Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wecht's New book Reviewed by Martin Hay


Recommended Posts

That was a good review that made for interesting reading. Thanks, James.

I am curious as to why Martin believes the anterior neck wound was an exit wound, though. I was under the impression that the back wound was probed at Bethesda and found to be shallow, and that all the doctors and nurses who saw the wound at Parkland before the tracheostomy said it appeared to be an entrance wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Denny.  Martin is one of our best reviewers I think.

 

Did Martin say he agreed with that?  Then he agrees with Wecht.  

I agree with you.  I simply do not think its possible, considering the trajectory, the point it hit at, T-3, and the fact no probe would go through or connect them.  Plus, Perry originally said  the anterior wound was one of entrance.

I think Wecht says this it because his question is: if it was from the front, where did it go? That is a legitimate question.  But to me, there was so much skullduggery about Kennedy's autopsy that I put very little past those involved.  I mean what are you going to do with LeMay there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Martin pretty much nailed it. Wecht has long seemed reluctant to dig through the weeds. His earlier writings on the assassination revealed a number of mistakes. His more recent writings on the assassination have been primarily written by Aguilar or Kaufman. 

I assume: 1) he's just too busy to really get into it, and 2) he doesn't want to embarrass his friend Michael Baden, who, to my mind, engaged in a willful cover-up of the medical evidence. 

When I've asked him about Baden, and others, Wecht has long maintained that he doesn't think these guys lied, that it was just that they interpreted the evidence through their bias. 

Think about it. Wecht has devoted his life to promoting the field of Forensic Science. Science. When he knows the reality is that the conclusions of the top "scientists" in many of the most controversial cases have been at odds with each other, and that some of his good friends have made small fortunes off using this "science" to defend rich (and often guilty) defendants. 

To really get into it would be to admit this science as applied by many of its scientists is seriously flawed, and often a scam. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jim,

I'd like to hijack your thread for just a second & ask you (or anybody else) a question.Now,I have heard of this Air Force general Curtis LeMay being present at the autopsy.I have also heard that when Humes asked "who is in charge here?" that LeMay supposedly spoke up and "I am" my question is...does an Air Force general out rank a Navy Admiral on a naval base? I was under the impression that Admiral Burkley was in charge & calling the shots?

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said that I thought LeMay said that in reply to Humes.

In fact, I do not think he did or would even say something like that at all.

I think LeMay was there to make sure that things went as planned--there would be no by the book autopsy, and no dissection of the back wound.  No weighing of the brain that night.

I also think LeMay was there to  make sure the call went though to threaten Perry with his medical license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Hay and Speer.

I would have to agree with Pat on this one.  Baden and his pals on that panel did a lot of damage to the case by siding with the Clark Panel.  And since they did that they then had to intimidate Humes into making that Galileo like recantation in public.  Which he then went back on for JAMA.

With all the docs out on this, its pretty clear that is what they did.  And with those docs out we can now see that Baden also told Dox to falsify the drawing of the rear of the head to make that cowlick spot of blood  look like a wound of entry.  IMO, there is no excuse for that.  None.

Cyril did disagree with these guys and I thought his dissent was pretty strong.  But Pat is correct, I have never seen him call out Baden.

The irony here of course is that it was Tanenbaum who brought in Baden.  He originally wanted Baden and Wecht to be his two forensic pathologists.

When Tanenbaum left, the dam broke.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have never said that I thought LeMay said that in reply to Humes.

In fact, I do not think he did or would even say something like that at all.

I think LeMay was there to make sure that things went as planned--there would be no by the book autopsy, and no dissection of the back wound.  No weighing of the brain that night.

I also think LeMay was there to  make sure the call went though to threaten Perry with his medical license.

If you re-read my post I never said that you did Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael.

BTW, I think something is overlooked in all this.  In the film The Parkland Doctors,  it is revealed taht right after Perry spoke, some well dressed man grabbed his arm and told him words to the effect, do not ever say that again.

This is about  an hour or so after Kennedy was pronounced dead.  

If one combines that with the calls to Perry that night from the morgue, does that not seem to convey some form of secret communications between Dallas and Washington? It sure does with me.

How else does one explain it?  The cover up was being enacted almost immediately.  And I have always thought the cover up was planned with the conspiracy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have never said that I thought LeMay said that in reply to Humes.

In fact, I do not think he did or would even say something like that at all.

I think LeMay was there to make sure that things went as planned--there would be no by the book autopsy, and no dissection of the back wound.  No weighing of the brain that night.

I also think LeMay was there to  make sure the call went though to threaten Perry with his medical license.

Jim my recollection is that this was said by Admiral Galloway; whom I believe Lisa Pease discusses in her RFK book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened to look into Gov. Connally's back wound in depth. There is a photograph online at the Texas Archives indicating the entry bullet hole in JBC's shirt is 3/8ths by 3/8ths. The Mannlicher Carcano slug is a quarter inch round, and 1 1/4 inches long. In other words, the bullet hole in JBC's shirt is just big enough for a straight shot at a downward angle. If the bullet whacked JBC sideways, there should be a 1 and 1/4" bullet hole in the short. 

In surgery, the operating doctor, Robert Shaw, debrided dead material from the ovoid back wound, thus enlarging it, to a size of 5/8ths by 1 1/4 inch long. 

OK, the the surgically enlarged wound is not the same size as the original wound. That would seem to be a known result to pathologists. 

Here is how Michael Baden described JBC's back wound:'

'“He (Connally) removed his shirt. There it was—a two-inch long sideways entrance scar in his back. He had not been shot by a second shooter, but by the same flattened bullet that went through Kennedy.”

This isn't even wrong. For one, the JBC  back wound wound had been surgically enlarged, but to 5/8th by 1 1/4," not 2 inches. For two, the small hole in the JBC shirt is telltale evidence as well. Three, what the hell is a "flattened bullet"? The Magic Bullet is famously pristine. 

I get the impression Baden struggled to think straight and so gravitated to the consensus view, the safe refuge of all challenged intellects. 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-death-of-the-tumbling-magic-bullet-theory-the-governor-s-shirt-the-president-s-shirt-and-the-overlooked-dr-robert-shaw

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I happened to look into Gov. Connally's back wound in depth. There is a photograph online at the Texas Archives indicating the entry bullet hole in JBC's shirt is 3/8ths by 3/8ths. The Mannlicher Carcano slug is a quarter inch round, and 1 1/4 inches long. In other words, the bullet hole in JBC's shirt is just big enough for a straight shot at a downward angle. If the bullet whacked JBC sideways, there should be a 1 and 1/4" bullet hole in the short. 

In surgery, the operating doctor, Robert Shaw, debrided dead material from the ovoid back wound, thus enlarging it, to a size of 5/8ths by 1 1/4 inch long. 

OK, the the surgically enlarged wound is not the same size as the original wound. That would seem to be a known result to pathologists. 

Here is how Michael Baden described JBC's back wound:'

'“He (Connally) removed his shirt. There it was—a two-inch long sideways entrance scar in his back. He had not been shot by a second shooter, but by the same flattened bullet that went through Kennedy.”

This isn't even wrong. For one, the JBC  back wound wound had been surgically enlarged, but to 5/8th by 1 1/4," not 2 inches. For two, the small hole in the JBC shirt is telltale evidence as well. Three, what the hell is a "flattened bullet"? The Magic Bullet is famously pristine. 

I get the impression Baden struggled to think straight and so gravitated to the consensus view, the safe refuge of all challenged intellects. 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-death-of-the-tumbling-magic-bullet-theory-the-governor-s-shirt-the-president-s-shirt-and-the-overlooked-dr-robert-shaw

 

 

I did a massive amount of research leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report (when I was the only one to speak on the SBT at the Bethesda conference). And I found that Baden and other members of the HSCA pathology panel had been seduced by Dr. John Lattimer, who'd recognized that the length of the wound described by Shaw matched the length of the M/C bullet and had concluded--voila!--that the wound was ovoid and the bullet must have been tumbling. This factoid then became part of the single-assassin religion. 

The problem as you pointed out was that Shaw said this was the measurement after the debridement of surrounding skin, and that the holes on the clothing were not elongated. IOW, it was total bs. 

And that is what keeps me writing about this stuff. I'm skeptical we will ever solve the whodunnit spy-vs-spy aspect of the assassination. But there are so many flat out freakin' lies about the medical evidence within the official story that I gotta believe it's only a matter of time before the medical establishment and the MSM admit as much. The interpretations of the medical evidence pushed by first the WC and then the HSCA were Flat Earth Society stuff--at odds with the dozens of textbooks and hundreds of articles I've read. And yet they still remain the accepted conclusions to the MSM because doctors by and large are gutless creatures and journalists by and large are reluctant to write anything questioning people with letters after their name. It's truly shocking.

I can say with some appreciation that the few doctors on the CT side of the JFK argument are a bit more open-minded, and that I have had meetings and discussions on the medical evidence with men with numerous letters after their name, and that they have listened to what I've had to say, and have even cited my work in presentations. So there is hope that some of the stuff I've uncovered--such as Baden being totally full of beans on numerous issues--will eventually become accepted facts.

But it sure is slow going...

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I did a massive amount of research leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report (when I was the only one to speak on the SBT at the Bethesda conference). And I found that Baden and other members of the HSCA pathology panel had been seduced by Dr. John Lattimer, who'd recognized that the length of the wound described by Shaw matched the length of the M/C bullet and had concluded--voila!--that the wound was ovoid and the bullet must have been tumbling. This factoid then became part of the single-assassin religion. 

The problem as you pointed out was that Shaw said this was the measurement after the debridement of surrounding skin, and that the holes on the clothing were not elongated. IOW, it was total bs. 

And that is what keeps me writing about this stuff. I'm skeptical we will ever solve the whodunnit spy-vs-spy aspect of the assassination. But there are so many flat out freakin' lies about the medical evidence within the official story that I gotta believe it's only a matter of time before the medical establishment and the MSM admit as much. The interpretations of the medical evidence pushed by first the WC and then the HSCA were Flat Earth Society stuff--at odds with the dozens of textbooks and hundreds of articles I've read. And yet they still remain the accepted conclusions to the MSM because doctors by and large are gutless creatures and journalists by and large are reluctant to write anything questioning people with letters after their name. It's truly shocking.

I can say with some appreciation that the few doctors on the CT side of the JFK argument are a bit more open-minded, and that I have had meetings and discussions on the medical evidence with men with numerous letters after their name, and that they have listened to what I've had to say, and have even cited my work in presentations. So there is hope that some of the stuff I've uncovered--such as Baden being totally full of beans on numerous issues--will eventually become accepted facts.

But it sure is slow going...

Pat Speer--

 

I have read your website, and appreciate your careful work. We disagree on some details, but so what?  

Baden's work and observations are simply beyond belief.  A rank amateur (me) can review materials and see that Baden isn't even wrong about JBC's back wound. It is inexplicable.  This is not hubris on my part---I am simply citing from the record. 

The original JBC back wound was ovoid and north-south, so to speak. BTW, JBC's was slightly reclining at the time he was struck, which also contributed to the ovoid shape of the wound. 

From HSCA:

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

So, look at Z film see where this happens. Then count frames until 312. 

 

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...