The Warren Commission Skeleton by John Hunt

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks, Gary. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a lone nutter, or that you haven't studied this case for decades (if you began in 1966, you were a decade ahead of me). I appreciate the reasoned reply.

[Pat Speer]

Sorry, Larry. Holiday shopping and family stuff prevented me from commenting earlier.

The skeleton shots uncovered by Hunt were almost certainly created by Dr. Russell Fisher. Fisher had developed a close relationship with Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Fisher admitted to Weisberg, moreover, that after the creation of the Clark Panel's report, he went back and studied the trajectory through the neck. He told Weisberg, however, that his studies proved the viability of the single-bullet theory.

While Fisher's statements to Weisberg suggested he'd performed this study on cadavers, and for himself, by himself, the existence of these photos and the notation DOJCIVIL on the file indicates to me that these photos were created in response to Garrison's lawsuit against the Dept. of Justice, in which Garrison attempted to gain access to the autopsy photos and x-rays, for Dr. Wecht's review.

It is reasonable to suspect then that Clark brought in Fisher in order to calculate what Wecht was likely to say should he be given access to the photos. The DOJ's refusal to grant Wecht access, and subsequent release of the Clark Panel's report as a "take it or leave it" compromise, says it all, IMO. The single-bullet theory didn't make a lot of sense, and Fisher and Clark both knew it.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Mark Knight]

bump

[Larry Hancock]

Pat, that certainly seems reasonable for "placing" the work ....I guess my next question would be what the Doctor looked at to make him even consider the very strange high angle and upward low angle body paths? What wounds or other data would even bring those up as options to be studied? Clearly not my area but did he leave any detailed studies or notes about why he was totally satisfied with the official versions against Wecht's protests...that would at least indicate an objective study. The other thing that keeps coming back to me is why none of the medical professionals who examined the official evidence even commented on the lack of any professional marking of the entry and exit wounds or the other sorts of protocols which I understand to be SOP during any autopsy, much less the autopsy of a murder. Did that not bother any of them, even a little?

[Pat Speer]

Pat, that certainly seems reasonable for "placing" the work ....I guess my next question would be what the Doctor looked at to make him even consider the very strange high angle and upward low angle body paths? What wounds or other data would even bring those up as options to be studied? Clearly not my area but did he leave any detailed studies or notes about why he was totally satisfied with the official versions against Wecht's protests...that would at least indicate an objective study. The other thing that keeps coming back to me is why none of the medical professionals who examined the official evidence even commented on the lack of any professional marking of the entry and exit wounds or the other sorts of protocols which I understand to be SOP during any autopsy, much less the autopsy of a murder. Did that not bother any of them, even a little?

I sifted back through Post Mortem and the Weisberg Archives to find the letters in which Fisher admitted he'd studied the bullet trajectory after the writing of the Clark Panel's report, and found a couple of bits that are relevant.

1. Fisher admitted conducting this analysis to Emory Brown, not Weisberg. Brown then supplied Weisberg with copies of the letters.

2. Fisher wrote Brown on 4-17-69: "Suffice it to say, we found correlation between the bullet holes in the clothing (and) the entrance bullet wound in the body, and from studies which personally did on cadaver material in a Medical School Department of Anatomy we were convinced it was possible for a bullet tract to connect the entrance and exit wounds without being deflected by, or hitting, the bony vertebrae." (This is important for two reasons. 1) It says nothing about shooting the cadavers and suggests that this detail was a Weisberg assumption and embellishment. And 2) In one of the other letters, Fisher admits that the "we" is he and his associates, not he and the other members of the Clark Panel. This is important because Fisher's top associate at the time was Dr. Werner Spitz, who served on both the Rockefeller and HSCA panels, and is still alive. Perhaps someone can contact Spitz and get the lowdown.)

3. In this letter Fisher then wrote "I have no comments to make on whether this bullet also struck Governor Connally since we did not investigate this phase in detail."(This suggests, at least to me, that they knew the trajectory they came up with did not lead to Connally.)

4. In Post Mortem, Weisberg admitted interviewing a family member of one of the members of the Clark Panel. He said, in so many words, that this member revealed that Fisher had been contacted in January 69 by the Justice Dept. who had become worried about the single-bullet theory, and that Fisher had convinced them it was sound. Well, it seems clear then that this family member was a member of Fisher's family. Perhaps this family member is still alive as well.

As far as the improper measurements, Larry, I'm afraid this is somewhat of a myth. Both the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP measured down from the mastoid process in their measurements.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Larry Hancock]

Pat, my understanding was that autopsy protocol, particularly for cases in which criminal prosecution would be pending, required specifically marking, identifying and making sure that the photos, X rays etc offered no doubt as to the wounds in question. None of that was done at Bethesda, indeed when asked to identify the wounds in the photos and X rays by the ARRB the Doctors could not do so. Which means if called into court there would have been real problems for the prosecution. A little help here, do I misunderstand this issue?

Also, the exchange you describe still does not appear to address the alternative trajectories recorded in the photos John found....why would that have been done if Fisher was simply validating the official scenario of the President's wounds...?

[Pat Speer]

Pat, my understanding was that autopsy protocol, particularly for cases in which criminal prosecution would be pending, required specifically marking, identifying and making sure that the photos, X rays etc offered no doubt as to the wounds in question. None of that was done at Bethesda, indeed when asked to identify the wounds in the photos and X rays by the ARRB the Doctors could not do so. Which means if called into court there would have been real problems for the prosecution. A little help here, do I misunderstand this issue?

Also, the exchange you describe still does not appear to address the alternative trajectories recorded in the photos John found....why would that have been done if Fisher was simply validating the official scenario of the President's wounds...?

About the photos, etc... People like Baden and Wecht use the Kennedy assassination to promote the cause of forensic science. As a result they focus on what should have been done to be as precise and thorough as possible. The reality, as they acknowledge in their books, is that up until recently many autopsies were not very thorough, and that a large number of autopsies on possible homicides were overseen by a politically-appointed or popularly-elected coroner, who was often a local mortician and not even a pathologist, let alone a forensic pathologist.

As far as admissibility of the photos, a lot of CTs have latched onto a factoid that they would be inadmissible. All it takes for a photo to be admissible is for someone present to say that's what they saw. In this case we have Humes, who ordered the photos taken, and Stringer, who took the photos, both saying those are photos of President Kennedy's body that they took or had taken during his autopsy. It's a slam dunk.

As far as Fisher...While it seems clear to me--seeing as he did some work related to the DOJ in January 69, and admitted doing a trajectory study to Emory Brown--that this study was performed by Fisher, it's possible someone else did the trajectory studies in the photos discovered by Hunt. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Pat Speer