Jump to content
The Education Forum

Asking for some info on the JFK autopsy photographs.


Recommended Posts

On 4/10/2022 at 5:22 PM, Micah Mileto said:

The Case for an Altered Throat Wound is taking so long because it's going to include a multi-page wall of text on the chain of custody for the autopsy photos, in the context of Saundra Spencer's statements. Still won't be an exhaustive list of problems with the chain of custody. That exhaustive list will have to come later.

Looking forward to it Micah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/10/2022 at 7:41 PM, Michael Crane said:

Absolutely James,I agree 100%.Burkley was probably the only one that was in both Trauma Room 1 & the Bethesda morgue.He would have known if the wounds were enlarged.Especially the throat wound (if you believe Lifton's theory)

 

Burkley wrote an affidavit (which I believe carries the weight of sworn testimony) to the HSCA.

He addressed the possible alteration of the body, here:

I was Personal Physician to President John F. Kennedy in November 1963 and accompanied President Kennedy on the Texas trip. I was at Parkland Hospital and later at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. I saw President Kennedy’s wounds at Parkland Hospital and during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

 

So why did Burkley make statements indicating there may have been more than one headshot? And why did he think the brain should be preserved for further study? 

I believe I've solved this mystery.

A few years back I spent way too much time reading about 1) tangential wounds, and 2) gunshot wounds to the brain. And it's incredibly clear when one actually does the reading that 1) every piece of the medical evidence, i.e. the photos, x-rays, and descriptions of the large head wound, suggests a bullet impacted at the supposed exit and created one large gaping hole, and 2) the injuries to Kennedy's brain confirmed this, as they suggested a powerful blow to the top of the head from above, and not a blow to the back of the head from behind. 

I suspect Burkley knew this, but was unwilling to go on the record to say as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Many elderly people have a hard time reaching far back like that.

 

That's what a couple people on my Facebook told me! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Speer (or anybody else)

I know that you said that the medical evidence is a mine field & I agree.I wanted to get your take on JFK's right ear.There are pictures out there where John's ear doesn't appear to be normal.Newman said that it was blown off,and there are rumors that Liggett might have been at the autopsy.

What do you got for us?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Pat Speer (or anybody else)

I know that you said that the medical evidence is a mine field & I agree.I wanted to get your take on JFK's right ear.There are pictures out there where John's ear doesn't appear to be normal.Newman said that it was blown off,and there are rumors that Liggett might have been at the autopsy.

What do you got for us?

 

I'd bet the farm that when Newman saw the skull flap open up and dangle over JFK's cheek, he thought it was his ear that had blown forward. I've talked to him a few times but I don't think I brought it up. I did bring up that he'd changed his recollection from hearing two shots to hearing three shots, and he said he was aware of this, but that when he replayed it in his head he now heard three shots. He said that's the way he now recalled it. He said he wasn't about to start telling people what he used to say or was told he said. He, quite correctly in my view, saw himself as a witness and not a researcher and thought it best to just tell people what he recalls...even if what he now recalls is at odds with what he said in his original statements. 

I found his candor refusing. 

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This picture was in Robert Groden's The Killing of a President.Does this come close to your view? I say it's possible that this model could be accurate later on during the autopsy.

 

JFK Doc McClelland WC Testimony

 

Custer said that he could put both hands in the wound.

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

 

Pat was arguing for a conspiracy without the pictures being fake. The x-rays would probably need to be altered in order for there to have been a large hole in the lower back of the head. I've never seen anybody demonstrate the technique required to fake such an x-ray.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

This picture was in Robert Groden's The Killing of a President.Does this come close to your view? I say it's possible that this model could be accurate later on during the autopsy.

 

JFK Doc McClelland WC Testimony

 

Custer said that he could put both hands in the wound.

To add on to what Micah said in his reply, I would say this is close to what the skull looked like AFTER the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. I talk about this on my website. Groden went back and forth between a large hole on the back of the head and two large holes, one in front and one in back, and ultimately settled on this massive hole from front to back. The problem, of course, is that in trying to accommodate both the Parkland witnesses and the Bethesda witnesses, he proposed they were all wrong--as not one witness, other than perhaps Giesecke who said there was large hole on the left side, described a wound this large at the beginning of the autopsy.

Now, to be clear, I've met Bob Groden a couple of times, and think he's a nice person and greatly appreciate his efforts. But he has made and promoted some questionable claims--some of them demonstrably false. So I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like the wound depicted above has been confirmed by multiple witnesses, or some such thing. But he's just wrong. 

One should note, moreover, that he has also claimed that ALL the witnesses he's spoken to have confirmed the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Well, he can't have it both ways, can he? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, to be clear, I've met Bob Groden a couple of times, and think he's a nice person and greatly appreciate his efforts. But he has made and promoted some questionable claims--some of them demonstrably false.

That's putting it kindly, Pat. The final straw for me was his attempt to pass off a clearly fake autopsy photograph as genuine in his most recent book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's putting it kindly, Pat. The final straw for me was his attempt to pass off a clearly fake autopsy photograph as genuine in his most recent book.

It was a sad day for me when I had to agree with John McAdams about a fellow CT. But McAdams came up to me and asked me about some of the claims Groden had just made at the 2013 Wecht conference, and I had to confirm that yes, much of what Groden had just claimed was nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Pat was arguing for a conspiracy without the pictures being fake. The x-rays would probably need to be altered in order for there to have been a large hole in the lower back of the head. I've never seen anybody demonstrate the technique required to fake such an x-ray.

Micah,

I consider you very knowledgeable when it comes to the head wounds.

 

THE JOHN F. KENNEDY AUTOPSY X-RAYS: THE SAGA OF THE LARGEST “METALLIC  FRAGMENT”

 

 

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

To add on to what Micah said in his reply, I would say this is close to what the skull looked like AFTER the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. I talk about this on my website. Groden went back and forth between a large hole on the back of the head and two large holes, one in front and one in back, and ultimately settled on this massive hole from front to back. The problem, of course, is that in trying to accommodate both the Parkland witnesses and the Bethesda witnesses, he proposed they were all wrong--as not one witness, other than perhaps Giesecke who said there was large hole on the left side, described a wound this large at the beginning of the autopsy.

Now, to be clear, I've met Bob Groden a couple of times, and think he's a nice person and greatly appreciate his efforts. But he has made and promoted some questionable claims--some of them demonstrably false. So I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like the wound depicted above has been confirmed by multiple witnesses, or some such thing. But he's just wrong. 

One should note, moreover, that he has also claimed that ALL the witnesses he's spoken to have confirmed the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Well, he can't have it both ways, can he? 

No Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Micah,

I consider you very experienced when it comes to the head wound.

 

THE JOHN F. KENNEDY AUTOPSY X-RAYS: THE SAGA OF THE LARGEST “METALLIC  FRAGMENT”

 

 

One of the reasons I'm still writing about this stuff is that I'm forever intrigued by the human mind, and the way people can convince themselves of things that just ain't true. Mantik used the image you posted to demonstrate that x-rays can be altered. But he does not claim the x-rays were altered to conceal a huge hole on the back of the head. No, he says, unbelievably--as almost no one believes him on this--that a large hole on the back of the head IS apparent on the lateral x-rays... (Huh??? I know.) Alas, he says instead that the x-rays were altered to add a white patch to cover up missing brain, and that a round bullet shape was added to make it seem like the bullet entered at the back of the head. 

Now, it's not secret that I have a problem with a lot of Mantik's claims. But I find it interesting that most take from his research that the x-rays were altered to conceal a huge hole on the back of the head, when Mantik is adamant that this did not occur, and claims the hole is apparent on the x-rays.

Edited by Pat Speer
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...