Fetzer/White know where the back wound was

[Cliff Varnell]

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body. And

I am well on the record, for years and years, as saying it was at about T2 ... not C7/T1.

Barb :-)

With all due respect, Barb, over on aajfk you penned a tribute to

John Hunt's research that was couched in language God's children

usually reserve for the Divine.

By being his #1 cheerleader, you're certainly on record as attempting

to legitimize Hunt's research.

And your placement of the back wound at T2, while not as egregious as

Hunt's "Bunch Theory," attempts to legitimize one of the fraudulent wound

locations listed in the autopsy report -- "Situated on the upper right posterior

thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter

oval wound."

Just above the upper border of the scapula is consistent with T2.

And it's wrong by at least an inch.

A T2 inshoot implies its own "Bunch Theory" -- that JFK's shirt and jacket

rode up a good inch.

Tucked-in custom made dress shirts -- especially those designed for the

"Updated American Silhouette"-style suits favored by JFK -- only have a

fraction of an inch of available slack.

Is your "Bunch Theory" less obfuscationary than the one embraced by

Hunt/Mack/Lamson/Rahn?

Yes, but any attempt to legitimize the fraudulent autopsy report is a far

more egregious obfuscation than Z-alterationist theory.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body.

Barb :-)

Barb, thats what I was going to say because who cares if the clothing bunched ... the skin and muscles didn't bunch. The wound is where ever the hole is found in the skin .. seems simple enough to me.

Bill

So, Bill, where was the wound found in the skin of JFK's body?

Please relate the location of the wound to its vertebral level, as

per autopsy protocol.

And perhaps you could cite the supporting evidence for this placement?

Edited April 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

Kennedy wore a backbrace. A photo posted (by Steve Thomas I think) showed him without a jacket and the shirt was very loose and comfy looking with a belt on. The brace makes half of his trunk 'slippery'. He went in and out of the car many times pre DP and post Lovefield. His jacket and shirt collar cannot be an indicator of the position of his shirt at any time.

However, the bloodied shirt shows many folds.

Any time he sat back down in the seat the shirt could very well ride up. There cannot be a conclusive statement about its position when shot except by matching the blood stains on his body and on the shirt. Such a match shows the entry wound as shown on the back autopsy photo.

[Don Jeffries]

And the reason why Boswell, Burkley and Sibert & O'Neill all located the back wound where the holes in JFK's coat and shirt are is....

[Bill Miller]

So, Bill, where was the wound found in the skin of JFK's body?

Please relate the location of the wound to its vertebral level, as

per autopsy protocol.

And perhaps you could cite the supporting evidence for this placement?

You must be joking by dragging me into this crap. I refer to the autospy photo showing the hole in JFK's back. And whether I called it the 2nd vertebra - the third - or between the twiddly-bob and the whatch-ma-callit .... its where the hole is seen in the photo of JFK's back.

[Cliff Varnell]

So, Bill, where was the wound found in the skin of JFK's body?

Please relate the location of the wound to its vertebral level, as

per autopsy protocol.

And perhaps you could cite the supporting evidence for this placement?

You must be joking by dragging me into this crap. I refer to the autospy photo showing the hole in JFK's back. And whether I called it the 2nd vertebra - the third - or between the twiddly-bob and the whatch-ma-callit .... its where the hole is seen in the photo of JFK's back.

Which happens to be at C7/T1 -- the location cited by HSCA-Single

Bullet Theorists like John Hunt.

With all due respect, Bill, you don't know where the back wound was

anymore than Mack, Lamson or Junkarrinen.

Big problems with the Fox 5 autopsy photo. It has been declared

to be likely prima facie inadmissible in a court of law by the very same

HSCA panel who used it as the basis for their Single Bullet Theory.

But that photo has NOT been proven to be a photo of John F. Kennedy.

The HSCA concluded as much. There is nothing in the photo to indicate

it was Kennedy. The woman on record as having developed the

photograph has testified under oath the extant autoposy photos were not

the ones she developed.

The HSCA condemned the autopsy photos for being obviously

deficient as scientific evidence, and singled out the back wound

photo as being especially deficient.

From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis mine):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives

is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during

autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs as scientific

documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described

elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner

that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction

of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT

OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF

CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER

BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying

the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the

date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste,

inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably

rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to

be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary

circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to

introduce such poorly made and documented photographs

as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second

thoughts about using certain of these photographs since

they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately,

they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been

content to point out the OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Some have questioned their very authenticity. These

theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of

the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another

decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of

wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation

of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a

macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, HAD THE

CASE GONE TO TRIAL, might have been effectively raised

by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the

photographs as evidence. IN ANY EVENT, THE ONUS OF

ESTABLISHING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE

PROSECUTION.

That's why the issue isn't so simple, Bill.

We don't have the body. But we have the physical evidence (the clothes,

the Dealey Plaza photos), the properly produced official documents (the

death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report) and the

witness statements uniformly putting the wound at T3 or lower.

The failure of the JFK research community to arrive at a consensus

on this issue insures its continued dysfunction and collective

ineffectiveness.

Those who promote bogus evidence -- the autopsy report and the Fox 5

autopsy photo were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol -- are

guilty of obfuscation of a far greater magnitude than the Z-alterationists.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

Bill,

Why is the autopsy photo of JFK's back wound any more legitimate than the one of the back of his head? Don't both of them contradict the other evidence?

The holes in JFK's clothing, corroborated by Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, provide the strongest clarification imaginable about where that back wound was located. The autopsy photo cannot possibly be legitimate.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Don Jeffries

[Cliff Varnell]

Kennedy wore a backbrace.

I raised this issue with a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics

Circle Award for Costume Design, a woman who is one of the

world's top textile conservators.

She was emphatic in her declaration that the back brace

had nothing to do with the fit of the shirt. "Fit" is the marriage

of style and comfort, and the extra material tailored into the

shirt to accomodate the back brace did not translate into extra

slack.

A photo posted (by Steve Thomas I think) showed him without a jacket

and the shirt was very loose and comfy looking with a belt on.

Yes, that's why guys pay all that money for custom-made clothing --

so it looks loose and comfy.

Total amount of slack fabric for a tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt: 3/4". It may have been even less for Kennedy because he

wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette," in which

the jacket features a "suppressed waist-line", meaning the shirt

and jacket were "tailored close to the torso."

The brace makes half of his trunk 'slippery'.

Factually incorrect. The brace was around his waist only. The buckles

and stays on the brace would have helped to keep the shirt pinned in

place, according to autopsy attendee James Sibert.

He went in and out of the car many times pre DP and post Lovefield.

Factually incorrect. Where did JFK get out of the limo during the

motorcade?

And why would getting in and out of the limo cause JFK's shirt

to become un-tucked, anyway?

His jacket and shirt collar cannot be an indicator of the position

of his shirt at any time.

Demonstrably incorrect.

The bottom of the shirt collar rested at the C6/C7 vertebral level,

according to chiropractors with whom I've discussed the case.

How did 2+ inches of jacket and 2+ inches of shirt bunch up entirely

above C7/T1 without pushing up on the clothing collars?

Two disparate, concrete objects cannot occupy the same physical space

at the same time. It's impossible.

That's why we have car crashes...

However, the bloodied shirt shows many folds.

None of them consistent with a gross 2+-inch shirt fold.

There are no significant folds in the area immediately above

the bullet defect in the shirt.

Any time he sat back down in the seat the shirt could very well ride up.

A non sequitur, goes like this:

1) The SBT needs JFK's shirt to have ridden up 2+ inches.

2) Shirts can ride up.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt could have ridden up 2+ inches.

Nonsense. Did JFK fail to tuck his shirt in when he changed it

minutes before landing at Love Field, John?

There cannot be a conclusive statement about its position when shot

except by matching the blood stains on his body and on the shirt.

Demonstrably incorrect. The motorcade photos clearly show

JFK's jacket dropping significantly in Dealey Plaza.

I must regretfully submit that those who deny this obvious fact

are either unfamiliar with the evidence or engaged in intellectual

dishonesty.

Such a match shows the entry wound as shown on the back autopsy photo.

The bullet hole in the shirt is at least two inches below the

location in the autopsy photo.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Care to quote me, Cliff, espousing any "bunch theory"? :-)

I never really followed your tailored shirt and coat threads ... the wound was where the wound was on the body. And

I am well on the record, for years and years, as saying it was at about T2 ... not C7/T1.

Barb :-)

With all due respect, Barb, over on aajfk you penned a tribute to

John Hunt's research that was couched in language God's children

usually reserve for the Divine.

By being his #1 cheerleader, you're certainly on record as attempting

to legitimize Hunt's research.

And your placement of the back wound at T2, while not as egregious as

Hunt's "Bunch Theory," attempts to legitimize one of the fraudulent wound

locations listed in the autopsy report -- "Situated on the upper right posterior

thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter

oval wound."

Just above the upper border of the scapula is consistent with T2.

And it's wrong by at least an inch.

A T2 inshoot implies its own "Bunch Theory" -- that JFK's shirt and jacket

rode up a good inch.

Tucked-in custom made dress shirts -- especially those designed for the

"Updated American Silhouette"-style suits favored by JFK -- only have a

fraction of an inch of available slack.

Is your "Bunch Theory" less obfuscationary than the one embraced by

Hunt/Mack/Lamson/Rahn?

Yes, but any attempt to legitimize the fraudulent autopsy report is a far

more egregious obfuscation than Z-alterationist theory.

Wrong by at least an inch, eh? Woooo ... guess you told me.<g>

I agree with the HSCA when they said that the best they could do was estimate because of the photo ... and, of course, we have no measurements from fixed landmarks. I base my opinion, my estimate, on many different factors in the medical evidence.

You base yours on tailored clothing. JFK was a living, breathing, mobile human being. He was neither a mannequin nor a hanger.

Suit yourself, so to speak, you are entitled to your opinion ... and what you base it on. I find it shortsighted and shallow, unconvincing and even photos taken that very day conflict with your pronouncement..

Again, I have no "bunch theory" ... never have.

As for John Hunt, I suppose that at some point in time I saw some of your never ending discussion with him, may have replied here or there early on, and probably knew where John believes the back wound fell ... I don't recall. I pretty much ignored your tailored clothing arguments unless someone brought something to my attention. And John and I never discussed the back wound much as his work, and my interest, was almost entirely on other areas of the medical evidence.

I do laud John Hunt for his amazing research into the medical evidence and evidence handled by the FBI laboratory. He has done some amazing work on the head wound and what all went on or didn't. He has published some of it, he has discussed some bits on the net ... but not most of it. I had hoped his book would have been completed before he got wrapped up in another case, but it was his JFK work that led him there ... sigh. He has lots of new material, I look forward to the day he gets it all out in some fashion. He has made some important finds.

As for your comment:

"Yes, but any attempt to legitimize the fraudulent autopsy report is a far

more egregious obfuscation than Z-alterationist theory."

If you are going to post about what I believe and what I do, it would behoove you to actually know what you are talking about. I have been debating, discussing and arguing the medical evidence on the net for well over a decade ... before that on c-serve. It's been many many years since I first posted my opinion that the autopsy report we have was not written the weekend of the assassination ... I believe the Commissioner's closed session meeting of Jan 27, 1964 makes that pretty dang obvious. David Lifton watched those discussions and contacted Gary Aguilar (who he knew was a good friend of mine) asking about me and saying that I was really making him think and had about convinced him about the autopsy report. It was after that, because of that, that David and I first got to know one another.

The autopsy report was finessed ... the back and throat wounds a prime example ... and I do not believe the report officialdom handed us was signed, sealed and delivered the weekend of the assassination. Don't give me your blase' crap about legitimizing a fraudulent autopsy report ... you seem to just be trying to push hot buttons for the folks here ... the only reason I even looked at your thread in the first place is because of the subtitle which included my name ... which was your intent for getting attention by mentioning my name and Fetzer's, etc. in the first place, now wasn't it? Pretty transparent.

Not interested in this discussion at all.

[Don Jeffries]

Barb,

The holes in JFK's clothing match precisely the location noted on Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report. I know it's monotonous to hear that (and it's certainly monotonous for me to keep pointing it out), but it bears repeating. The "bunched up" theory is just as absurd at the single-bullet theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not completely discounting it.

As for John Hunt, I exchanged some posts with him on another forum some years ago. I took umbrage at the fact that he was pushing the "Kennedys were responsible" for the shoddy autopsy notion. Harold Weisberg, long ago, and Jim DiEugenio, more recently, showed in great detail just how baseless these claims are. I kept pointing out to him that the autopsy protocol sheet, signed by Robert F. Kennedy, placed no restrictions on those performing it. The evidence couldn't be clearer, but he continued to maintain that RFK was "in control" and responsible for the botched job that Weisberg so accurately described as being "unworthy for a bowery bum."

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

The holes in JFK's clothing match precisely the location noted on Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report. I know it's monotonous to hear that (and it's certainly monotonous for me to keep pointing it out), but it bears repeating. The "bunched up" theory is just as absurd at the single-bullet theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not completely discounting it.

Hi Don, It is monotonous to just say these things over and over sans including any support for your contention. And it's silly in my opinion, because there is nothing "precisely" relative to either a particular level on the body or to the clothing about Boswell's dot on the face sheet. The face sheet is a standard body outline ... no anatomical levels included, and Boswell made no notations about a thoracic level. Saying the clothing holes match the dot on the face sheet "precisely" makes no sense at all. You have no way of knowing where any thoracic level would fall on the clothing when being worn by JFK ... and from the dot Boswell made on the face sheet, one cannot discern "precisely" where the wound was relative to a particular thoracic level.

How can you call either of those "precisely"?

Burkley did specify a thoracic level and said "verified" ... verified when ... and how? There's no record of any mention of a thoracic level by anyone ... not the pathologists, not Sibert & O'Neil nor any other witnesses. So did Burkley eyeball it ... did he palpate it ... if so it should have gained some official mention... by someone. Unfortunately, because we do not have those answers, and we don't even know when he wrote it on the sheet, it's real worth is that it tells us it was not at C7 ... or Burkley would had to have been drunker than some stories say he was that night. It was below the shoulder ... but to hang your hat on that as being absolute and "precisely", when no one else heard it or saw him palpate it that we know of, is not very convincing, imo.

Where do you get "precisely" from the S & O report? Have you read their report? They said, "During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."

Can you tell me where your "precisely" as regards a particular thoracic level is in that?

I spoke to both men a few years ago. Neither one knew/recalled anything about that wound being noted as being at any particular thoracic level ... if they had heard any such thing, they would have written it down.

As for John Hunt, I exchanged some posts with him on another forum some years ago. I took umbrage at the fact that he was pushing the "Kennedys were responsible" for the shoddy autopsy notion. Harold Weisberg, long ago, and Jim DiEugenio, more recently, showed in great detail just how baseless these claims are. I kept pointing out to him that the autopsy protocol sheet, signed by Robert F. Kennedy, placed no restrictions on those performing it. The evidence couldn't be clearer, but he continued to maintain that RFK was "in control" and responsible for the botched job that Weisberg so accurately described as being "unworthy for a bowery bum."

Very few people walk in lockstep agreement with anyone else. His disagreeing with you on what power RFK did or did not have ... or use ... at the autopsy is hardly a yardstick for evaluating his research overall.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Cliff Varnell]

The reason I don't distrust the location of the hole in JFK's back in the autopsy photos is because its still too low in my view to align with JFK's 'Adams Apple' and Connally's back wound. When JFK was shot in the throat ... he was turned to his immediate right. So I see no reason to have moved the back wound to a place that doesn't support a lone assassin.

They had no solid idea where to move the back wound, they were guessing.

That's why there are two different wound locations listed in the autopsy

report -- "just above the upper margin of the scapula" (T2), and "14cm below

the mastoid process" (C7/T1). For good measure, Humes came up with a

third location for the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawing.

The T3 back wound is the key to understanding both the "how" of the

assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

The other reason I don't get hung up on this subject is because I have sat down many times in my suit coat and it rides up slightly every time.

Bingo!

The key word is "slightly."

Lift my arm as high as JFK had his resting on the door, then the coat slides a bit further up the back.

Bingo!

The key phrase here is "a bit."

What you are describing here, Bill, is the "normal ease" of your

clothing as you make "normal movements."

The location of the holes in the clothes corroborate the "normal"

movement of the jacket -- the hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar,

the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar.

The jacket rode up a "a bit."

According to LN theory, however, JFK's normal movements

created "gross" movements of his clothing.

That is impossible.

Which is why true-believers like Lamson will make baseless claims

without ever replicating them

So in my view it would be a waste of time for me to involve myself over such nit-picking concerning a hole in the coat in relation to the hole in the back.

Bill Miller

That marks you in distinct contrast to Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi,

Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden -- to name just five

major researchers who have declared the clothing evidence as

definitive proof of conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

We're not nit-picking here, Bill. It involves entire classes of evidence

that put the wound at T3.

Let me put it to you this way -- you obviously believe it is important

to establish the legitimacy of the Zapruder film, correct?

Why isn't it at least as important to establish the legitimacy of

properly prepared official documents, such as Burkley's death certificate,

the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report,or the sworn testimonies

of Clint Hill, Glen Bennett, Roy Kellerman, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert,

or the witness statements of James Curtis Jenkins, Dr. John Ebersole,

Jan Gail Rudnicki, Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Chester Boyers,

and Floyd Reibe?

Seems to me the people railing on Fetzer and White for their mistaken

claims about the Zapruder film need to look at their own mistaken

claims about the medical evidence re the back wound.

This is what Barb J doesn't get.

[Don Jeffries]

Barb,

It's a game of semantics to scrutinize the word "precisely" rather than admitting that the holes in JFK's clothing, Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report all support the obvious conclusion that the entry wound in the back was far too low for it to have exited from the throat. Agree?

Why do you feel compelled to doubt this crucial evidence- which is, as Cliff points out, the clearest indication of conspiracy we have? Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period.

We both believe in conspiracy, right? We both agree that the single bullet theory is impossible, right? Then why are you discounting the strongest evidence against it?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

It's a game of semantics to scrutinize the word "precisely"

There is nothing imprecise about the definition of "precisely." The semantic game is yours ... and you haven't pulled it off well. Looks silly to whine about your own choice of words when it is pointed out it is flat out wrong.

rather than admitting that the holes in JFK's clothing, Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report all support the obvious conclusion that the entry wound in the back was far too low for it to have exited from the throat. Agree?

No, I do not agree. Your statement is false ... for all the reasons I detailed in my reply to you, even if your word "precisely" is removed. And I believe that the bullet that entered JFK's back did, by all indications, evidence and research, exit the throat. I do NOT, however, believe that bullet went on to hit Connally. I believe Connally took his own bullet.

Why do you feel compelled to doubt this crucial evidence- which is, as Cliff points out, the clearest indication of conspiracy we have? Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period.

What I find compelling is accuracy and truth, evidence supported by something other than someone recklessly stringing together a list and claiming it is *precisely* what the evidence shows ... when it is clearly not the case *at all*. How can you actually put out there that S&O's report puts the wound they saw at any particular level? It flatly did not. I find that agenda driven ... and REpelling.

That you find Cliff's tailored clothing theory "crucial evidence" is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine as well. I do not find his tailored clothing theory compelling or crucial at all. And if that is "the clearest evidence of conspiracy we have" ... Lord help us.

I asked if you have read S&O's report ... you did not answer. But you did put out an erroneous statement about what they said in their report, and you reiterated it in this reply. Either you never read the report yourself, and are willing to run on what others say they said, or you are reckless with the truth. Neither is a good thing.

We both believe in conspiracy, right? We both agree that the single bullet theory is impossible, right? Then why are you discounting the strongest evidence against it?

How many times do I have to tell you I am a CT? Rhetorical. I do not believe in the SBT. I believe JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. I do not, in any way, think Varnell's theory about JFK's clothing is "the most compelling evidence" against the SBT. That you do ... makes me wonder just how well you know and have researched the evidence ... yourself.

You seem more and more to be one of those who think that if all CTs don't walk in lockstep with every theory that comes down the pike, or at least all the ones you buy ... that there is something wrong or suspicious about the other guy. That's nonsense. LN's have to walk a narrow path by necessity ... they don't have much leeway if they are an LN. We CT's do not have that constraint ... despite you and others seemingly trying to make it so.

I've answered your questions, I've given you my opinions ... looks like a wrap to me, I really don't have anything left to say on this issue. We simply disagree on what is compelling and precise ... and what is not.

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

Barb,

The holes in JFK's clothing match precisely the location noted on Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report. I know it's monotonous to hear that (and it's certainly monotonous for me to keep pointing it out), but it bears repeating. The "bunched up" theory is just as absurd at the single-bullet theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not completely discounting it.

As for John Hunt, I exchanged some posts with him on another forum some years ago. I took umbrage at the fact that he was pushing the "Kennedys were responsible" for the shoddy autopsy notion. Harold Weisberg, long ago, and Jim DiEugenio, more recently, showed in great detail just how baseless these claims are. I kept pointing out to him that the autopsy protocol sheet, signed by Robert F. Kennedy, placed no restrictions on those performing it. The evidence couldn't be clearer, but he continued to maintain that RFK was "in control" and responsible for the botched job that Weisberg so accurately described as being "unworthy for a bowery bum."

The bunch theory seems to be basically another rabbit trail to distract us from what is significant -- namely that evidence points to the back shot being low on JFK's back and not transiting. And if that is the case, there is, of course, conspiracy and documentation of the cover-up.

Some sheep-in-wolves'-clothing will push the 'bunch excuse' as a lame way of trying to bolster the myth of the WCR. If they have their way, this is one of the issues we'll be spending another 45 years frittering away valuable time on.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown