The Harper Fragment and the DPD Search of DP

[Tim Gratz]

Given young Mr. Harper's discovery, in DP on the day after the assassination, of the JFK skull fragment named after him can we agree that the Dallas Police Department's search of the area of Dealey Plaza left something to be desired? DP of course was essentially a crime scene.

[Terry Adams]

Given young Mr. Harper's discovery, in DP on the day after the assassination, of the JFK skull fragment named after him can we agree that the Dallas Police Department's search of the area of Dealey Plaza left something to be desired? DP of course was essentially a crime scene.

Tim,

I find it appalling that a citizen could walk onto the site and pick up a piece of skull. The Dallas Police should have covered the area with a fine toothed comb. After all, this was the president of the United States, for God's sake. I can't imagine why they didn't just bring a street cleaner out and spray the area down. It wasn't as if something important happened here, right?

Terry

[Tim Gratz]

Terry, agree 100% of course.

But I was also leading up to a point. In "Reclaiming History" VB claims that there could not have been any bullets or fragments thereof that flew out of the limousine because, after all, the DPD had conducted a thorough search of Dealey Plaza. But obviously not thorough enough to discover that piece of the president's skull.

In "Reclaiming History" the Harper fragment (an important part of the medical evidence I believe most would agree) is only discussed in the Endnotes on the CD. Thus no one reading just the book would be aware of the discovery of the Harper fragment and accordingly proof that the DPD search of DP was far from thorough.

[Lee Forman]

I have addressed this issue multiple times Tim. There are accounts which I have read that state that the fragment was discovered 25 feet to the rear of the lincoln at the time of the headshot - however, there are other claims that the precise location of the discovery of the fragment the following day is unknown; that despite all of the strange looking individuals walking the area as per the photos, looking as if they are in the process of picking up things, and being shown as if they are in the act of pocketing items -- Don Roberdeau fixed the spot of discovery by revisiting the site with Harper.

1. The location he fixed is essentially in line with the Oswald window - an impossible feat without using a 50 caliber round which would have blown Kennedy's head into smithereens - and the fragment would not have been as large. Given the work by Mantik and others, it seems fairly conclusive that it was a piece blown from the back right rear of the head, and would be consistent with the shot to the right temple from the front. The evidence has since of course gone missing along with everything else. 2. The location is FORWARD of the Lincoln - not to the rear. It's impossible that Harper could have discovered this fragment in this location the following day unless it was planted there.

Lifton has folks running around the plaza that evening - I can find the reference. Many folks claim to have gone to the location, including Harry Olsen and Kathy Kay. The Brownie camera woman and her companion were located in this area of the 'triangle.' The piece would have either had to have passed through their bodies, or close by - it's far fetched to assume that they would have seen it. Harry Holmes made sure that he got rid of all the pieces of corruption he encountered. Only God [or the devil] knows what happened to the pieces that Vince Drain refers to. Blah blah blah blah - impossible. You can't have a fragment from the rear of the head go forward from a shot taken from the rear. And the trace of what is assumed to be lead says potential EOP for the shot from the rear, which doesn't align with Oswald's window either.

Bottomline based on your point - if you wanted to kill someone in 1963, best place to do it would be Dallas.

- lee

[Antti Hynonen]

Lee Forman wrote:

It's impossible that Harper could have discovered this fragment in this location the following day unless it was planted there.

I concur with this statement to the fullest extent.

Considering the number of people (eyes) and the search efforts taken in DP on the day of the assassination, that LARGE fragment would have been one of the first items found that day (11/22/63). It was planted there, and purposely placed in a location which would support the LN firing scenario from the SW 6th floor window of the TSBD. Unfortunately the location where the fragment was found, is in total disagreement with the testimony of Police motorcycle officer Hargis' testimony, who of course was sprayed with Kennedy's brain matter and skull pieces with such a force that he first thought he was a gunshot victim himself. Naturally those on the inside were swift to remove any evidence that might support anything but a LN from the SW 6th floor TSBD.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Tim Gratz]

Antii, I have to disagree with you here.

What are you saying, that a conspirator searched DP, found the Harper fragnent, pocketed it, then "planted it" the next day in a different location to support the lone gunman theory?

Obviously there were a lot of DPD officers searching DP for evidence the afternoon of the shooting. Were they all part of the plot? Or was the plot member just lucky enough to find the fragment first?

And if a conspirator found it, why would he try to figure out where to plant it to blame poor old Lee?

Why not just destroy it? I mean, the pathologists at Bethesda never noticed the missing piece of skull.

[Antti Hynonen]

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 08:17 AM

Antii, I have to disagree with you here.

What are you saying, that a conspirator searched DP, found the Harper fragnent, pocketed it, then "planted it" the next day in a different location to support the lone gunman theory?

Obviously there were a lot of DPD officers searching DP for evidence the afternoon of the shooting. Were they all part of the plot? Or was the plot member just lucky enough to find the fragment first?

And if a conspirator found it, why would he try to figure out where to plant it to blame poor old Lee?

Why not just destroy it? I mean, the pathologists at Bethesda never noticed the missing piece of skull.

Antii, I have to disagree with you here.

Tim, sure, totally understandable.

TG:

What are you saying, that a conspirator searched DP, found the Harper fragnent, pocketed it, then "planted it" the next day in a different location to support the lone gunman theory?

This is entirely possible. It could have been taken from the hospital too (god forbid). I don't know the details. How do you suppose this large fragment ended up here (south -west) of headshot location, when much (or most) of the other debris was blown back (more or less toward the TSBD) and towards the east?

There is photographic evidence of something similar happening in the aftermath. The photo includes "Buddy" Walthers among others. With regards to this photo, the suspicion is that a 45 cal. slug was dug up from the furrough at the location and pocketed by Walthers to be later disposed of, so as to not be used as evidence of multiple gunmen. Something similar could have happened with the harper fragment, and I say that this is more likely than not.

Speculation, yes, but on the other hand, no better explanation has been offerred by those in the photo nor anyone else.

TG:

Obviously there were a lot of DPD officers searching DP for evidence the afternoon of the shooting. Were they all part of the plot? Or was the plot member just lucky enough to find the fragment first?

(Lucky enough to find evidence first) Good thinking. An entirely possible scenario. No, of course not all cops were part of the plot. Seymour Weitzman, Roger Craig and Officer Hargis come to mind immediately as not having been on the inside. In my mind a lot of things went quite well for them in Dealey that day.

TG:

And if a conspirator found it, why would he try to figure out where to plant it to blame poor old Lee?

Why not just destroy it? I mean, the pathologists at Bethesda never noticed the missing piece of skull.

Obviously "they" needed to strenghen their case, therefore these (somewhat) knowledgeable investigators quickly knew what they needed to establish and secure in terms of physical evidence, means and opportunity to nail their suspect. They only destroyed evidence they couldn't use to strengthen their case. Afterall the entire idea was to create an illusion of a LN shooter from the TSBD, in other words, from the outset they needed to ensure that only one shooter would (could) be identified, these were the instructions that were given from DC from Hoover. The FBI soon "took over the investigation" anyhow to ensure that the predetermined outcome of the investigation was to follow.

The pathologists at Bethesda did not notice many things, made several assumptions and miscalculations. For instance they did not know that the President had sustained a gunshot wound to the front of his neck, below the Adams apple (where the tracheotomy incision was performed). When they found this out they went back and changed their autopsy report (yet again? I believe) The poor work done by them on the President's body and the related report is why most people knowledgeable in the areas of pathology and forensic pathology have been so critical of their achievements that week-end. In my mind their biggest failures then were the poor job done with regards to the bullet wounds, and the analysis thereof. Had this autopsy been performed along the highest established standards of 1963 in the USA, we'd have a lot less to figure out today.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Tim Gratz]

Antti wrote:

The poor work done by them on the President's body and the related report is why most people knowledgeable in the areas of pathology and forensic pathology have been so critical of their achievements that week-end. In my mind their biggest failures then were the poor job done with regards to the bullet wounds, and the analysis thereof. Had this autopsy been performed along the highest established standards of 1963 in the USA, we'd have a lot less to figure out today.

Here, of course, I could not agree with you more. The failure to coronally section the brain is inexplicable.

But I have to go back to respectfully disagreeing woth you about this statement:

Obviously "they" needed to strenghen their case, therefore these (somewhat) knowledgeable investigators quickly knew what they needed to establish and secure in terms of physical evidence, means and opportunity to nail their suspect. They only destroyed evidence they couldn't use to strengthen their case.

Well, the conspirators would have had to be omniscent to believe there planting of the brain fragment would "strengthen their case". And in point of fact, it has not. Why even VB does not site the location of the Harper fragment as support for the LN position. And in his 1,600 page tome he raises every POSSIBLE reason under the sun to support the LN position. Nor do I believe does Posner cite the Harper fragment to support the LN position.

Moreover, a conspirator would risk everything if someone spotted him planting the fragment. Had a conspirator gotten his dirty hands on a piece of their handiwork, I still submit they would have destroyed it,

[Antti Hynonen]

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 09:19 AM

Antti wrote:

The poor work done by them on the President's body and the related report is why most people knowledgeable in the areas of pathology and forensic pathology have been so critical of their achievements that week-end. In my mind their biggest failures then were the poor job done with regards to the bullet wounds, and the analysis thereof. Had this autopsy been performed along the highest established standards of 1963 in the USA, we'd have a lot less to figure out today.

Here, of course, I could not agree with you more. The failure to coronally section the brain is inexplicable.

But I have to go back to respectfully disagreeing woth you about this statement:

Obviously "they" needed to strenghen their case, therefore these (somewhat) knowledgeable investigators quickly knew what they needed to establish and secure in terms of physical evidence, means and opportunity to nail their suspect. They only destroyed evidence they couldn't use to strengthen their case.

Well, the conspirators would have had to be omniscent to believe there planting of the brain fragment would "strengthen their case". And in point of fact, it has not. Why even VB does not site the location of the Harper fragment as support for the LN position. And in his 1,600 page tome he raises every POSSIBLE reason under the sun to support the LN position. Nor do I believe does Posner cite the Harper fragment to support the LN position.

Moreover, a conspirator would risk everything if someone spotted him planting the fragment. Had a conspirator gotten his dirty hands on a piece of their handiwork, I still submit they would have destroyed it,

Perhaps the convenient location of the Harper fragment will appear in a later edition, who knows. Or perhaps they disregarded this evidence as it was too evident a case of planted evidence and would be against their theory.

How do you see it Tim?

Do you think this fragment was located in a perfectly logical location, considering the other debris from the head? Do you think the fact that Harper found the large skull fragment a day or so later it is totally normal?

I think it is quite illogical and unusual given the circumstances, but who knows.

[Bill Miller]

To all,

You might find this similar looking piece of bone interesting ...

As it falls off the seat ...

Was not the Harper fragment said to have come from the back top portion of JFK's head? It appears to me that one possibility seen here is that when the bone plate fractured and came off - as it flipped over, a large piece of bone resembling the Harper fragment broke loose and was thrown onto the back of Connally's seat where it then fell into the floor. That piece of bone from where it looks like it came off the bone plate would have been attached to the top rear portiong of JFK's head IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited October 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

Why not assume the large piece of bone seen falling to the floor in the Z-film is the large piece of bone found on the floor by Kinney? And why not assume the large piece of bone seen flying through the air in the Z-film is the fragment found by Billy Harper, on this exact same trajectory?

Dr. Mantik said that the Harper fragment was from two possible locations--the back of the head and the top of the head (as reported by Angel). He then said that, since the Harper fragment included the appearance of an entrance margin, it was unthinkable that it was the top of the head. Well, I dared to think the unthinkable, and have made the case at patspeer.com that the Harper fragment was BOTH on the top of the head, and an entrance.

[Tim Gratz]

For two reasons I accept Pat's scenario.

[Bill Miller]

Why not assume the large piece of bone seen falling to the floor in the Z-film is the large piece of bone found on the floor by Kinney? And why not assume the large piece of bone seen flying through the air in the Z-film is the fragment found by Billy Harper, on this exact same trajectory?

Dr. Mantik said that the Harper fragment was from two possible locations--the back of the head and the top of the head (as reported by Angel). He then said that, since the Harper fragment included the appearance of an entrance margin, it was unthinkable that it was the top of the head. Well, I dared to think the unthinkable, and have made the case at patspeer.com that the Harper fragment was BOTH on the top of the head, and an entrance.

I certainly do not know where that fragment came from for sure, but it seems to me that if it came from the top of the head, then it should have left a pretty large hole and yet the Dallas doctors didn't see such a wound on the top of the head as I recall. The bone plate was in place so well that they never noticed a wound up there. They did however notice a large defect in the back of the head. Is there anything more to go on???

Bill

[Pat Speer]

Why not assume the large piece of bone seen falling to the floor in the Z-film is the large piece of bone found on the floor by Kinney? And why not assume the large piece of bone seen flying through the air in the Z-film is the fragment found by Billy Harper, on this exact same trajectory?

Dr. Mantik said that the Harper fragment was from two possible locations--the back of the head and the top of the head (as reported by Angel). He then said that, since the Harper fragment included the appearance of an entrance margin, it was unthinkable that it was the top of the head. Well, I dared to think the unthinkable, and have made the case at patspeer.com that the Harper fragment was BOTH on the top of the head, and an entrance.

I certainly do not know where that fragment came from for sure, but it seems to me that if it came from the top of the head, then it should have left a pretty large hole and yet the Dallas doctors didn't see such a wound on the top of the head as I recall. The bone plate was in place so well that they never noticed a wound up there. They did however notice a large defect in the back of the head. Is there anything more to go on???

Bill

The Dallas doctors were obviously wrong. They saw ONE wound. It makes a heck of a lot more sense to believe the wound they thought they saw on the back of his head was really on the top of his head (and that they were confused by seeing him laying on his back) than that one bullet hit Kennedy on the back of his head and failed to exit, with all the brain matter exploding forwards. Some, trying to make the case that the Harper frag came from the back of JFK's head, point out that the doctor who examined it in Dallas thought it was occipital. Well, guess what, the occipital bone is no closer to the supposed exit seen at Parkland (which is on the parietal bone) than the wound on the top of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos (which is also on the parietal bone, only two inches further forward).

The difficulties associated with head rotation are perhaps best illustrated by looking at the BOH photo. There are many who look at that photo and pronounce that it is incompatible with the right lateral photo. Wrong. Look at the location of the ear in each photo, and the large defect's relation to the ear. It's clearly the same wound, seen from different angles.

[Bill Miller]

The difficulties associated with head rotation are perhaps best illustrated by looking at the BOH photo. There are many who look at that photo and pronounce that it is incompatible with the right lateral photo. Wrong. Look at the location of the ear in each photo, and the large defect's relation to the ear. It's clearly the same wound, seen from different angles.

I don't get into the BOH autopsy photos in relation to one another, but rather pit them against what was captured on film in Dealey Plaza. The size of the alleged bone plate in the BOH photos is much smaller than seen in the BOH photos IMO.

FWIW, As far as JFK's head wound at Parkland ... I do not believe that the doctors didn't know where the occipital bone was located or that they didn't know where the cerebellum of the brain can be found. In fact, I have read where the Dallas doctors had considered that the bones being sprung open in the back of JFK's head may have been the result of a bullet entering the throad and being deflected upward and out the back of the president's head. Dr. Clark would have been the one responsible for repairing the president's head had JFK had somehow lived, thus it makes perfect sense to me that Clark would have wanted to inspect the damage a little better after the president had expired.

The bulging of the president's head was captured on the Zapruder and Nix films when JFK's head is seen in profile. That bulge could only be the result of the bones being avulsed outward just as the Dallas doctors had claimed they were.

Bill