Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

But wouldn't a casket be arranged as a matter of course once the man was dead?

THe answer would be Yes, in the case of death by natural causes. In the case of a violent homicide, most DECIDEDLY NOT, unless someone had something to hide!

When was the decision to leave made?

THe timeline strongly suggests that the decision to remove the body was already being implemented --in the form of the struggle with Theron Ward & Doyle Williams -- even before the arrest was announced.

Are you sure in the case of Theron Ward?

The clash between Williams and the Secret Service certainly indicates that the SS was claiming jurisdiction, but to conclude that they intended to take the body to fabricate a back wound is a bit of a stretch.

Prior to the 1:30 incident Johnson may have signaled his desire to wait until he was notified of possible Communist conspiracy, and so the Secret Service was exerting control of the body until their marching orders were received.

It does not look like a sudden reaction to news of the arrest.

Why would it? The only person who might have understood the significance of the arrest was LBJ. There are any number of ways he could have broadcast his desire to depart Dallas ASAP.

The process began with the ordering of the casket.

They might have done that to make Jackie feel better. I find that more likely than the plotters attempting to frame Oswald as a lone assassin by fabricating a back wound that proves at least two shooters.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

Lifton considered this possibility at page 673 of BEST EVIDENCE, as I am sure you are aware. It seems that either Jackie or Aubrey Rike & Peanuts Maguire (or all three) remained in trauma room one with the coffin containing the body until it was wheeled out to the ambulance.

Yes, Lifton opts for the body being removed from the casket aboard AF1, Parkland and AF1 being the only two places in Dallas where this could have occurred. (We know that the body did not arrive at Bethesda in the Dallas casket, and military personnel have affirmed the use of a decoy casket.) It seems to me that they would want to remove the body at Parkland (for any alteration that might be needed and/or in keeping with the plan for a decoy casket), because they had complete control at Parkland over access to the room where the body was placed in the casket. Things would would be much more iffy aboard AF1, where it could be anticipated that JFK's staff, acting independently of the Secret Service, would respectfully want someone with the casket at all times.

Lifton found a brief time where he thinks the coffin might have been unattended aboard the plane, but if true it was not something the conspirators could have counted on. I think it more likely that the body was removed at Parkland, and that anyone who claimed to be with the casket at all times was either mistaken or else witnessed the removal and was given the good old "national security" explanation and kept quiet about it. (Presumably Jackie herself, based on the use of a decoy casket, went along with having an empty casket.) This is speculation on my part, but we have to work with the fact that Parkland and AF1 are the only two possibilities for the body removal's occurrence. If it happened at Parkland, which it seems to me would be the more desirable place, it certainly explains why Kellerman and gang were so determined to get that Dallas casket, being empty, out of Parkland without interception.

[David Andrews]

(Presumably Jackie herself, based on the use of a decoy casket, went along with having an empty casket.)

Not arguing, just questioning why Jackie would want to sit beside an empty casket in the back of the plane for so long.

If she knew there was an actual casket and an empty one, or if Robert Kennedy knew, then is it possible that Kennedy family concerns for the health discoveries to be found upon an autopsy were exploited? Or was a combination of that and assertions that bullet tracking, etc., that would lead to the discovery of conspiracy could be best performed with a casket switch used on the family?

Or - as in the case of LBJ calling Bobby on the constitutional swearing-in procedure (giving LBJ an excuse to be sworn in before returning to Washington)* - was a fast one pulled on a grieving widow and an absent brother?

Maybe it's worth looking at the psychological mechanics of LBJ's swearing-in query call to RFK as a reflection of how many things, including a casket switch, were accomplished in the heat and tears.

*Discussed in the recent History Channel documentary, The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After.

[Daniel Gallup]

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

And that is what we see in the Zapruder film.

As Ayoob and other firearms experts have pointed out, this is consistent with an EXPLODING BULLET from the grassy knoll. An exploding BULLET will not neccesarily leave an exit wound, according to Ayoob.

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain.

THE X-RAYS (CONTROVERSIAL TO BE SURE) SHOW A FRAGMENTING BULLET HIT THE BRAIN.

Raymond, correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying Clint Hill is wrong about the back of Kennedy's head being blown off, and the Z-film right (that all the ejecta left from the top and front, and presumably,there was no exit wound as described by the doctors at Parkland)? Notice I am speaking directly to the heading of this thread, with apologies to all those active in the subthreads contained herein. Thanks in advance for clarification. Best, Daniel

Daniel, it is plain silly to claim Hill's recollections of the head wound are grossly at odds with the Z-film. They are slightly at odds with the z-film, but far more at odds with the recollections of those claiming the wound was a blow-out on the back of the head.

In other words, if you wanna believe Hill is accurate, then you gotta assume Crenshaw and those pushing the accuracy of his recollections are in error.

Silly to claim Hill's earliest statements conflict with the Z-film? Pat, I try to be respectful to those, like you, with whom I disgaree. I don't regard your views as silly, even if I don't agree with all of them. If you could reciprocate in kind, I would be glad. Now as to Hill's earliest claims: weren't they of the back of Kennedy's head lying in the back seat? I am at work and have no sources with me, but you probably know what he said by heart. Taken literally, they would be in direct conflict with his views in 2010, if that's when he drew the new location of the wound. I can't see it any other way. And what would account for moving the wound to the side of the head? Memory pollution over the years. Now, if he had located the wound there in 1963, that would a different story, and I would concede your point. So if you can find an early statement by Hill that clearly shows he differed with Crenshaw, that would be an important point to make. If you can do so, then thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Are you sure in the case of Theron Ward?

The FBI had clear jurdisction to INVESTIGATE an attack on the president, and the state of Texas had, in addition, jurisdiction over the body.

The clash between Williams and the Secret Service certainly indicates that the SS was claiming jurisdiction,

yes TO THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO HAD LAWFUL JURISDICTION.

As District attorney, Henry Wade could say that he had no objection, but only a judge could actually AUTHORIZE removal.

Although he was only a young Justice of the Peace, Theron Ward was nonetheless a judge with jurisdiction. He and Earl Rose personified law of the land.

Unlawful methods imply unlawful motives.

but to conclude that they intended to take the body to fabricate a back wound is a bit of a stretch.

Funny that the mavens at TIME MAGAZINE took BEST EVIDENCE very seriously, and acknowledged that Lifton's theory is supported by evidence. You surely do not believe this was the result of a pre-existing media bias.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is almost stupefying to watch Mr. Carroll, who back in the day questioned every aspect of JFK conspiracy theory along with his pal Dennis Ford at the home of the late Gene Case,

WOuld you please leave Gene Case to rest in peace. I do not remember ever meeting him, though it is possible I met him at one of Barbara La Monica's soirees. I WAS NEVER AT HIS HOME. In any event, I was an admirer of Lifton's work, and had already established a cordial relationship with David, long before I met Barbara or ever heard of Gene Case.

FYI, BEST EVIDENCE was the VERY FIRST BOOK I ever read on the JFK assassination, in the Winter of 1984-85. Harold Weisberg could not accept Lifton's argument, but he did pay Lifton quite a compliment by telling me that Best Evidence is in fact a very good place to begin.

To say that this theory is not controversial or embattled is to question the nature of what Carroll's contacts with the research community are.

No doubt the theory is controversial, and will remain so until a new autopsy is performed. When that happens, and not till then, BEST EVIDENCE will no longer be controversial. It will be either true or false.

Your hero Garrison, on the other hand, was a sloppy egotist drunk with power, by comparison with David Lifton's SCIENTIFIC approach.

Sylvia Meagher, David Lifton, & Josiah THompson, all learned to steer clear of Garrison. Harold Weisberg was initially suckered, but he ended up proclaiming that, as an investigator, Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse. Still Garrison will find a few supporters, no doubt.

[Cliff Varnell]

The FBI had clear jurdisction to INVESTIGATE an attack on the president, and the state of Texas had, in addition, jurisdiction over the body.

I was referring to the timing of Theron Ward's struggle with the Secret Service.

Are you sure Theron Ward confronted the Secret Service before Oswald's arrest was announced?

The clash between Williams and the Secret Service certainly indicates that the SS was claiming jurisdiction,

yes TO THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO HAD LAWFUL JURISDICTION.

No doubt. What I'm driving at here is that the Secret Service was answering to LBJ at that point. We know as of 1:15 LBJ said he was waiting to see if the killing was the result of a Communist conspiracy. It may be that when LBJ hadn't received an answer to that question by 1:30, contingency plans were set in motion.

As District attorney, Henry Wade could say that he had no objection, but only a judge could actually AUTHORIZE removal.

Although he was only a young Justice of the Peace, Theron Ward was nonetheless a judge with jurisdiction. He and Earl Rose personified law of the land.

Unlawful methods imply unlawful motives.

No doubt.

but to conclude that they intended to take the body to fabricate a back wound is a bit of a stretch.

Funny that the mavens at TIME MAGAZINE took BEST EVIDENCE very seriously, and acknowledged that Lifton's theory is supported by evidence. You surely do not believe this was the result of a pre-existing media bias.

Lifton's theory of a fabricated back wound is the weak part of BEST EVIDENCE. Are we to believe that the body alterationists didn't know about the throat wound when it was clearly announced at Parkland at 2:16?

Lifton's theory of a complex seamless plot-to-kill-and-cover-up left 4 back wound locations,

only one of which was accurate, to mention one of many loose ends.

This was the Gang That Couldn't Cover-Up Straight!

Edited January 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Let me know Ray if you could have done something like all this.

"Having established these serious qualifications, let me state why I think they exist. It is not the fault of Doug Horne, or Jeremy Gunn, or the ARRB. In my view, and disagreeing with David Lifton, this much varied and at times, unfathomable and irreconcilable medical record is owed to one man above all: Arlen Specter.

You are right that it is the work of one man, but you are wrong about his identity. Confusion in the medical evidence is the DIRECT RESULT of EARL WARREN'S DECISION to suppress the key medical evidence.

[Pat Speer]

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

And that is what we see in the Zapruder film.

As Ayoob and other firearms experts have pointed out, this is consistent with an EXPLODING BULLET from the grassy knoll. An exploding BULLET will not neccesarily leave an exit wound, according to Ayoob.

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain.

THE X-RAYS (CONTROVERSIAL TO BE SURE) SHOW A FRAGMENTING BULLET HIT THE BRAIN.

Raymond, correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying Clint Hill is wrong about the back of Kennedy's head being blown off, and the Z-film right (that all the ejecta left from the top and front, and presumably,there was no exit wound as described by the doctors at Parkland)? Notice I am speaking directly to the heading of this thread, with apologies to all those active in the subthreads contained herein. Thanks in advance for clarification. Best, Daniel

Daniel, it is plain silly to claim Hill's recollections of the head wound are grossly at odds with the Z-film. They are slightly at odds with the z-film, but far more at odds with the recollections of those claiming the wound was a blow-out on the back of the head.

In other words, if you wanna believe Hill is accurate, then you gotta assume Crenshaw and those pushing the accuracy of his recollections are in error.

Silly to claim Hill's earliest statements conflict with the Z-film? Pat, I try to be respectful to those, like you, with whom I disgaree. I don't regard your views as silly, even if I don't agree with all of them. If you could reciprocate in kind, I would be glad. Now as to Hill's earliest claims: weren't they of the back of Kennedy's head lying in the back seat? I am at work and have no sources with me, but you probably know what he said by heart. Taken literally, they would be in direct conflict with his views in 2010, if that's when he drew the new location of the wound. I can't see it any other way. And what would account for moving the wound to the side of the head? Memory pollution over the years. Now, if he had located the wound there in 1963, that would a different story, and I would concede your point. So if you can find an early statement by Hill that clearly shows he differed with Crenshaw, that would be an important point to make. If you can do so, then thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

Daniel, I don't see Hill's early statements as being in conflict with his more recent statements. He is now pointing out what he meant by right rear, that's all.

From chapter 18c:

Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent riding to the hospital on the back of the limo, while making no initial comment on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both en route to the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Are you sure Theron Ward confronted the Secret Service before Oswald's arrest was announced?

No. Actually I meant to write EARL ROSE, with whom the conflict began. By the time Ward arrived on the scene an arrest was public knowledge, though I am not sure that the suspect's identity was known.

Are we to believe that the body alterationists didn't know about the throat wound when it was clearly announced at Parkland at 2:16?

Would you believe that, by the time of the press conference the alterationists had already left with the body?

This was the Gang That Couldn't Cover-Up Straight!

If this had been a perfect crime, and /or a perfect cover-up, I don't think you and I would be here discussing it.

[Cliff Varnell]

PS, Cliff, the fault of relying on this particular FBi report, and many others is not whether or not the interviewee says what the report depicts him as saying. Its whether or not the original subject said it. Or if anything got lost in translation. Its called the hearsay rule. And it is a problem in FBI reports all the time. Anyone who has used them and actually tried to cross check them knows this. The reason being that the FBI report is only meant to collect data. Period. There is no cross checking against the original source or data analysis involved at that stage.

Jim, that is all well and good. But the key word in the above is "relying." I don't feel that I'm "relying" on the FBI report to do anything more than raise the serious possibility that pre-autopsy surgery occurred.

Of course something may have been misunderstood, Humes may have been mistaken, etc etc. But, given the conflicts in the evidence regarding the head wounds, it seems reasonable to "rely" on the FBI report to provide a plausible explanation for said conflicts.

Because it isn't dispositive doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

[Cliff Varnell]

Are you sure Theron Ward confronted the Secret Service before Oswald's arrest was announced?

No. Actually I meant to write EARL ROSE, with whom the conflict began. By the time Ward arrived on the scene an arrest was public knowledge, though I am not sure that the suspect's identity was known.

Are we to believe that the body alterationists didn't know about the throat wound when it was clearly announced at Parkland at 2:16?

Would you believe that, by the time of the press conference the alterationists had already left with the body?

This was the Gang That Couldn't Cover-Up Straight!

If this had been a perfect crime, and /or a perfect cover-up, I don't think you and I would be here discussing it.

If the crime and cover-up had been perfect, I imagine you might be planning your next trip to the Havana Disneyland with your grand kids.

And no, it makes not one bit of sense that the alterationists would alter the body without knowing how make it look as if only one shooter fired.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And no, it makes not one bit of sense that the alterationists would alter the body without knowing how make it look as if only one shooter fired.

Well the fact is that they did convince the FBI, the autopsy doctors, the (unwitting) members of the Warren Commission and the media that all the shots did come from behind.

Yet the Zapruder film shows otherwise, as critics never cease to point out.

As David Lifton describes in BEST EVIDENCE, it was the Zapruder film that first made him suspicious of the medical evidence, and I am aware of the irony in David's writing PIG ON A LEASH, in which he argues that the z-film has been altered.

I think BEST EVIDENCE remains to be disproven by a new autopsy, but the theory of ZFILM alteration has never even gotten off the ground.

Edited January 25, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

More proof that I read the book.

Bet the parts about Garrison really warmed the cockles of your heart.

But when the ARRB did declassify the HSCA medical files on this subject, it turned out that this was all a subterfuge. The medical personnel at Bethesda largely agreed with the Dallas observers about a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's skull. The witness statements were all there in the newly declassified files which Robert Blakey and Michael Baden had chosen to keep hidden from the public. Gary Aguilar did a magnificent job in collecting and collating these newly declassified witness affidavits. He put them on a chart and showed that, except for a small minority, most of the witnesses from both locations agreed that there was a gaping hole in the rear of the skull and where it was located. (See Aguilar's essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, especially pages 188, 199. In my view, this is one of the three or four best long pieces written on the medical evidence since the ARRB closed shop in 1998.)

As noted above, Aguilar's work on this issue posed a problem for Lifton's theory.

Since you cite Pat Speer as an authority, you might want to read Pat's posts on this very thread. Pat Speer presents a persuasive case that there was no large wound in the back of the head. Indeed, I think Pat would agree that as of the body leaving Dallas there was no indication of any wound --entrance or exit-- in the back of JFK's head.

[William Kelly]

And no, it makes not one bit of sense that the alterationists would alter the body without knowing how make it look as if only one shooter fired.

Well the fact is that they did convince the FBI, the autopsy doctors, the (unwitting) members of the Warren Commission and the media that all the shots did come from behind.

Yet the Zapruder film shows otherwise, as critics never cease to point out.

As David Lifton describes in BEST EVIDENCE, it was the Zapruder film that first made him suspicious of the medical evidence, and I am aware of the irony in David's writing PIG ON A LEASH, in which he argues that the z-film has been altered.

I think BEST EVIDENCE remains to be disproven by a new autopsy, but the theory of ZFILM alteration has never even gotten off the ground.

"I think BEST EVIDENCE remains to be disproven by a new autopsy..." - JRC

All of the arguments over the ballistic and medical evidence can be resolved by a proper, normal Forensic Autopsy of the victim, something that would have been originally done, rather than the normal autopsy that was conducted. The purpose of a normal autopsy is to determine the cause of death - gunshot to the head, while the purpose of the Forensic Autopsy is to create evidence that can be used in a court of law - something that has not yet happened.

Those who intend to plan for the propagation of the truth over the next three years of media circus - half-century JFK review and analysis - should support the idea that not only should the JFK assassination records release be accellerated from 2017 to 2013, but that a federal grand jury should be conveined and order the records reviewed and the victims of Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff all be given proper forensic autopsies. Although the results of such autopsies would be kept secret for the three year duration of the grand jury, who would review the evidence generated and determine if there is any living individual who can be indicated for crimes related to the assassination. Although the actual participants in the murder at Dealey Plaza might escape justice, the crimes investigated would include destruction of records and evidence, obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy, homicide and accessory to crimes.

When I asked Marion Johnson, original NARA archivist of JFK assassination records, as to why they routinely sealed the HSCA records and all Congressional records for 50 years, and not say 35 or 60, he said that fifty years was the estimated time in which they deterined that those individuals mentioned in the documents and records would be dead, so they could no longer be quesitoned and confirm or refute what was said about them in the official records.

So now, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy administration and assassination, we have the opportunity to review what we know happened, and hear from the last few survivors who are witnesses, subjects and suspects, before the case passes from an active homicide investigation to a strictly historic event.

The next few years will be the last opportunity for the legal system to fullfill its responsiblity, and for Congress to properly oversee the JFK Act with live hearings that seriously question those who destroyed official records, and witnesses who can be sworn to testify to the truth before a grand jury, before they all pass away.

A suspicious death, whether that of a homeless bum who is found dead in a gutter, or the President of the United States, both deserve what all suspicious deaths are suppose to receive according to the Constitution of the United States, and that is a routine Forensic Autopsy and a review of the basic evidence by a grand jury, the purpse of which is to determine if there is enough evidence to indict any individual for a crime.

The first thing a serious, honest and independent prosecutor would require is a request that the grand jury order a proper foresnic autopsy, and while the results of that autopsy would not become public knowlege until after the three year life fo the grand jury, and any subsequent trial, it would full the requirements of the constitution, however belatedly.

I would suggest that any plan for the 50th anniversary of JFK's murder include the convening of a grand jury and a proper forensic autopsy of all the victims of that weekend, incuding JFK, JBC, Tipppit, Oswald and Ruby.

It would be interesting if some forensic pathology student would compile a list of the new techniques that are routinely used by forensic pathologists in autopsies that are conducted today, using the latest computers and machines, and what the procedures are for such autopsies, as it not a matter of whether it will happen, its only a matter of when they willl do it, now, or after the fifty year estimation of the death of all living witnesses?

Bill Kelly

Edited January 25, 2011 by William Kelly