The Harper Fragment and the DPD Search of DP

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Did the morticians who prepared JFKs body for the casket report a missing portion of skull at the top of the head where you are proposing the Harper fragment came from?

I thought the largest hole was off somewhere on the right rear and they had to place a rubber dam there to fill the gap. If there was a hole on the top of the head then wouldn't they need to put a rubber dam there too?

They didn't report anything. They didn't do a forensic reconstruction. They were told to make the body acceptable for presentation. This meant piecing bone, rubber and cement, whatever, together to conceal any holes that could be seen with JFK laying on his back. They then left a section without bone on the back of the head that they concealed on a pillow.

But that did not reflect the location of the hole at the beginning of the autopsy. 

[Gerry Down]

Just now, Pat Speer said:

They didn't report anything. They didn't do a forensic reconstruction. They were told to make the body acceptable for presentation. This meant piecing bone, rubber and cement, whatever, together to conceal any holes that could be seen with JFK laying on his back. They then left a section without bone on the back of the head that they concealed on a pillow.

But that did not reflect the location of the hole at the beginning of the autopsy. 

I thought it was scalp that was missing at the back of the head but maybe it was bone. There is no scalp missing in the back of the head autopsy photo where the autopsy doctor is holding the scalp in place for the photo. 

In the lateral x ray, there is no bone missing in the right rear. So maybe the rubber dam was placed closer to the top of the head where the Harper fragment was missing from.

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I thought it was scalp that was missing at the back of the head but maybe it was bone. There is no scalp missing in the back of the head autopsy photo where the autopsy doctor is holding the scalp in place for the photo. 

In the lateral x ray, there is no bone missing in the right rear. So maybe the rubber dam was placed closer to the top of the head where the Harper fragment was missing from.

One of the major problems with the Parkland "back of the head witnesses" and the claim Dr. Clark described a large "blow-out" wound on the back of the head is that he claimed there was a big hole of scalp and bone. It is a forensic fact that scalp tears at exit, and that missing scalp is considered a sign of entry, not exit. SO...since Clark said there was missing scalp at the large defect (and this was confirmed at autopsy) it is a forensic fact that the large defect was an entrance, or, much more likely, a large wound of entrance and exit--which is exactly what Clark said on 11-22.

In their zeal to prove a shot from the front, all too many have ignored this basic fact--that the large wound was a wound of both entrance and exit. So..if as they choose to believe, the wound was on the far back of the head, well, this means the shot came from behind, or side, not front. Oops. 

Now, the HSCA pathology panel realized that the missing scalp meant the large defect was an entrance so they added a footnote saying they thought the autopsy doctors must have been mistaken. They avoided of course that Clark had similarly inspected the skull and had similarly noted the missing scalp in a report written well before the autopsy doctors had a chance to make their inspection. 

It's weird but true. The missing scalp is the smoking gun. 

[Gerry Down]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

One of the major problems with the Parkland "back of the head witnesses" and the claim Dr. Clark described a large "blow-out" wound on the back of the head is that he claimed there was a big hole of scalp and bone. It is a forensic fact that scalp tears at exit, and that missing scalp is considered a sign of entry, not exit. SO...since Clark said there was missing scalp at the large defect (and this was confirmed at autopsy) it is a forensic fact that the large defect was an entrance, or, much more likely, a large wound of entrance and exit--which is exactly what Clark said on 11-22.

In their zeal to prove a shot from the front, all too many have ignored this basic fact--that the large wound was a wound of both entrance and exit. So..if as they choose to believe, the wound was on the far back of the head, well, this means the shot came from behind, or side, not front. Oops. 

Now, the HSCA pathology panel realized that the missing scalp meant the large defect was an entrance so they added a footnote saying they thought the autopsy doctors must have been mistaken. They avoided of course that Clark had similarly inspected the skull and had similarly noted the missing scalp in a report written well before the autopsy doctors had a chance to make their inspection. 

It's weird but true. The missing scalp is the smoking gun. 

Are you suggesting the autopsy photos and x-rays showing the scalp and bone structure on the right rear of his head to be intact to be forgeries?

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Are you suggesting the autopsy photos and x-rays showing the scalp and bone structure on the right rear of his head to be intact to be forgeries?

No, not at all. I have argued for what feels like forever that the photos and x-rays are legit and prove two head shots and thereby two shooters. 

I was trying to make the point that those claiming the large head wound was on the far back of the head miss that the description of the wound (which was in fact at the top of the head above the right ear) proves it to have been an entrance, or a wound of both entrance and exit, and not an exit for a bullet striking Kennedy in the forehead.