Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Jim / Pat,

But don't you think that Jackie Kennedy's desire to, as Jim D. said above, "get it over with", and her initial request that a "partial autopsy" be done, just might have played a part in the decision of the pathologists to not dissect President Kennedy's neck/back wound?

In hindsight, it would have been much better, of course, if Dr. Humes and company had, indeed, dissected the neck wound. But, Pat, let me ask you specifically --- do you think the decision to not dissect that wound was made in order to hide a conspiracy from the world? And do you think that whoever it was who made that final decision to not dissect the path of that bullet already KNEW that JFK had been shot from the front by a bullet?

I just lost another long post. Not sure what's going on.

In sum, I wrote that I might buy that the failure to dissect the throat when it could have proven more than one shooter was entirely innocent, but for the fact that they also failed to dissect the brain when it could have proven more than one shooter.

Dissecting the throat on the night of the autopsy was probably the single-most important procedure they could have performed, seeing as the Parkland doctors saw a wound in the throat and a wound on the back of the head, and thought they were connected.

Dissecting the brain at the supplementary autopsy was undoubtedly the single-most important procedure.

And yet neither was performed. This, to me, is highly suspicious. While the doctors may not have known about the throat wound during the autopsy (and I accept that they did not), there's no reason to believe whoever ordered then NOT to dissect the throat was equally in the dark. One would think, in fact, that military men concerned about the outbreak of WWIII would be in constant touch with the outside, and be receiving regular updates from people watching the news. The possibility exists, then, that whoever told them not to dissect the neck knew the establishment of a trajectory connecting the throat wound with the head wound might lead to the conclusion this shot came from in front of the president, and the depository.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Davey:

Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.

Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.

--------------------------

EDIT----

Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.

I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Humes made a number of false statements in his ARRB testimony. One of them was that he was unaware of Kennedy's throat wound during the autopsy.

In his HSCA testimony, autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said that, not only were the doctors aware of the throat wound, but were adamant that the bullet that entered the external occipital protuberance (EOP) wound had exited through the throat wound.

This testimony is corroborated by a JAMA article (Vol. 187, January 4, 1964, p. 15) which reported the following:

"The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat . . ."

This statement and variations of it were widely reported in newspaper on or around December 18, 1963. Lipsey called the projectile a bullet, but from these reports we can see that the autopsy docs likely said it was a bullet fragment.

Lipsey's testimony is also supported by a statement made by Chief Counsel Lee Rankin in the January 27, 1964 WC executive session:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . "

(Note that this Rankin comment was made long before the single bullet theory had been concocted. If you read the complete statement you will see that the autopsy results were still under development, and that Rankin's was theorizing that the origin of the exiting throat fragment was the back wound. The one below the scapula, BTW.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.

Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.

--------------------------

EDIT----

Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.

I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Humes made a number of false statements in his ARRB testimony. One of them was that he was unaware of Kennedy's throat wound during the autopsy.

In his HSCA testimony, autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said that, not only were the doctors aware of the throat wound, but were adamant that the bullet that entered the external occipital protuberance (EOP) wound had exited through the throat wound.

This testimony is corroborated by a JAMA article (Vol. 187, January 4, 1964, p. 15) which reported the following:

"The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat . . ."

This statement and variations of it were widely reported in newspaper on or around December 18, 1963. Lipsey called the projectile a bullet, but from these reports we can see that the autopsy docs likely said it was a bullet fragment.

Lipsey's testimony is also supported by a statement made by Chief Counsel Lee Rankin in the January 27, 1964 WC executive session:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . "

(Note that this Rankin comment was made long before the single bullet theory had been concocted. If you read the complete statement you will see that the autopsy results were still under development, and that Rankin's was assuming that the origin of the exiting throat fragment was the back wound. The one below the scapula, BTW.)

The bit in the papers about the throat wound coming from a fragment came about as a result of a leak from the FBI. The FBI had, amazingly, failed to read the autopsy protocol written by the doctors and had sought to explain the throat wound not mentioned during the autopsy by claiming it came as a result of a bullet fragment. This is reflected in the FBI's subsequent report.

Rankin's comment is, for that matter, almost certainly a reference to the FBI's report, and not a reference to the autopsy protocol written by the doctors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.

Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.

--------------------------

EDIT----

Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.

I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Humes made a number of false statements in his ARRB testimony. One of them was that he was unaware of Kennedy's throat wound during the autopsy.

In his HSCA testimony, autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said that, not only were the doctors aware of the throat wound, but were adamant that the bullet that entered the external occipital protuberance (EOP) wound had exited through the throat wound.

This testimony is corroborated by a JAMA article (Vol. 187, January 4, 1964, p. 15) which reported the following:

"The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat . . ."

This statement and variations of it were widely reported in newspaper on or around December 18, 1963. Lipsey called the projectile a bullet, but from these reports we can see that the autopsy docs likely said it was a bullet fragment.

Lipsey's testimony is also supported by a statement made by Chief Counsel Lee Rankin in the January 27, 1964 WC executive session:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . "

(Note that this Rankin comment was made long before the single bullet theory had been concocted. If you read the complete statement you will see that the autopsy results were still under development, and that Rankin's was assuming that the origin of the exiting throat fragment was the back wound. The one below the scapula, BTW.)

The bit in the papers about the throat wound coming from a fragment came about as a result of a leak from the FBI. The FBI had, amazingly, failed to read the autopsy protocol written by the doctors and had sought to explain the throat wound not mentioned during the autopsy by claiming it came as a result of a bullet fragment. This is reflected in the FBI's subsequent report.

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think it's just a coincidence that what was reported in the papers just happened to match what Lipsey said he saw/heard at the autopsy?

Rankin's comment is, for that matter, almost certainly a reference to the FBI's report, and not a reference to the autopsy protocol written by the doctors.

Rankin said "We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck..."

I believe that the autopsy results were in a state of flux and that the "fragment exiting the throat wound" idea was believed early on. I base my belief on what Rankin said in the part of WC Executive Session from which I pulled that quote. For example, when Rankin says

"Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time."

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Had Rankin viewed the Zapruder Film by that time? (or did he ever see it during his WC tenure) .

He would have seen the President reacting to a wound in the throat well before the head shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just lost another long post. Not sure what's going on.

Pat, I don't know if you're doing this or not, but you may want to type your replies in Notepad (if you're using a Windows machine) first, or in some kind of word processing file if you're using Apple (I don't use Apple so I don't know what they have) then when you're ready, copy and paste it into EF. I mentioned this on another thread and Tom Neal said he does the exact same thing.

Doing this allows you to even save your post, walk away, and come back to it later.

It's just a way to avoid the maddeningly frustrating incidence of typing a long post in the EF post box only to lose it just as you click POST.

Hope this helps. Michael W.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat, I don't know if you're doing this or not, but you may want to type your replies in Notepad. .... I mentioned this on another thread and Tom Neal said he does the exact same thing.

Count me as another person who does it, too.

In addition to using Notepad or Word Pad, many times I'll write my longer forum posts as a temporary post at one of my Blogger blogs (a private one) where the "Auto Save" feature kicks in every 10 seconds, which makes it impossible to lose a post due to a glitch or a power failure. How many of you have lost a really long post because the power suddenly goes off? That really ticks me off when that happens, which is way too often. (What is it about the Hoosier state that makes the electricity go out constantly? I've never figured out that mystery. I think it could be a conspiracy, though. The ghost of Jim Garrison keeps coming into my house and playing around with the fuse box.) :)

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

What is it about the Hoosier state that makes the electricity go out constantly? I've never figured out that mystery.

It's no mystery. It's a conspiracy. Just kidding you, David. Thanks for sharing.

Wow. That's scary. Check my edit above (which I posted before seeing your post).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Had Rankin viewed the Zapruder Film by that time? (or did he ever see it during his WC tenure) .

He would have seen the President reacting to a wound in the throat well before the head shot.

John,

My understanding is that initially Humes and the others believed (or rather, pretended to believe) that JFK had taken three shots: One to the back, one to the base of the skull just above the hairline (near the external occipital protuberance or EOP), and one that caused the gaping hole. The gaping hole at that time involved the whole top of the head on the right side. Both the entrance and exit of the bullet that caused the gaping hole were part of the gaping-hole, so no distinct holes could be seen.

As I commented on in my prior post, it appears that on the day of the autopsy they "believed" that a fragment from the EOP bullet had exited the front of the neck, thus causing that wound. It is my belief -- and this is speculation -- that the original autopsy notes noted this fragment exit. Humes later burned those notes, but I think this fragment exit was still discussed as the autopsy results took shape.

I don't know when or if the WC saw the Z film. But even if they did, they wouldn't have been surprised that the head blowout occurred later than the throat wound. Because the throat wound was caused by a different bullet to the head than was the blowout, as I mentioned above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.

Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.

--------------------------

EDIT----

Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.

I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Humes made a number of false statements in his ARRB testimony. One of them was that he was unaware of Kennedy's throat wound during the autopsy.

In his HSCA testimony, autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said that, not only were the doctors aware of the throat wound, but were adamant that the bullet that entered the external occipital protuberance (EOP) wound had exited through the throat wound.

This testimony is corroborated by a JAMA article (Vol. 187, January 4, 1964, p. 15) which reported the following:

"The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat . . ."

This statement and variations of it were widely reported in newspaper on or around December 18, 1963. Lipsey called the projectile a bullet, but from these reports we can see that the autopsy docs likely said it was a bullet fragment.

Lipsey's testimony is also supported by a statement made by Chief Counsel Lee Rankin in the January 27, 1964 WC executive session:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck. . . . "

(Note that this Rankin comment was made long before the single bullet theory had been concocted. If you read the complete statement you will see that the autopsy results were still under development, and that Rankin's was assuming that the origin of the exiting throat fragment was the back wound. The one below the scapula, BTW.)

The bit in the papers about the throat wound coming from a fragment came about as a result of a leak from the FBI. The FBI had, amazingly, failed to read the autopsy protocol written by the doctors and had sought to explain the throat wound not mentioned during the autopsy by claiming it came as a result of a bullet fragment. This is reflected in the FBI's subsequent report.

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think it's just a coincidence that what was reported in the papers just happened to match what Lipsey said he saw/heard at the autopsy?

Rankin's comment is, for that matter, almost certainly a reference to the FBI's report, and not a reference to the autopsy protocol written by the doctors.

Rankin said "We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck..."

I believe that the autopsy results were in a state of flux and that the "fragment exiting the throat wound" idea was believed early on. I base my belief on what Rankin said in the part of WC Executive Session from which I pulled that quote. For example, when Rankin says

"Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time."

The FBI put out the word it was a fragment from the head wound that exited the throat. Lipsey thought it was the bullet itself. And besides, Lipsey never discussed his recollections until 15 years later.

As far as the last comment by Rankin, it's an obvious reference to the face sheet, which shows the throat wound above the level of the back wound. The WC then "developed" this info by convincing the doctors to create the Rydberg drawings, which reversed the relationship and showed the back wound at the base of the neck and inches above the throat wound.

This is probably best explained here:

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting. Had Rankin viewed the Zapruder Film by that time? (or did he ever see it during his WC tenure) .

He would have seen the President reacting to a wound in the throat well before the head shot.

He had not viewed it by that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just lost another long post. Not sure what's going on.

Pat, I don't know if you're doing this or not, but you may want to type your replies in Notepad (if you're using a Windows machine) first, or in some kind of word processing file if you're using Apple (I don't use Apple so I don't know what they have) then when you're ready, copy and paste it into EF. I mentioned this on another thread and Tom Neal said he does the exact same thing.

Doing this allows you to even save your post, walk away, and come back to it later.

It's just a way to avoid the maddeningly frustrating incidence of typing a long post in the EF post box only to lose it just as you click POST.

Hope this helps. Michael W.

I'm aware of notepad. It's just hard to break my usual routine. As you can see, I've made over 5,000 posts. Up until the last month or so, I lost fewer than 10 of them. Now, it seems like the forum is kicking me out if I don't make my post within 10 minutes or so. I was wondering if anyone knew this to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, it seems like the forum is kicking me out if I don't make my post within 10 minutes or so. I was wondering if anyone knew this to be the case.


Pat, if you've noticed that, then it appears the forum "engine" might have a timer built into it that refreshes it. This is just a guess of course, but it's kind of similar to when I login to a Joomla or Drupal CMS website, or even when I login to my banking website.


I know a banking website tends to do it because they're trying to protect you from inactivity. But for a Joomla or Drupal CMS website, even when you're typing, it can assume nothing is happening (of course you know it is happening) and will refresh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...