Michael Griffith

Here is an interesting interview with Doug Thompson about the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRjBkdAZsek A few points about Marilyn's death: -- Eunice Murray, Marilyn's housekeeper, confirmed to the BBC in 1985 that RFK was at Marilyn's house on the day of the murder. -- Murray also admitted that she found Marilyn lying on the floor, not face-down on the bed. -- Strangely, Murray disappeared soon after Marilyn's death, somehow came into money, and took an extended vacation in Europe, conveniently making her unavailable for questioning. -- Marilyn's hairdresser, Sydney Guilaroff, said that late in the afternoon on the day of her death, Marilyn called him and told him that Bobby Kennedy had been at her house and that he had threatened her. -- Marilyn’s body was found with her legs stretched out perfectly straight, which is extremely unusual for people who overdose on sedatives. -- It turns out that Pat Newcomb, Marilyn's publicist, was the Kennedys' and the FBI's spy in Marilyn's circle of friends. She regularly reported on Marilyn's statements and actions to them, though it is unclear if she shared the same amount of information with both parties. -- Soon after Marilyn’s death, Newcomb went to, of all places, the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, where she was photographed on a yacht with members of the Kennedy family, and then she, too, like housekeeper Murray, went to Europe on an extended vacation. -- The first LAPD officer who, officially, arrived at the house said the scene clearly looked staged. He saw signs of liver mortis that proved her body had been moved. Marilyn's two doctors and housekeeper were acting suspiciously. Dr. Greenson flushed pills down the toilet. When the detective asked them why they had waited some four hours to report Marilyn's death, they offered the dubious tale that they had first called the Fox studio offices. For four hours? Why would two doctors waste four hours talking to studio executives instead of immediately calling the police? BTW, in the book and in some of his interviews, Rothmiller discusses the CIA's penetration of the LAPD, including CIA penetration of the LAPD's OCID. In some of interviews, Rothmiller also discusses CIA corruption in the covert operation to arm anti-communist fighters in Nicaragua. Also, Rothmiller doesn't buy the official story about RFK's death. Again, Rothmiller is one of the good guys. His disclosures, though disturbing, shed important light on JFK and RFK, CIA operations, CIA penetration of a major police department, and how wiretapping and bugging were being used as weapons by intelligence agencies and the Mafia, among other issues. And his disclosures may very well give us a better understanding of the plotters' motives. The plotters could have just destroyed JFK and RFK by publicizing their serial adultery, but instead they chose to publicly execute JFK and RFK.

James DiEugenio vs. Fred Litwin. John Newman vs. Marc Selverstone or Mark Moyar

You bet. So Boyers, who was an experienced Chief Petty Officer (E-7) and the NCOIC of the hospital's Pathology Department, looked at a few tiny fragments, the largest of which would have been the 7x2 mm fragment, and for some inexplicable reason described them as a missile. I spent 21 years in the Army, and "missile" always meant "bullet" in reference to ammo. Do you know how small 7 x 2 mm is? It's 0.27 inches x 0.07 inches, or 1/4th inch in length x 7/100th inch in width. That's a sliver, and that was the largest of the few fragments. Why would anyone use the term "missile" to describe a few tiny fragments? When the HSCA asked Boyers about this, he merely said he'd made a mistake. He didn't explain how he could have "mistaken" a few tiny fragments for a bullet, and why he didn't specify the number of fragments that were being transferred to Sibert and O'Neill. And, sadly, his HSCA interviewer did not press him on his odd answer. I would have asked, "Wait a minute, why did you describe a few tiny fragments as a missile? Have you ever described a few miniscule fragments as a bullet in other memos or reports? Why didn't you specify the number of fragments that were found and were being receipted to the FBI agents?" I suspect that Sibert and O'Neill may not have even bothered to read the memo but signed it perfunctorily. They may not have been aware that a bullet had been found, nor would they have necessarily been aware of the large fragment that Jerrol Custer saw fall from JFK's back while x-rays were being taken. Anyway, find me a single military or FBI document where a few tiny fragments are described as a missile or a bullet. Let's see just one such document. If you're involved in a murder case and you are transferring bullet fragments found in the autopsy, you are at least going to specify the number of fragments, if not also the dimensions of each fragment. Finally, I will just note again that you are now not just saying that Young was mistaken but that he may have lied, even though Chief Mills confirmed his account, even though Young accepted the lone-gunman story, even though Young clearly believed that the bullet he had seen was one of the shots acknowledged by the WC, and even though he only contacted Ford and Specter after he realized that the bullet was not mentioned in the Warren Report.

Pat’s comments in his response that I am answering are in bold. My answers are in regular text. His and my previous comments from an earlier exchange are in brackets. No, sorry. It is your motives that are to be questioned. Whenever I've pointed out Mantik's errors, someone has come out of the woodwork to attack. This same thing would happen on the McAdams Forum whenever I pointed out Lattimer's errors. Fanboys will be fanboys. Your arguments against Mantik's research are erroneous, sometimes bordering on embarrassing. It is especially puzzling that you reject his historic OD measurements, even though OD measurement is an established science, even though he uses OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, and even though Dr. Chesser has independently confirmed the measurements. [Me: First off, the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays does **not** match the location of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray.] What in the world are you talking about? You can't be serious. It is a 100% match. As proven on the slides above... Mantik knows this moreover because he matched up the AP and Lateral x-rays on a slide--with the arrow matching up the location for the so-called 6.5 mm fragment--and it passed right through the fragment behind the eye. No, you can't be serious. What about the obvious vertical misalignment??? Do you not understand that a fragment cannot be a companion image for another fragment if it does not align both horizontally and vertically with the other fragment? The fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays is the 7x2 mm fragment seen on the AP x-ray. What??? Once again, go back and look at my slides. What Lattimer et al have called the 7 x 2 fragment is NOT behind the eye. It is INCHES away, in or on the middle of the forehead. I meant that the 7x2 mm fragment is behind the right eye horizontally, not vertically. Yes, of course, I can see that the 7x2 mm fragment is above the right orbit. [Me: You keep ignoring the all-important, determinative fact that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you can't see this on the AP x-ray. Here's a copy of that x-ray with the two objects' locations noted by arrows: LINK.] No. I'm not ignoring anything. You are the one ignoring the obvious fact that the fragment on the forehead is NOT behind the right eye. Let's back up and note some key facts: -- Humes said he removed the largest fragment. -- Humes said that the large fragment he removed was 7x2 mm. -- The AP x-rays proves that 7x2 mm fragment is plainly and self-evidently not the same fragment as the 6.5 mm object. So your claim that the 6.5 mm object is the largest fragment that Humes said he removed is simply impossible. [Me: Look at it, Pat. The 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment are two different objects. A child can see this.] Yes, and a child can see that what has been called the 7 x 2 fragment is NOT behind the right eye. Lattimer ASSUMED this was the fragment removed at autopsy. Mantik examined the fragment in the Archives and said it is not this fragment. It follows then that the fragment removed at autopsy was not the forehead fragment. So where did it come from? Well, geez, maybe just maybe...from behind the right eye... Again, you are markedly misrepresenting Dr. Mantik's research. He most certainly does not say that the 6.5 mm object was the largest fragment that Humes removed. He says the exact opposite. He's made it clear that the 7x2 mm fragment was removed during the autopsy: In January 1968, the Clark Panel [1] released its long-awaited review of the President John F. Kennedy (JFK) autopsy. That report described an apparent 6.5 mm cross section of a bullet fragment that lay inside JFK’s right orbit on the anterior-posterior (AP) X-ray (Figures 1 and 2). Curiously, despite the fact that it was (by far) the largest apparent metal fragment on this X-ray, it had not been described in the autopsy report. Furthermore, it had not been removed during the autopsy, even though the sole point of the autopsy X-rays had been to locate and to collect (for forensic purposes) precisely such objects. . . . Figure 1. JFK’s AP X-ray from the autopsy. The vertical arrow identifies the 6.5 mm object, which was not seen at the autopsy. The horizontal arrow identifies the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment, which was removed at the autopsy. . . . Figure 1. JFK’s AP X-ray from the autopsy. The vertical arrow identifies the 6.5 mm object, which was not seen at the autopsy. The horizontal arrow identifies the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment, which was removed at the autopsy. . . . (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 19-20) And note this statement: There is wide agreement that the partner image (on the lateral X-ray) of this mysterious 6.5 mm object must appear at the rear of the skull (near the cowlick area—Figure 2). (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 19-21) Did you catch that? The partner image "MUST" appear at the rear of the skull. Why? Because the 6.5 mm object is in the rear of the skull. Although Dr. Mantik occasionally, for the sake of easy reference, says it is “inside JFK’s right orbit” or “within the right orbit,” he makes it clear elsewhere that this verbiage does not mean the object is actually in the right orbit but only that that’s where you can see it on the AP x-ray. If the 6.5 mm object were actually located in/near/just behind the right orbit, there would be no reason that the companion image would have to be at the rear of the skull. I just can't understand how you can't, or won't, grasp this obvious point. [Me: And Humes said he removed the largest fragment, which he specified was the 7x2 mm fragment.] Yes, he measured A fragment as 7 x 2, but he retrieved this from behind the eye. There is no reason to assume he was referring to the fragment pointed out by Lattimer, which Mantik describes as 7 x 2. Humes insisted till the end that the largest fragment was found behind the eye. Was he lying? Now let’s think about this. Let’s stop and think. You are saying that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object, which is absurd and impossible. We have the largest fragment that Humes removed. It was entered into evidence. It looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. Anyone, even a child, can look at the AP x-ray and see how different the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment look. Let's read what Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham say on this point: For example, during his Warren Commission testimony, Humes took pains to explain the importance of extracting bullet evidence. And he was equally, if unintentionally, clear that he did not see the object that would today immediately draw the eye of any layman, to say nothing of a pursuing pathologist or radiologist. Humes told the Warren Commission that the X-rays revealed, “30 or 40 tiny dust like particle fragments of radio opaque material, with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit [bony eye socket]... .”[365] (emphasis added) The “one” he’d previously mentioned was the 7 x 2-mm fragment, which is visible in the X-rays to this day just where he said he saw it: above and very slightly behind the right orbit. In other words, he apparently didn’t see the far more obvious fragment that was visible smack dab “in the middle” of the orbit, or eye socket. Instead, he went after one less than half its size, and one that was above the orbit. . . . Given his apparently misdirected zeal, Humes ironically told the Commission that his goal was to land the big one. “(We performed) a careful inspection of this large defect in the scalp and skull...seeking for fragments of missile … .”[366] And, “(we tried to) seek specifically this fragment (the 7x2-mm anterior fragment) which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it. (sic).”[367] The far larger, and so more recoverable, fragment in the rear was embedded in the outer table of the skull. It would have been but the work of a moment to fetch it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm) [Pat: The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment.] [Me: Yes, and "this large fragment" is the 7x2 mm fragment. I already quoted Humes explaining to the ARRB that the 6.5 mm object was much larger than any of the fragments he removed. The autopsy report says he removed two fragments, 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm, and says nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment. Humes could not possibly have missed the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray if it had been there during the autopsy.] There are a lot of problems with this. One is that Humes said he'd retrieved a 7 mm fragment. Well, this proves that a "6.5. mm" fragment would not be too large. As far as precision... 6.5 mm vs. 7 mm or whatever... you must know that one can not measure bullets or bullet fragments off x-rays, unless one knows exactly where the fragment is located, and even then it's inexact. The front of JFK's skull was magnified 20% compared to the back of his head on the A-P x-ray. Humes was not a radiologist and probably failed to realize this...when looking at the x-rays...decades later. This is absurd. Again, the AP x-ray shows that the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment would have looked nothing like each other at the autopsy. The 6.5 mm object is much larger and much different in shape. I know you can see this. [Pat: There are small fragments next to the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray. [Me: Yes, and the fragment behind the right eye is the 7x2 m fragment. The 6.5 mm object is in the outer table of the skull on the back of the head, as 27 experts have confirmed, including all members of the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB medical panel.] What??? You can't have it both ways. You can't hide behind the Clark Panel's nonsense and pretend there's a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, while defending Mantik's claim there is no such fragment and that the fragment on the A-P was added in a darkroom. The fragment on the back of the head story is a hoax. Mantik and I agree on that. Well, first off, I do not "pretend there's a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head." How in Gotham City do you not understand that I agree with Dr. Mantik that there is no such fragment on the back of the head? How? There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, as Dr. Mantik has proved, but that fragment is slightly shorter and much thinner than the 6.5 mm object (and lies within the object). You say you agree that the 6.5 mm object is a hoax, but, as always, you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge evidence of forgery and alteration, so you float dubious innocent explanations. You claim the object is either an acid drop or a stray disk. [Pat: Lattimer claimed the large fragment removed at autopsy can be seen on the x-rays...inches away...in the middle of the forehead. Wecht et al followed his lead. As did Mantik...] [Me: You are simply ignoring facts that refute your argument and just keep repeating your argument. Again, Mantik has made it crystal clear that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, and as Mantik has repeatedly noted, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image (in the back of the head or anywhere else) for the 6.5 mm object.] Yikes. Mantik does not believe the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P is on the back of the head. Heck, he believes there was no skull where that fragment would be located. You again misrepresent Mantik's position. He most certainly does say that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, which is why it is so damning that there is no companion image for the object in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. See above where Mantik says the partner image "MUST" appear in the rear of the skull on the lateral x-rays but does not. He makes this point over and over in his writings, but somehow you seem to have missed or, or are ignoring it. It appears you are confused by the nature of x-rays. One CAN NOT determine the location of a fragment from one view. That is why they take multiple views. Giggles and LOL. Right, which is why Dr. Mantik notes that the lateral x-rays should show a partner image for the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, and that that partner image should be in the back of the head. This is also why he has said that the forgers’ placement of the object in vertical alignment with the small back-of-head fragment made the forgery hard to detect. [Pat: But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment.] [Me: Oh, come on. There is only one fragment near the 6.5 mm object, and that is the McDonnel fragment. There are fragments inside the 6.5 mm object, but only one near it, and they are all in the back of the head. Again, 27 experts have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head.] Actually, there are three very tiny fragments near the 6.5 mm object--one could almost call them specks or particles. [Pat: It seems clear, moreover, that much of the confusion stems from the fact these are 3 dimensional objects, and the measurements provided by the doctors were 2-D. In such case a large object 8 x 2 x 10 can be mistaken for a much smaller object 8 x 2 x 1. The first object is ten times larger and yet they can both be described as 8 x 2.] [Me: The only confusion is with you. 27 experts, who come from both sides of the fence, agree that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Plus, OD measurements have erased all doubt about the 6.5 mm object and the small fragment inside it.] The consensus you claim just isn't true. As you know, the ARRB talked to some experts and they couldn't even find an entrance on the back of the head, let alone a sliver of bullet right next to said entrance. The fact that the ARRB experts did not see an entrance wound in the back of the head on the x-rays does not change the fact that 24 other experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head on the x-rays. That is why Dr. Fitzpatrick spent so much time trying to find a companion image for the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and why he was so bothered that he could not find one but only a very small fragment in the back of the skull where a much larger fragment should have been. [Pat: My irritation with Mantik stems in part from his deceptiveness on this issue. He has repeatedly told his audience that the forehead fragment is the fragment removed at autopsy, even though he claimed in his earliest writings that the fragment in the archives is not the forehead fragment on the x-rays. He is familiar with John Hunt's work, moreover, and knows full well that Hunt obtained an image of the archives fragment before it it was broken up by the FBI, and that the fragment on this image is consistent with the large fragment on the x-ray.] [Me: Are you just going to keep going around and around with this stuff? Go read Mantik's writings for the last 10 years. Read his last three books. He notes that a major indication of fraud is that the lateral x-rays show no image in the back of head, or anywhere else, that corresponds with the 6.5 mm object seen in the AP x-ray. You are either severely misrepresenting Mantin's views or you have severely misunderstood them.] [Pat: Another dodge. You repeat something I've been saying as if it refutes what I've been saying. Yes, Mantik says there is no fragment on the back of the head in the A-P. And he is right. But he should have looked elsewhere for this fragment...like where the doctors said they'd found the largest fragment--behind the right eye.] Umm, he did not "look elsewhere" because the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, as confirmed by 26 other experts, which means that if the object is a bullet fragment, there should be a companion image for it in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays, but there is not. [Pat: As far as the x-ray images being inconsistent with M/C ammunition, that's just not true. While a lead snowstorm is normally associated with hunting ammunition, a full-metal jacket bullet striking tangentially will explode and leave a lead snowstorm. I have seen it argued, moreover, that the fragments in the so-called trail of fragments on Kennedy's x-ray are larger than would be expected if the bullet had been hunting ammunition. If so, it may be that the trail of fragments is proof of a FMJ bullet, not proof against.] [Me: Not a single one of the FMJ bullets in the WC ballistics tests left a snowstorm of tiny fragments. Not one.] None of them struck tangentially. Yeah, that’s because they fired at the rear entry point described in the autopsy report. [Me: Furthermore, you ignored my point that the main point of this thread is that the back-of-head fragments--the one in the galea and the one in the outer table--could not have come from FMJ ammo, for the reasons that Sturdivan explained regarding the 6.5 mm object's origin.] Make up your mind. Mantik says there are no such fragments. Is he correct, or not? And, if not, why is it that NONE of the experts studying the computer-enhanced x-rays could make out what Russells Morgan and Fisher claimed to see on the unenhanced x-rays? You are again misrepresenting Mantik's findings. As you should know, Mantik does indeed say there are bullet fragments in the back of the head on the x-rays. He's even diagrammed them in his books. He's confirmed their existence through numerous OD measurements (obtaining literally hundreds of data points), and Dr. Chesser has confirmed his measurements. Mantik's diagram, which I have cited in this thread, shows the largest of the back-of-head fragments and gives a measurement of 2.5 mm for its widest point. This, as Mantik explains, is the fragment that is within the image of the 6.5 mm object. Furthermore, Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of the McDonnel fragment in his writings, including his most recent book. How can you not know these things? How? Those back-of-head fragments, as Dr. Sturdivan has confirmed, could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. It is amazing that you are disputing this. Don't take this next comment too hard, and I mean it partly in jest, but "with conspiracy theorists like you, who needs lone-gunman theorists?"

Oh, he was obviously just another lying or mistaken witness. Chief Mills was one of the two chief petty officers (Navy corpsmen) who searched the limousine during the autopsy, found the "misshapen bullet" in the rear of the limo, and brought the bullet to the autopsy room, where Dr. Young saw it.

LOL! You must be writing from a parallel universe during a time when the ARRB materials have not been released yet. It is astonishing that you would reject Dr. Young's account, and even suggest he was lying, because "Dr. Humes et al" did not enter a whole bullet into evidence. Was Chief Mills mistaken or lying too? How about the Sibert & O'Neill 11/22/63 receipt for "a MISSILE removed by Commander James Humes"? Let me guess: They were really only talking about the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from the skull, right? Find me a single other FBI document where two tiny fragments are described as "a missile."

How could Dr. Young have been describing CE 569 when CE 569 was never at the autopsy, was found at a different time, was found by different people, and was found in the opposite end of the limo? CE 569 and 567 were found by Secret Service agents when the limo first arrived in Washington from Dallas, long before the two Navy corpsmen found the bullet that Dr. Young saw. The two fragments were delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and White House Detail Chief Floyd M. Boring to FBI Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, who then delivered them to FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier in the FBI laboratory at 11:50 p.m. on 11/22/1963. Again, CE 569 was never at the autopsy. So how could it be the object that Dr. Young saw during the autopsy? Surely you realize that your argument is unserious and illogical, not to mention impossible. Leaving aside the fact CE 569 was never at the autopsy, the fragment is a fraction of the size of a Carcano bullet and weighs nearly eight times less than a Carcano bullet (20.6 grains vs. 160 grains). Moreover, CE 569 is not just "misshapen" but is a badly damaged fragment that was obviously torn from the rest of the bullet--you can see where the tearing occurred. It is very hard to fathom how even a child would describe that fragment as a bullet. But, of course, all of these problems pale compared to the problem that CE 569 was never at the autopsy.

It's really quite simple. 1. The doctors and a number of observers said they removed a large fragment from behind the right eye. 2. There is a fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray that matches up with the location of the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray. I can't believe you are saying this stuff. I am starting to wonder about your motive. First off, the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays does **not** match the location of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. What in the world are you talking about? You can't be serious. The fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays is the 7x2 mm fragment seen on the AP x-ray. You keep ignoring the all-important, determinative fact that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you can't see this on the AP x-ray. Here's a copy of that x-ray with the two objects' locations noted by arrows: LINK. Look at it, Pat. The 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment are two different objects. A child can see this. And Humes said he removed the largest fragment, which he specified was the 7x2 mm fragment. 3. The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment. Yes, and "this large fragment" is the 7x2 mm fragment. I already quoted Humes explaining to the ARRB that the 6.5 mm object was much larger than any of the fragments he removed. The autopsy report says he removed two fragments, 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm, and says nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment. Humes could not possibly have missed the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray if it had been there during the autopsy. 4. There are small fragments next to the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray. Yes, and the fragment behind the right eye is the 7x2 m fragment. The 6.5 mm object is in the outer table of the skull on the back of the head, as 27 experts have confirmed, including all members of the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB medical panel. 5. Lattimer claimed the large fragment removed at autopsy can be seen on the x-rays...inches away...in the middle of the forehead. Wecht et al followed his lead. As did Mantik... You are simply ignoring facts that refute your argument and just keep repeating your argument. Again, Mantik has made it crystal clear that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, and as Mantik has repeatedly noted, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image (in the back of the head or anywhere else) for the 6.5 mm object. 6. But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment. Oh, come on. There is only one fragment near the 6.5 mm object, and that is the McDonnel fragment. There are fragments inside the 6.5 mm object, but only one near it, and they are all in the back of the head. Again, 27 experts have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. 7. It seems clear, moreover, that much of the confusion stems from the fact these are 3 dimensional objects, and the measurements provided by the doctors were 2-D. In such case a large object 8 x 2 x 10 can be mistaken for a much smaller object 8 x 2 x 1. The first object is ten times larger and yet they can both be described as 8 x 2. The only confusion is with you. 27 experts, who come from both sides of the fence, agree that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Plus, OD measurements have erased all doubt about the 6.5 mm object and the small fragment inside it. 8. My irritation with Mantik stems in part from his deceptiveness on this issue. He has repeatedly told his audience that the forehead fragment is the fragment removed at autopsy, even though he claimed in his earliest writings that the fragment in the archives is not the forehead fragment on the x-rays. He is familiar with John Hunt's work, moreover, and knows full well that Hunt obtained an image of the archives fragment before it it was broken up by the FBI, and that the fragment on this image is consistent with the large fragment on the x-ray. Are you just going to keep going around and around with this stuff? Go read Mantik's writings for the last 10 years. Read his last three books. He notes that a major indication of fraud is that the lateral x-rays show no image in the back of head, or anywhere else, that corresponds with the 6.5 mm object seen in the AP x-ray. You are either severely misrepresenting Mantin's views or you have severely misunderstood them. As far as the x-ray images being inconsistent with M/C ammunition, that's just not true. While a lead snowstorm is normally associated with hunting ammunition, a full-metal jacket bullet striking tangentially will explode and leave a lead snowstorm. I have seen it argued, moreover, that the fragments in the so-called trail of fragments on Kennedy's x-ray are larger than would be expected if the bullet had been hunting ammunition. If so, it may be that the trail of fragments is proof of a FMJ bullet, not proof against. Nonsense. I'm almost led to suspect that you are a closet lone-gunman theorist. Not a single one of the FMJ bullets in the WC ballistics tests left a snowstorm of tiny fragments. Not one. Furthermore, you ignored my point that the main point of this thread is that the back-of-head fragments--the one in the galea and the one in the outer table--could not have come from FMJ ammo, for the reasons that Sturdivan explained regarding the 6.5 mm object's origin. Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds

Crickets from WC apologists. Yet, they will continue to advance the lone-gunman theory and will continue to argue that the ballistics evidence supports the theory. They will also continue to maintain articles on their websites that either ignore or reject Dr. Young's account. They ignore or reject Dr. Young's account because it destroys the lone-gunman theory. They tell themselves that even though his account seems eminently and entirely credible, and even though Chief Mills confirmed it, it simply "must" be wrong. They assure themselves that Dr. Young and the two Navy corpsmen simply "must" have seen a small fragment and mistakenly described it as a deformed bullet, even though they said the bullet was in the back of the limo, not the front (where CE 567 and 569 were found).

This is just so sad, and rather unsavory. You're calling Rothmiller a fraud because your mythical version of the Kennedy brothers and JFK's death cannot accommodate the explosive and revealing information that Rothmiller has disclosed from the OCID files and from other sources. You guys will swallow the demonstrably bogus, and often nutty, claims of a fringe fraud like Fletcher Prouty, because he supports your fantasies about the assassination, but you reject a genuine good guy like Rothmiller, who is on your side on most issues, because you don't like what he has to say about JFK and RFK. If you would read Rothmiller and Thompson's book, you would learn that Rothmiller does not claim that Marilyn died "almost instantly" from the drink that Bobby gave her. He says Lawford believed that Marilyn was dead by the time he and RFK left her house. You would have known know this if you had the read the book before rushing to attack it. There most certainly is evidence that supports Rothmiller's claims. If you'd break down and read the book, with an open mind, you'd see how much evidence McGovern doesn't even address, and how he nit-picks and misrepresents other evidence. I'm wondering if you are aware that McGovern is--how can I phrase this?--an intensely devout, passionately adoring fan of Marilyn Monroe. Have you checked out his home page? He goes so far as to question whether Marilyn had affairs with JFK and Bobby. Indeed, he claims "there's no credible evidence" that she had affairs with JFK and RFK. "No credible evidence"??? Seriously??? That is ridiculous. McGovern even expresses doubt that Marilyn slept with a large number of men, despite the veritable mountain of evidence that she was extremely promiscuous. Were you aware of McGovern's worship and adoration of Marilyn when you read his review of Rothmiller and Thompson's book? Surely you noticed that in his review, McGovern makes it clear that he is very upset with how the book portrays Marilyn. Even though the book says many nice things about her, it also discusses her affairs with JFK and RFK and the fact that she slept with many other men. In short, you are relying on a review written by a worshipful fan who is so blinded by his adoration of Marilyn that he can't admit that she had affairs with JFK and RFK and slept with many other men. Devout, passionate, adoring Marilyn Monroe fans don't like Bombshell because it talks about Marilyn's promiscuity and drug problems. Go to their websites and you'll see that their reaction to the book has been almost universally negative, and many of them rely on fellow Marilyn devotee McGovern's review. @James DiEugenioGary Vttacco Robles, in his new book Icon, part 2 shows that her house was never bugged. It was an old house that had been rewired by the phone company. Really? Then where'd the CIA get transcripts of phone calls to/from her house? You realize that Otash admitted to bugging and wiring her house, right? You know that Thompson actually interviewed Otash, right? You really should break down and read Rothmiller and Thompson's book before you make more invalid claims. @James DiEugenioIf anyone is an amateur on that case it was Jeremy. And so is Doug Thompson. Oh, boy. So now you are attacking Jeremy Kuzmarov, as well as, of course, Doug Thompson. Their qualifications dwarf yours. You really cannot expect to be taken seriously when you continue to ardently defend an extremist fraud like Fletcher Prouty and continue to praise and cite his bogus, discredited claims. Personally, I would not be caught dead praising and quoting a guy who spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, who appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years, who wrote a letter praising the goals of the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal, who attacked Church of Scientology whistleblowers, who defended L. Ron Hubbard, who spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention and co-chaired a panel with David Duke's VP candidate, who falsely claimed that he was sent to the South Pole so he wouldn't be able to help with security for JFK's Dallas motorcade, and who took seriously the nutty theories that Princess Diana was killed by the Secret Team and that Churchill had FDR poisoned, etc., etc. But that's just me. Folks, I again recommend watching the two interviews with Mike Rothmiller. I think you will see that he is a genuine, credible, and serious person. I also recommend the articles by Kuzmarov and Thompson. Here they are again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TW0Eqjs_Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw6sti-AWkY (starts at 11:10 and ends at 1:10:49) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9750993/Did-Bobby-Kennedy-murder-Marilyn-Monroe-poison.html https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/08/04/bombshell-sixty-years-after-her-death-new-evidence-suggests-marilyn-monroe-was-murdered-and-lapd-covered-up-murder/

Pat, come on. You must be kidding. The 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment in the skull at the autopsy, and it was removed from behind the right eye. This is further proof that the 6.5 mm object was neither in the skull nor on the x-rays during the autopsy. To believe otherwise, one would have to make the absurd assumption, which so far you are making, that the 7x2 mm fragment was the 6.5 mm object. A child can look at the AP x-ray and see that the 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object is much larger than the 7x2 mm fragment. Anyone who is not legally blind can readily see this fact on the AP x-ray. Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham explain the appearance of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray in relation to its horizontal location and the verbiage that it is seen "within the right orbit." They explain that, of course, the object is not actually in or near the right orbit but that it merely projects through the right orbit on the AP x-ray: It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.” This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein. Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm) X-ray technician Edward Reed’s ARRB testimony is worth revisiting. Yes, Reed claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. However, Reed also said that he could identify the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays and that it is just above the right supraorbital rim on the lateral x-rays (ARRB interview transcript, 10/21/97, p. 89). This is one big giveaway that Reed was either lying or badly mistaken. After studying the AP and lateral skull x-rays for many hours over the course of two days, Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, saw no such object in the area of the right orbit on the lateral x-ray, nor did the two other ARRB forensic experts. Likewise, 24 other experts who’ve studied the x-rays have not seen the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital area on the lateral x-ray. Because it's not there on the lateral x-rays, nor is it in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. It's a ghosted image, as Dr. Mantik has proved with OD measurements--he was even able to duplicate how the image was added to the x-ray. Regarding Jerrol Custer, an analysis of his ARRB testimony shows that he did not necessarily say that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. Even one WC apologist has admitted that Custer's comments are unclear and do not unequivocally say that he saw the object during the autopsy. Plus, in his many hours of conversation with Dr. Mantik about the autopsy x-rays, Custer never once mentioned that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this to me in an email). Finally, three points bear repeating: One, the AP x-ray shows both the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object. The 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. So there is just no way that the 7x2 mm fragment, which Humes removed, is the 6.5 mm object. Two, two separate sets of OD measurements, one done by Dr. Mantik and the other done by Dr. Chesser, scientifically prove that the 6.5 mm object cannot be metallic and also prove that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. Three, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is located, this does not change the fact that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Gil, you are self-evidently correct. But, WC apologists will never admit it. Similarly, they won't admit that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was obviously hit long before Z224 and that Connally clearly was not hit before Z231, just as Connally himself adamantly insisted. Anyone can view the Zapruder film and plainly and clearly see these things for themselves, but WC apologists refuse to acknowledge them.

You're repeating yourself about the large fragment and the 6.5 mm object and ignoring the reasons your argument is impossible. There is a fragment in the back of the head, but it is the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. The 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, but it is not a fragment. You keep dancing around this central point. No expert has disputed that there is a fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays, but it is not the companion image of the 6.5 mm object. You are either misrepresenting or are confused about Dr. Mantik's position on the location of the 6.5 mm object. As I've said, you can see in his writings that one of his main points about the object is that there is no companion image for it on the lateral x-rays but that there should be. This would be a silly, meaningless argument if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit. Similarly, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there should be a companion image for it near the right orbit on the lateral x-rays. I don't know you can keep avoiding these central, obvious facts. And, no, Humes did not tell the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm fragment. Let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object: _______________________________________ Page 212 Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray. A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . . ________________________________________ Page 213 Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy? A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe. Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller? A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size. Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it. A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others. ________________________________________ The idea that Humes mistook the 6.5 mm object for the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ludicrous. You can see both objects on the AP x-ray. The 6.5 mm object is far bigger than the 7 x 2 mm fragment, as Humes explained to the ARRB. And, you're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right? Dr. Davis, one of the HSCA's forensic consultants, said the following about the 6.5 mm object's location--not having OD measurements available, he assumed it was a metal fragment and said it was imbedded in the outer table of the skull 3-4 cm above the lambda: There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2 .5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)

Phew! Uh, no, he is not. You think the fringe fraud Fletcher Prouty is the gold standard on Vietnam and on Lansdale. You think the obscene propaganda film Hearts and Minds is the best documentary ever made on the Vietnam War. Have you even read Bombshell yet? I ask because you have a history of stridently attacking books that you haven't even read. And what's with your personal attacks on Mark Shaw? Mark is a wonderful, decent, and sincere person. He has uncovered significant new evidence about Dorothy Kilgallen's murder and about internal dissension within the Warren Commission. He has reached many audiences that you and other far-left researchers have not reached. I'm guessing that you call him names and dismiss his research because he believes the Mafia was the main force behind JFK's death and/or because he has discussed the darker side of JFK and RFK (even though he also says they did many noble things).

Pat, I am just baffled by your comments here. I fear you have severely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's position. If you read Dr. Mantik's writings, including his two most recent books, he unmistakably argues that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. As he discusses, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image for the 6.5 mm object. Are you perhaps getting confused over Dr. Mantik's observation that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is "seen within JFK's right orbit"? He's not saying that the object is in or near the right orbit in its horizontal position, but that on the AP x-ray this is where it appears because the AP x-ray is a straight-on front-to-back view that does not show the object's horizontal location within the skull. Again, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays do not show a companion image for the 6.5 mm object. If the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, then it would not matter that there's no such object in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. Plus, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there would be a companion image for the object in this location on the lateral x-rays, but there is none. Remember that Humes told the ARRB that he did not see the 6.5 mm object. He specifically noted that he did not see a fragment nearly as big as the 6.5 mm object. The largest fragment he saw was the 7 x 2 mm fragment behind the right orbit, which he removed. The next-largest fragment was the 3 x 1 mm fragment, which he also removed. Anyway, the main point of this thread is that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Here is an extensive article on Monroe's death written by liberal scholar and Tulsa University professor Jeremy Kuzmarov for Covert Action Magazine that views and uses Rothmiller as a credible source and that presents evidence that supports Rothmiller's account: https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/08/04/bombshell-sixty-years-after-her-death-new-evidence-suggests-marilyn-monroe-was-murdered-and-lapd-covered-up-murder/ Here are segments of a review of Bombshell posted on the popular book-review blog Jaffareadstoo: Mike Rothmiller served for ten years with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and during that time he had access to certain secret files and from the knowledge gleaned from the files and from first hand testimonies and private diary entries he makes his case that Robert Kennedy, who was then, Attorney General, was responsible for Marilyn Monroe's death. That there are dark secrets in the life of this enigmatic actress have long been known but the authors make a convincing case of presenting their new evidence in a consistent and believable manner. The book is complex as any investigation into an unexplained death must be and the authors give a comprehensive account of all those who featured in Marilyn's tragically short life, from the US security systems which were in place to trace her every move, to the men, in authority, and in the celebrity spotlight, who exploited and abused Marilyn for their own sexual gratification, and ultimately to the most powerful family in America, the Kennedys, who had so much to lose if Marilyn Monroe carried through her threat to expose them. Mike Rothmiller's argument that Robert Kennedy was responsible for Marilyn's Monroe's death is convincing and sheds a whole new light onto what happened on August 4th and 5th, 1962. You can read the whole review here: https://jaffareadstoo.blogspot.com/2021/07/publication-day-book-review-bombshell.html. And here is a long, informative article on Bombshell by co-author Doug Thompson published in the UK newspaper the Daily Mail--the article provides a good summary of the book and includes information not mentioned in the book: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9750993/Did-Bobby-Kennedy-murder-Marilyn-Monroe-poison.html For those who don't know who Doug Thompson is, he is an internationally respected writer and journalist who has written or collaborated on best-selling biographies of famous Hollywood figures. He is a regular contributor to newspapers all over the world. Four of his books are now being developed for TV, while another is being developed into a theatrical play. His book on the Muslim Brotherhood received wide praise. and was a sensation in the Arab world when it was published in Arabic. After spending many hours with Rothmiller going over every aspect of his story, Thompson became convinced that Rothmiller was "solid and credible."

Yes, Summers does believe that RFK was in LA that day. In fact, he says RFK was one of the last people to see her alive that day. However, he also believes her death was suicide or possibly accidental OD. As Mark Shaw notes, to make that conclusion seem more credible, Summers ignores the evidence that Marilyn was not suicidal that day, that her career was on the upswing again, and that her actions that day did not indicate an intention to commit suicide (e.g., she went shopping for new furniture). Dorothy Kilgallen knew her well and just a few days before Marilyn's death, Kilgallen saw no indication that she was suicidal--Kilgallen later said the whole story about Marilyn's death had not been told.

You must be kidding. How you could call McGovern's emotional-fan hit piece a "demolition" is beyond me. Have you even read Bombshell? Yes, folks, do go read McGovern's "demolition" and then read Bombshell and watch the two YouTube interviews with Rothmiller that I've posted in the OP, and then make up your own minds. Oh, Lawford said something different to the authorities! Well, uh, yes, of course he did! What kind of grade-school argument is this? Gee, O'Donnell told the WC that he only heard shots from behind! Case closed, right? And, yes, Bobby was in Los Angeles that day. In your upcoming "decimating review" of Shaw's presentation in Allen, Texas, are you going to deal with the evidence that Rothmiller, Thompson, and Shaw present in their books that RFK was in LA that day? Are you aware that a former LAPD official and a former LAPD police officer admitted in their memoirs that RFK was in LA that day? I suspect your promised "decimating review" will be as misleading and ideologically driven as your ridiculous "review" of Selverstone's book The Kennedy Withdrawal. So you buy the suicide/accidental overdose claim??? I suppose Dorothy Kilgallen accidentally overdosed as well, right? It is quite sad and odd to see you attacking genuine good guys like Mike Rothmiller and Mark Shaw. You attack any authors who do not subscribe to your abject worship of JFK and RFK as ultra-liberal saviors, no matter how sincere and credible they are, and even if they acknowledge that JFK and RFK did many good things.

I can't believe you're saying this nonsensical stuff. Did Mantik offend your grandmother or something? What is with your seemingly pathological refusal to acknowledge the crucial, historic nature of his research and your seemingly reflexive urge to disagree with him even when he is obviously right? Your argument about Humes and the largest fragment is sheer poppycock. Humes said the largest fragment was the 7x2 mm fragment that he removed behind the right eye. The 7x2 mm fragment obviously, clearly, and self-evidently is **not** the largest fragment seen on the AP x-ray. A child can see this, for crying out loud. The 6.5 mm object is the largest "fragment" on the AP x-ray. You can see the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. A child can see that they are separate objects. What in the world are you talking about? Similarly, your argument about the whiteness of objects in relation to the 6.5 mm object and the lack of a companion object on the lateral x-rays is just baffling and erroneous. Dr. Fitzpatrick was deeply troubled by the fact that the lateral x-rays show no companion image for the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. He was so troubled that he took an extra day to examine the x-rays to see if he could detect a companion image for the 6.5 mm object. He certainly didn't think that it was no big deal that the whiteness of the 6.5 mm object is not seen in the small fragment on the lateral x-rays. Let's read what he said again: Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. Fitzpatrick also rejected your curious argument that the other, smaller fragment in the area behind the right orbit is the companion image for the 6.5 mm object. And we're not just talking about whiteness anyway. We're talking about the established science of optical density (OD) measurement. Multiple OD measurements done separately by Mantik and Chesser confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, but that within the object there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment. We're talking hard science here. Are you saying that Mantik and Chesser fabricated their OD measurements, that Mantik was merely seeing things when he examined the 6.5 mm object under high magnification? Speaking of which, we're also talking about high-magnification analysis. Mantik examined the x-rays under high magnification, and when he did so he was able to see the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. Then, he confirmed his high-magnification analysis with OD measurements, and Dr. Arthur Haas, chief of medical physics at Kodak at the time, reviewed Mantik's OD measurements and findings and saw no problem with them. According to you, the 27 medical experts who say that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head are wrong, and you are right. And how about the McDonnel fragment? Are you going to tell me that it, too, somehow is actually in the front of the skull, even though McDonnel specified that it is in the galea in the back of the head?

Why is that? Even some good people can do terrible things if they feel they have no choice. Marilyn was going to hold a press conference in a few days and expose her affairs with RFK and JFK. Her intention to do so was captured by some of the mics planted in her house, as confirmed by a CIA memo. Lawford told Rothmiller that Marilyn said she would hold the press conference on the following Monday. This disclosure would have ruined JFK's presidency and ended Bobby's career--both of them would almost certainly would have had to resign. You don't think that Bobby, who was known to have a dark and volatile side, would have felt he had no alternative but to silence Monroe, given what was at stake? Lawson explained to Rothmiller that he and Bobby tried to talk Marilyn out of going public, and that she and Bobby argued so heatedly that the argument turned violent. It was after the physical confrontation, said Lawford, that Bobby stirred something into a drink that he gave to her. Lawford said he assumed the drink was just a sedative to calm her down, but he realized it was much more when she passed out and then turned ashen gray. Then, said Lawford, two of Bobby's fixers showed up, and Bobby told Lawford they had to leave, and then the two fixers went inside the house. Lawford asked Bobby who the two men were, but he wouldn't tell him. If you read Rothmiller's book Bombshell, you'll discover that Rothmiller is one of the good guys, if you haven't already discerned this from watching the two interviews with him that I've posted. His exposure of the illegal activities of the LAPD's OCID in his 1992 book L.A. Secret Police led to the elimination of the division. He also called out the LAPD for its systemic racism in his book. If you've watched the two YouTube interviews, you know he's also very critical of the CIA. Soon after Rothmiller met with Lawford, OCID tried to assassinate Rothmiller, and the LAPD shamefully harassed him and his family after he recovered from the assassination attempt. The LAPD also tried to deny him a medical retirement settlement, but luckily the judge who heard his appeal sided with him and roundly condemned the LAPD for how it had treated him.

Here is another good interview with Mike Rothmiller about his research and book on RFK's role in Marilyn Monroe's death. Part of it deals with Sinatra and the Mafia. This one includes a Q&A with callers. Very interesting stuff. It's from an appearance earlier this year on the radio show Coast to Coast AM: LINK (starts at 11:10 and ends at 1:10:49)

Well, it is a confession, reported by the person who heard it. I guess to anticipate such nit-picking, I should have said "Rothmiller reports that Lawford confessed to him." Read the book and then make up your mind.

Sigh. . . . Okay. . . . Those who don't want to believe the confession account will look for any reason to dismiss it. I find Rothmiller credible, serious, and objective. He is not anti-Kennedy. He's very critical of the CIA. He comes across as calling things as he sees them without a preconceived agenda.

Lawford made this admission to Rothmiller. Listen to the segment in the interview--the segment starts at about 17:15 and runs for about 10 minutes. I know it is very sad to learn this about RFK. Very sad. I almost don't want to talk about it, but it is important and sheds light on what was going on behind the scenes and things that could have contributed to JFK's death.

Pat, you are sadly and badly mistaken here. Here is a list of the medical experts who have examined the autopsy skull x-rays and have determined that the 6.5 mm object is not behind the right eye but is at the back of the head, where Dr. Mantik places it: -- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz) -- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis) -- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis) -- Dr. Lattimer -- Dr. McDonnel -- Dr. Chesser -- Dr. Aguilar -- Dr. Henkelmann -- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner) -- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist) -- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics consultant) -- Kathy Cunningham (RN) -- Dr. Eric Haubner (MD) Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiology consultant, acknowledged that the small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays is not the companion image of the 6. 5mm object, and that the small fragment behind the right eye is not the companion image either: No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X-Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent. Furthermore, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is, nobody denies that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the rear of the skull. Also, the main point of the OP for this thread is that the 6.3 x 2.5 m fragment and the McDonnel fragment at the back of the head cannot have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.