Jump to content
The Education Forum

WECHT CONFERENCE WAS OUTSTANDING!


Recommended Posts

Mr. Von Pein, is it not true that the Government has had difficulty making up its mind on the location of the (allegedly) only entry? How could you be confident of "the" single entry if there is no confidence about its location? Was the entry wound location not moved several inches at one point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wecht:


"The President was shot three times--once, striking him in the back, and exiting from the front of his neck. Yeah, that's the shot you see when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his hands come up in this kind of defensive posture."

Conclusion: Cyril Wecht doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YtUL-BpZAu8

Cyril Wecht is interviewed: "Let's uncover the truth."

I'm somewhat confused by Wecht's TV interview on WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh.

Dr. Wecht says that "The President was shot three times--once, striking him in the back."

Putting aside the problems associated with arguing that two shots struck the head (the first, from the right front, and then a second one, from the rear). . putting all that aside, Dr. Wecht asserts that the first shot (as quote above) struck President Kennedy "in the back."

Now lets return to the full quote, from the WTAE-TV interview:

"The President was shot three times--once, striking him in the back, and exiting from the front of his neck. Yeah, that's the shot you see when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his hands come up in this kind of defensive posture."

So, as Dr. Wecht makes clear later in this TV interview, he (apparently) believes that the wound at the front of the throat is an exit wound (although he notes that one of the presenters at the conference believed it to be an entrance wound (which, by the way, is my belief, too)--and Dr. Wecht himself points to a conversation he had with someone who knew Perry, back in 1986, and who says that Perry believed then--and always believed--that the throat wound was an entrance.

All very well, but. . .But putting all that aside:

If Dr. Wecht believes that a bullet transited Kennedy's body from back to front--entering "in the back" (as Dr. Wecht said in this WTAE interview) and then exiting at the front of the throat, then here's my question:

Where did that bullet go? What happened to it?

I really hate to sound like the late Arlen Specter, but aren't we then approaching the logic of the "Single Bullet Trajectory"?

The single bullet theory logic works like this. If the bullet from this back-to-front trajectory (which Dr. Wecht cites as his belief, in this WTAE-TV interview) exited via the wound at the front of the throat (which he profeses to subscribe to), then are we not back at the Single Bullet Theory?

Yet Dr. Wecht is well known for his oppositioin to that theory

All very well. Then, if the bullet from Dr. Wecht's back-to-front trajectory (which he himself said entered "in the back") somehow existed at the throat (traveling upwards?) and did not strike Connally, then is it not then the case that Dr. Wecht is now arguing (at least implicitly) that Connally was struck by a separate bullet?

Is that what he believes? - - 3 shots for Kennedy, and one for Connally?

But (in this interview at least) Dr. Wecht doesn't say that. After he asserts his believe that the first bullet hit President Kennedy "striking him in the back," he goes on to assert that that missile exited via the wound at the front of the throat ("when he merges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his hands come up in this kind of defensive posture") and then he adds, by way of completing the assassination sequence: "Then, (as in "after that"), we're talking about the two head shots that follow shortly thereafter."

All very well. . . but what happened to Connally?

In narrating this sequence, Dr. Wecht has apparently omitted Connally.

So here are (some of) my quesitons:

What does Dr. Wecht believe happened to the bullet that entered Kennedy's back? Where did it go?

What about Connally? (What bullet struck him??)

I'd like some clarification on these points, if someone knows the answer.

In posing these questions, I'm not asking "what happened in Dealey Plaza?", but rather, "What does Wecht think happened i n Dealey Plaza?"

I find it difficult to believe he now accepts the Single Bullet Theory, so what bullet, in his sequence, hit Connally?

And, if the bullet that he says struck Kennedy "in the back" did not exit, and if he (possibly) believes that a bullet struck Kennedy in the throat from the front, then what happened to those TWO bullets--the one from the back, and the one from the front?

Thank you.

DSL

10/20/13; 10:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

I'm fairly certain, David, based on all that I've read by and about Wecht, that he thinks the bullet exiting Kennedy's throat went over the left side of the car and never hit Connally.

As far as his believing the SBT.... No way. I was at his house on Friday night and saw him act out the theory on Oliver Stone. The two laughed heartily.

P.S. I just noticed that Von Pein beat me to the punch on this one, and posted the interview above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the new double head shot theory was not a Wecht creation. Tink Thompson made an EXCELLENT presentation in which he first destroyed the "Jet Effect" argument, once and for all, and then presented an argument with Keith Fitzgerald that Kennedy was hit from the front at 313, and then hit from behind at 328 (if I recall). It turns out, for that matter, that this is the center-piece of his new book--already written, but currently without a publisher--entitled Last Second in Dallas.

So, yeah, Fetzer owes Tink an apology. He bet, if you recall, that Tink would out himself as a LNer on the 50th. Oops. A slight miscalculation. Tink has instead doubled-down, and written a new book arguing for a conspiracy.

Now, here's the weird part. Robert Groden came up after TInk. He unveiled HIS new theory regarding the shooting. Well...wait for it...it turned out that HIS new theory regarding the shooting was the exact theory Tink had just showed the audience. Now, this was pretty wild, yes? Most of these conferences are filled with the same old same old. But not this one. We had two long-time researchers present new theories about the shooting sequence...and they were the same theory. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot about this over the next year or so.

Now...am I a convert? No. At least not yet. The frame where Tink, Fitzgerald, and Groden think Kennedy is hit in the back of the head does indeed begin a sequence in which Kennedy falls forward. But there is no blood spray or spatter, or even a rustle of Kennedy's hair to support that he is hit at this moment. Perhaps an explanation for this can be found. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope someone is planning to post a video of this conference on the internet.

My understanding is that no video set for the conference will be available, as they still had plenty of left-overs from the last one. I was told by Ben Wecht, however, that at some point they would make DVDs of individual presentations available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

From patspeer.com:

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

So why pretend otherwise?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, is it not true that the Government has had difficulty making up its mind on the location of the (allegedly) only entry? How could you be confident of "the" single entry if there is no confidence about its location? Was the entry wound location not moved several inches at one point?

Yes, there's discrepancy on the exact location of the entry wound....but there is certainly no discrepancy concerning the NUMBER of entry holes in JFK's head -- it was one (see quotes below).

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."

-- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991

"There was only one entrance wound in the head." -- Dr. J. Humes; 1967 [see video at link below]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/james-humes.html

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Michael Baden; 1978

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

stare%20of%20death%20photo.gif

Is that the wound Robinson is referring to, in the "notched" hairline area above and a little to the left of JFK's anatomical right eye?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

stare%20of%20death%20photo.gif

Is that the wound Robinson is referring to, in the "notched" hairline area above and a little to the left of JFK's anatomical right eye?

--Tommy :sun

No, I don't think so. He said it was at the temple. They should have shown him the photos and had him point it out. I once thought he was talking about what appears to be a wound high on the right cheek, but now am not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, is it not true that the Government has had difficulty making up its mind on the location of the (allegedly) only entry? How could you be confident of "the" single entry if there is no confidence about its location? Was the entry wound location not moved several inches at one point?

Yes, there's discrepancy on the exact location of the entry wound....but there is certainly no discrepancy concerning the NUMBER of entry holes in JFK's head -- it was one (see quotes below).

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."

-- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991

"There was only one entrance wound in the head." -- Dr. J. Humes; 1967 [see video at link below]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/james-humes.html

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Michael Baden; 1978

For what it's worth, Humes was not a forensic pathologist, and knew less about gunshot wounds than half the members of this forum. There are circumstances where an entrance wound gives the appearance of an exit wound, and vice-versa. Finck probably knew this, but Humes apparently did not.

As far as Baden, he was so confused by the medical evidence he testified with his exhibit upside down, and told the panel the top of Kennedy's head was intact, but the side was blown out. He also claimed he'd pieced together the fragments of Kennedy's skull using paper cut outs, and that the Harper fragment fit in the parietal area on the side of Kennedy's head just below the exit hole made by the bullet. This was the worst kind of nonsense. The Harper fragment was over 2 inches long, and the space in which Baden claimed to have fit it was barely an inch.

This last point is shown below. (And yes, this was a slide first presented at the Wecht conference.)

oddfragbetter.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just got back from Pittsburgh, I can't go back and answer all the questions on this thread or others, but I will say that I believe that Robinson saw a wound - whether entrance or exit, it doesn't matter - that the autopsy doctors did not record in their examination reports - a hole in the front right temple, that should at the very least be noted as existing. And the mortician is not qualified to determine whether or not it was an entrance wound or an exit wound, that is the responsibility of the autopsy doctors and not the mortician.

And since I am not familiar enough or experienced enough to comment on the medical or autopsy evidence, I defer opinion on all such aspects, and defer to those who have focused on this issue - and having met Pat Speer in Pittsburgh, I respect his opinion enough to agree with whatever he has to say in this area, as he certainly knows a lot more than I do.

But having read the mortician's report that he saw an previously unreported wound to the president's right forehead, I think that still stands as a fact rather than an informed opinion that either Pat or I could make. Either the hole was there or it wasn't and he was there and saw it and reported it was there, so I believe him. There was a small hole in the president's right front forehead that is not noted in the autopsy report. That's a fact Jack.

In addition, according to the most basic tenant of forensic pathology that the entrance wound is always smaller than the exit wound, if JFK was shot from the rear, how come his face wasn't blown out - as Mrs. Kennedy herself said, the front of his face was normal and the back was blown out, and just as SS Agent Clint Hill reported having seen the wound three times - in action, at Parkland and at the Autopsy - and as all of the doctors and witnesses at Parkland reported - there was a large hole in the right back of the head - not an entrance wound.

So it was either one way or the other - JFK had a small bullet sized - 1/4 inch sized hole in the back of his head - as the official photos show - or it was blown out as a gaping grapefruit sized hole - in the back of the head - an obvious exit wound, that there is no record of but ALL of the witnesses saw.

If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear?

I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...