mr. Robinson admitted he didn't reconstruct the skull. His statements reflect that he worked on the torso and applied some finishing touches to Kennedy's face. He said he thought VanHoesen worked on the skull. VanHoesen, however, said he also worked on the body, and that Stroble did the skull. Stroble was never interviewed. 1. The hole at the rear of JFK's head was not there at the beginning of the autopsy or Mr. Robinson was simply not in a position to see this wound? In what way are you using Mr. Robinson to corroborate your belief there was no hole in the rear of the head and can you provide documentation for your answer? 2. Extremely poor answer. I notice that you, like most LN'ers, are very good at dodging difficult questions. Even if the right side of the head was torn apart to remove the brain (there is evidence given by Paul O'Connor that this never happened as JFK's brain had been so completely evacuated from his skull, there was nothing left to remove), Mr. Robinson was asked to describe wounds, not medical procedures. Do you not think he could tell the difference between a gunshot wound and a saw mark? 3. Once again, you have not answered the question. Mr. Robinson did, indeed, work on JFK's head. He admitted, in an interview, that all of them worked on JFK's head. I repeat the question, was Mr. Robinson absent at any time during the morticians' work on JFK and can you provide documentation for your answer? If they were all present, it would be impossible for one member to work on a large wound in the back of JFK's head while another worked on the torso, simply for the fact that, during the autopsy, JFK's torso would have been evicerated from the front side. Lying on his back, only the torso could be worked on. Lying on his front, only the back of the head could be worked on. What do you think Mr. Robinson did to while away the time while the back of JFK's head was being reconstructed?

Mr. Speer Please provide documentation showing Robinson never saw a gaping hole in the back of the head until after his never interviewed colleague had performed reconstruction on JFK's skull. There are three things wrong with your argument: 1. Regardless if there was some amount of reconstruction in JFK's skull, Mr. Robinson still saw a large gaping hole in the back of JFK's head where no hole exists in the autopsy photo. Care to explain this to us? 2. Do you not think his colleague's reconstruction work might be somewhat obvious to Mr. Robinson, as it was necessary to finish closing the wound in JFK's head? 3. If Mr. Robinson was present during the autopsy, where was he following the autopsy, to allow his colleagues to perform reconstruction work in his absence? Documentation on this point would be appreciated, as well.

Mr. Speer I believe that entire long post was for the sole purpose of demonstrating Mr. Robinson believed the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entrance wound and the 1/4" diameter wound in JFK's right temple was some kind of exit wound. However, regardless of how many other people you drag into your argument, ostensibly for the purpose of confusing unwary readers, the fact remains that Mr. Robinson did indeed not only describe a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head, he described in some detail how he and his fellow morticians dealt with that hole. He also described the wound in the right temple as being approximately 1/4" in diameter. Are you aware that 6.5 mm = .256 calibre, which puts the bullet's diameter at just a shade larger than 1/4"? Mr. Robinson also describes, in another interview, how a ballistics "expert" present at the autopsy informed him that the rear wound was an entry wound and the temple wound was an exit wound. How a mortician could be taken in by such nonsense is beyond me but, these were different times and people believed Authority in these days. I can assure you, though, that entrance wounds are invariably no bigger than the diameter of the bullet and exit wounds are most often much larger. I have a great deal of hunting experience to back up my arguments. Mr. Robinson was not a doctor and, therefore, not reliable as a witness for discerning exit wounds from entrance wounds. However, I place great faith in his ability to locate the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head, and that is all that really matters.

Can anyone tell me, with any degree of certainty, the direction and speed of the wind through Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination?

Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone) Wounds: Large gaping hole in back of head. patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris. Smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shped, flapped down (3") (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face. Packed with wax. Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of the back bone. Adrenlin gland and brain removed. Other organs removed and then put back. No swelling or discoloration to face. (Died instantly) Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask..... "How much longer???" He (Robinson) was told (funeral director) "Take your time." Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all. (Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly" HOW COULD THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD NOT SUBPOENA THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON AND HEAR THIS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVES, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS A CONSPIRACY? The sad part is that the ARRB report is supposed to renew the American people's trust in their government. Above is the transcript of a telephone converstan with Thomas Evan Robinson from May 26, 1992. He was the mortician who, along with two other morticians, prepared JFK for burial. As the saying goes, the undetaker is the last man to let you down, and in this case, Mr. Robinson would be one of the last persons to view JFK's head wound (and back wound) prior to his burial. What Mr. Robinson saw should put to rest any arguments about alteration to the body and about where the large head wound and the back wound were.

Well, Robert, did I (or Dr. Humes) ever say that the wound was "nowhere near" the EOP? And we can argue about how silly it was for Humes to have used ANY of the landmarks he did use in this autopsy -- for example, the mastoid process and the shoulder joint (which some people insist are MOVABLE landmarks and, as such, not suitable for autopsy referencing). Dr. Cyril Wecht has stated, and I tend to agree with him (although I'm certainly no pathologist), that most coroners and medical examiners will use the TOP OF THE HEAD and the MIDLINE OF THE BODY as the only points of reference during autopsies. But Humes didn't do that with any of the President's wounds in this case. Why didn't he? I haven't any idea why. (Although, I would guess that the EOP is, indeed, about the same as measuring from the "Midpoint" or "Midline" of a human body.) But since it's fairly obvious that Dr. Humes & Company had no intention of using those other areas such as TOP OF THE HEAD as landmarks, it means he had to choose SOME other body landmark to measure the head wound from, didn't he? And what would you have suggested? The abdomen? Or the groin? After all, at least the EOP was located on the HEAD. So what else COULD he have used as a landmark (in lieu of the TOP OF THE HEAD)? Mr. Von Pein I'm sorry but, you are completely wrong about this. Dr. Humes used the external occipital protruberance for the simple fact that it was the closest prominent landmark to the entrance wound. Further corroboration of this can be found in Dr. Humes' testimony to the HSCA: "Mr. CORNWELL. In the process of examining that, among the other available documentary evidence in the case, our panel of forensic pathologists, of course, were not present during the autopsy, did not have access to the body and, therefore, you and your colleague who were there are in a unique position to provide testimony as to the nature of the wounds to the President. In that connection, as you recall, the panel invited you, and you responded voluntarily, in fact, as I recall, on very short notice, you responded to an invitation to come speak to them informally. They, I guess, we could say, interviewed you as to your knowledge on the subject of the autopsy in the National Archives. In pertinent part, the transcript which was made from the tape recording of that interview at pages 12 to 13 reflects that you reviewed not only that drawing, but an X-ray of the President's head and identified the small droplet in the lower portion of the photograph as a wound of entry and that that was the only wound of entry. Later in the transcript, at pages 39 to 40, the following colloquy occured: Dr. Petty of the panel said, going back to the earlier discussion, "Can I go back to another interpretation which is very important to this committee? I don't really mean to belabor the point, but we need to be certain, as certain as we can be, and I am showing you now photograph 15"--that, of course, was a photograph from which that drawing was made--"and here to put it in the record is the posterior hairline or margin of the hair of the late President and there near the midline in just a centimeter or two above the hairline is an area that you refer to as the in-shoot wound. That, in other words, was a verbalization of the description of the location of the small droplet near the bottom of the head. You replied, Dr. Humes, "Yes sir." Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect." Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance." Would it be accurate to state first, Dr. Humes, that at the point at which you made the statements we have just referred to, you were called rather unexpectedly from your normal occupation, came to Washington and with no preparation or no referral to prior notes immediately prior to that, were shown this and other evidence and made the statements that I have just referred to? Dr. HUMES. That is correct, and I comment that I was similarly summoned on Tuesday of this week, 48 hours ago, for this appearance likewise with no attempt or no chance for preparation and no idea of what questions were to be directed toward me. Mr. CORNWELL. And we apologize for the short notice in both cases. Dr. HUMES. Fine. I hope we can straighten that out. Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to ask you if you would agree to various portions of what are reflected on this photograph. First, in the original photograph, there was shown, as in the drawing, a ruler; is that correct? Dr. HUMES. That's correct. Mr. CORNWELL. And in addition, there were the hands which are shown which appear to be holding the scalp so as to expose some portion of the back of the head. Dr. HUMES. That's correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you also agree that in the original photograph, the hair in the upper portion appears to be wet, that in the lower portion appears to be relatively dry? Dr. HUMES. I would indeed. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you also agree that the hair is spread apart in the upper portion of the photograph, exposing portions of the scalp and that in the lower portion, the hair is in a relatively natural position? Dr. HUMES. I would. Mr. CORNWELL. And finally, would you agree that the relative center portion of the photograph has what you, upon initially being shown this photograph in the Archives by our panel, could not identify, that's what you said might be a clot or some other it, and that is relatively off-center in the overall photograph the past you identified as being the wound of entry, the locations are as I described them. Dr. HUMES. Yes, apparently. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same; as to where the point of entry is? Dr. HUMES. Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. No. 1, it was a casual kind of a discussion that we were having with the panel members, as I recall it. No. 2, and I think before we talk about these photographs further, if I might comment, these photographs were made on the evening of November 22, 1963. I first saw any of these photographs on November 1, 1966, almost 3 years after the photographs were made, which was the first opportunity that I had to see those photographs. At that point, Drs. Boswell, Finck and I were asked to come to the National Archives to categorize these photographs, label them, identify them and we spent many hours going through that. It was not the easiest thing to accomplish, I might say, after 3 weeks short of 3 years. But we identified them and I think in light of the very extensive opportunity that various panels of very qualified forensic pathologists have had to go over them, we did a reasonably accurate job in cataloging these photographs. So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the 27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus making some distortion of anatomic views produced in this picture. By the same token. the object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings."

Let us take a very critical look at your argument, Mr. Von Pein. You are suggesting Mr. Newman had some incredible radar like sense of hearing that allowed him to pinpoint the origin of a rifle shot within a few feet? This is the stuff of fantasy, and I seriously doubt you have spent much time in the woods hunting, or around firearms ar all, for that matter. From my personal experience, I can confidently state that, while the general location of the origin of a shot can be detected, actually pinpointing the location is almost entirely impossible. This is especially true if the shot is completely unexpected.

Interestingly, you both find Dr. Burkley to be a reliable witness. On JFK's death certificate, he located the back wound at the level of T3, the third thoracic vertabra. Do you consider him reliable on this point?

That is correct. I am unable to answer that question. But the authenticated autopsy pictures prove that the autopsy doctors were wrong. But, as I also pointed out, the autopsy report verbiage isn't really "4 inches" off on the entry wound location. It says "above" on one page of the report, and says "slightly above" on another page. The determination as to how many "inches" or "centimeters" this would equate to can never be determined. I will also point out (again) -- Dr. Humes HIMSELF admitted he was wrong about the "white dab" of tissue near the hairline being the entry wound, which was so obviously BELOW the EOP. I'll refer you again to Humes' 1991 quote in JAMA: "We proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. .... There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- J.J. Humes; 1991 And there's also this video interview with Dr. Humes in 1967 (his first interview given since the assassination; in this video, Humes does say the head entry wound was "low" in the back of the head; of course, he would change his mind for the HSCA eleven years later, and then change his mind again in 1996; so let's just agree that Dr. Humes was a little "fuzzy" on this): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFCJ2X-Cpg DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?" DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir." RATHER -- "And that was where?" DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly." RATHER -- "And the exit wound?" DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull." RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is." RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?" DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir." http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html If the entrance wound was nowhere near the external occipital protruberance, why would Dr. Humes use it as a referance point? That makes about as much sense as using the Adam's apple as a reference point for a wound in the forehead.

Would someone be so good as to direct me to a site with the testimonies of Patrolmen Chaney and Jackson? I was unaware that they had given testimony before the Warren Commission, or anywhere else, for that matter.

My sentiments precisely, Mr. Gallup.

Mr. Von Pein Your arguments prove absolutely nothing, for the simple fact that many witnesses had a "reversal" from their original testimonies to the Warren Commission, similar to Humes. Fear is a great motivator. I am far more inclined to believe testimony from 1964. No one had an agenda at this point and the testimony from these witnesses is far more likely to be truthful. Aren't you a little suspicious of so many witnesses discovering, fifteen to thirty years later, that they had "mis-remembered" events of 22/11/63 in their WC testimony? And you have still not told me how you think Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck could be so grossly incompetent as to misplace the entrance wound at the bottom of the back of the head when in "reality" it was at the top of the back of the head. Are you unable to answer this question?

Mr. Speer Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event? Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event? From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97: "-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr. Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her oral remarks, and in her drawings; -She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of brain tissue it was; -She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head, were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Your arguments are ridiculous; in fact, they border on the insane. Only a raving fanatic would state that the cowlick is "slightly above" the external occiptal protruberance. However, I would imagine you are, in reality, eternally grateful to Dr. Humes for not giving a precise measurement, as this allows for the elasticity so needed by you in re-locating the entrance wound. Can you imagine, even for one second, that Dr. Humes described the wound as "slightly above" the EOP for the simple fact that it was less than one centimetre above the EOP and not worth measuring? Look at the diagram of the skull below. The EOP is No. 21 in this diagram. Can you honestly tell me, with a straight face, that JFK's cowlick is "slightly above" the EOP?

Mr. Von Pein Tell me something. Just how incompetent do you think Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck actually were? This was, possibly, the most important autopsy of the 20th Century. When an entrance wound was discovered in the locale of JFK's external occipital protruberance, don't you think they would have taken the time to probe it a little bit with a finger or something to ensure it actually was a bullet hole and not just a surface abrasion or splotch of blood? Also, the EOP is a fairly prominent protrusion, easily felt and located even by laymen. Just how do you think three trained doctors mistook the EOP for JFK's cowlick?