If Humes lied, then when?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

This post relates solely to alleged wounds in the back of JFK's head.

1. Is Hulmes honest in the autopsy report as to a small hole in the lower part of Kennedy's head?

2. Is Hulmes honest in his HSCA testimony; that he got it wrong in his autopsy report and the small wound was 4 inches higher?

3. Was Hulmes honest in the subsequent JAMA article when he returns the small wound to the original autopsy position?

5. Is Hulmes honest in his failure to countenance the possibility that, the large amount of disruption, generally accepted to have occurred at the back of the head, may have been caused by a further shot to the head?

It is not helpful to state that Hulmes simply was part of the cover-up and lied. I think the questions above expose some dishonesty, but not specifically what statements/absence of statements are dishonest. 

 

I believe the medical evidence and the testimony of others, lead to an explanation of Hulmes reporting. I conclude:

 

1. At the autopsy Hulmes was told to ignore evidence of a rear blowout, and work down the head to the actual small rear headwound. For the sake of National Security.

2. During the HSCA Hulmes was bullied into moving the small rear headwound and stated so, in the televised hearing against his will. The reason was that; analysis of the extant Zapruder film could not make the angle of the rear shot match the 'snipers nest', and, the obfuscation of the frontal headshot debris (shown on the Xrays) to allege it was from a rear headshot was impossible with a lower entrance.

3. Hulmes was honest, and stuck to the position of the rear headshot. His fundamental dishonesty was the avoidance of a proper analysis and reporting of the mess at the rear of the head. What he did in respect of a wound in the upper forehead is unclear. The low entrance at the rear is evidence of a little bit of missing film, not dishonesty by Hulmes on this topic.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

This post relates solely to alleged wounds in the back of JFK's head.

1. Is Hulmes honest in the autopsy report as to a small hole in the lower part of Kennedy's head?

2. Is Hulmes honest in his HSCA testimony; that he got it wrong in his autopsy report and the small wound was 4 inches higher?

3. Was Hulmes honest in the subsequent JAMA article when he returns the small wound to the original autopsy position?

5. Is Hulmes honest in his failure to countenance the possibility that, the large amount of disruption, generally accepted to have occurred at the back of the head, may have been caused by a further shot to the head?

It is not helpful to state that Hulmes simply was part of the cover-up and lied. I think the questions above expose some dishonesty, but not specifically what statements/absence of statements are dishonest. 

 

I believe the medical evidence and the testimony of others, lead to an explanation of Hulmes reporting. I conclude:

 

1. At the autopsy Hulmes was told to ignore evidence of a rear blowout, and work down the head to the actual small rear headwound. For the sake of National Security.

2. During the HSCA Hulmes was bullied into moving the small rear headwound and stated so, in the televised hearing against his will. The reason was that; analysis of the extant Zapruder film could not make the angle of the rear shot match the 'snipers nest', and, the obfuscation of the frontal headshot debris (shown on the Xrays) to allege it was from a rear headshot was impossible with a lower entrance.

3. Hulmes was honest, and stuck to the position of the rear headshot. His fundamental dishonesty was the avoidance of a proper analysis and reporting of the mess at the rear of the head. What he did in respect of a wound in the upper forehead is unclear. The low entrance at the rear is evidence of a little bit of missing film, not dishonesty by Hulmes on this topic.

All good, but I think you mean "Humes." 

[Michael Griffith]

The plotters needed a higher rear head entry wound--in the cowlick--because of the high fragment trail, because of the small bullet fragments high on the rear outer table of the skull (over most of which the 6.5 mm object was ghosted), and because the photographic evidence rules out a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the EOP entry site (JFK would have had to be leaning some 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck for the bullet to exit at a point above and forward of the right ear). 

WC apologists have had little to say about the fact that all three of the ARRB's forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said that there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the autopsy skull x-rays, that there is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

Humes testified that he did not know why JFK's brain was not weighed during the autopsy. He did not weigh the brain. Or, if it was, why the weight was not listed until weeks later in the final report. That weight was listed as more than an average male brain weight.

Everyone testified that some of JFK's brain was missing. Humes said at one point JFK's brain just fell out into his hands. Inferring it was mush instead of a firmer fibrous covered organ?

These under oath testimony JFK brain discrepancies alone beg serious doubt questions.

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The plotters needed a higher rear head entry wound--in the cowlick--because of the high fragment trail, because of the small bullet fragments high on the rear outer table of the skull (over most of which the 6.5 mm object was ghosted), and because the photographic evidence rules out a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the EOP entry site (JFK would have had to be leaning some 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck for the bullet to exit at a point above and forward of the right ear). 

WC apologists have had little to say about the fact that all three of the ARRB's forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said that there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the autopsy skull x-rays, that there is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. 

To my understanding, several lone assassin theorists including Larry Sturdivan now support an EOP entrance wound. The theory I think is that the bullet ”tumbled” in the brain and didn’t reach maximum drag/fragmentation until late in the wound track which caused an explosive exit out of the top of JFKs head - which is theoretically possible with an FMJ bullet. The problem I think is that the skull fracture patterns do not match what would normally be expected in this type of scenario. Pat Speer could elaborate on this angle a lot better than I can.

This is something I’m interested in, since if it’s truly impossible for JFKs head wounds (let’s stick to official head wounds for the sake of argument) to have been caused by a single EOP shot it’d be legit forensic evidence for more than one shooter. Pat makes a compelling case but I’d like to see an expansion of his work on this that’s something like an ongoing review of the latest research in wound ballistics. Pat’s chapters are very thorough - but new research is coming out every single day and a lot of it might be relevant to the JFK case.  

[Gil Jesus]

Humes lied about of lot of things, not the least of which was WHEN he spoke to Dr. Perry.

Humes claimed he spoke to Perry on Saturday, the 23rd.

But other evidence suggests he spoke to him on Friday night.

Parkland nurse Audrey Bell said that Dr. Perry told her on Saturday morning that he had been up most of Friday night with "Bethesda" arguing whether or not the wound in the throat was an entry wound.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/audrey-bell-arrb-3_20_97.mp4

 

Her story is corroborated by Dr. Humes' own notes, which included Dr. Perry's home phone number.

So if the only times Dr. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry was twice on Saturday morning and that was at Bethesda, why did he have Dr. Perry's home phone number ?

And why did Dr. Perry tell Nurse Bell he had been up most of the night because of "calls from Bethesda" ?

Because Humes called him at home Friday night. That means Humes knew about Perry seeing a wound of entry in the throat on Friday night.

During his Warren Commission testimony, Dr. Perry slipped and said that he had spoken to Bethesda on Friday:

"I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday". ( 3 H 380 )

Common sense tells you that a tracheostomy made for seemimgly no reason would tend to make the prosectors call Dallas before the autopsy began to find out why the incision was made.

The official story says they didn't call until the next day after the body had left the morgue. That's ridiculous.

I believe this evidence says that Humes called Perry on Friday night. 

The two calls on Saturday morning were to advise Dr. Perry to keep his mouth shut about publicly identifying the throat wound as a wound of entrance.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

16 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

WC apologists have had little to say about the fact that all three of the ARRB's forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said that there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the autopsy skull x-rays, that there is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. 

Mike, where can I find that documentation from the 3 arrb pathologists ? Is it on line ? Thanks in advance.

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

To my understanding, several lone assassin theorists including Larry Sturdivan now support an EOP entrance wound. The theory I think is that the bullet ”tumbled” in the brain and didn’t reach maximum drag/fragmentation until late in the wound track which caused an explosive exit out of the top of JFKs head - which is theoretically possible with an FMJ bullet. The problem I think is that the skull fracture patterns do not match what would normally be expected in this type of scenario. Pat Speer could elaborate on this angle a lot better than I can.

This is something I’m interested in, since if it’s truly impossible for JFKs head wounds (let’s stick to official head wounds for the sake of argument) to have been caused by a single EOP shot it’d be legit forensic evidence for more than one shooter. Pat makes a compelling case but I’d like to see an expansion of his work on this that’s something like an ongoing review of the latest research in wound ballistics. Pat’s chapters are very thorough - but new research is coming out every single day and a lot of it might be relevant to the JFK case.  

Let's start with some basic, well-known facts about FMJ bullets and basic physics: FMJ bullets do not deposit fragments via shearing on the outer table of a skull when they strike a skull, and if the rear-head-shot bullet was an FMJ bullet and somehow magically had metal fragments scraped off it as it entered the skull, the fragments would have been scraped off from the top of the bullet and would have been deposited above the wound, not below it, since the bullet would have been striking at a marked downward angle. 

Sturdivan's theory is absurd. A bullet fired from the sixth-floor sniper's nest would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 16 degrees. How would the bullet have magically made a sudden sharply upward turn in order to have any chance of causing the high fragment trail and of exiting above the right ear? Not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's head-shot ballistics tests behaved in such an impossible manner.

The HSCA FPP and the Clark Panel moved the rear head entry wound upward by nearly 4 inches because they knew there was no way a bullet striking at the EOP could have caused the high fragment trail. 

This is not to mention the well-known fact that FMJ missiles do not leave dozens of fragments in skulls. This is unheard behavior for an FMJ bullet (Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds).

And then there's the scientifically established fact that the 6.5 mm object on the A-P skull x-ray is a ghosted image that was placed over a smaller genuine fragment (about 2.5 mm) on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why there is no object on the lateral x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object, a physical impossibility if these x-rays are pristine. I discuss this historic evidence in detail in the following article:

The Suspicious 6.5 mm "Fragment"

Finally, how in the world do lone-gunman theorists explain the additional rear-outer-table fragment identified by Dr. G. M. McDonnel for the HSCA? This fragment is to the left of the 6.5 mm object and is embedded in a different layer (the galea) than the 6.5 mm object! How could it have gotten there after having been magically sheared off an FMJ missile that struck at a downward angle? The idea that this fragment came from any FMJ bullet, much less from one fired from the sniper's nest, is utterly preposterous. This fragment, like the fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, is clearly a ricochet fragment from a bullet that struck near the limo and sprayed fragments toward the limo--this is the only plausible explanation.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Interesting replies thus far but I'm not getting a clear answer to the question I put forward: When did Humes lie? (If at all). If answerable, it is important. He conducted the autopsy and was willing to defend it. The HSCA discussion he attended was as benign an interrogation of his work that could be imagined, and documented extreme fear on behalf of one or the attendees , in respect of discussion of locating the small rear headwound. If you believe Humes lied in totem, then what explains the JAMA article?

[Matthew Koch]

At the 26:00 min mark Humes is asked about the hole in the head and begins to become evasive. 

 

[Tom Gram]

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Let's start with some basic, well-known facts about FMJ bullets and basic physics: FMJ bullets do not deposit fragments via shearing on the outer table of a skull when they strike a skull, and if the rear-head-shot bullet was an FMJ bullet and somehow magically had metal fragments scraped off it as it entered the skull, the fragments would have been scraped off from the top of the bullet and would have been deposited above the wound, not below it, since the bullet would have been striking at a marked downward angle. 

Sturdivan's theory is absurd. A bullet fired from the sixth-floor sniper's nest would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 16 degrees. How would the bullet have magically made a sudden sharply upward turn in order to have any chance of causing the high fragment trail and of exiting above the right ear? Not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's head-shot ballistics tests behaved in such an impossible manner.

The HSCA FPP and the Clark Panel moved the rear head entry wound upward by nearly 4 inches because they knew there was no way a bullet striking at the EOP could have caused the high fragment trail. 

This is not to mention the well-known fact that FMJ missiles do not leave dozens of fragments in skulls. This is unheard behavior for an FMJ bullet (Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds).

And then there's the scientifically established fact that the 6.5 mm object on the A-P skull x-ray is a ghosted image that was placed over a smaller genuine fragment (about 2.5 mm) on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why there is no object on the lateral x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object, a physical impossibility if these x-rays are pristine. I discuss this historic evidence in detail in the following article:

The Suspicious 6.5 mm "Fragment"

Finally, how in the world do lone-gunman theorists explain the additional rear-outer-table fragment identified by Dr. G. M. McDonnel for the HSCA? This fragment is to the left of the 6.5 mm object and is embedded in a different layer (the galea) than the 6.5 mm object! How could it have gotten there after having been magically sheared off an FMJ missile that struck at a downward angle? The idea that this fragment came from any FMJ bullet, much less from one fired from the sniper's nest, is utterly preposterous. This fragment, like the fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, is clearly a ricochet fragment from a bullet that struck near the limo and sprayed fragments toward the limo--this is the only plausible explanation.

I’m hardly an expert here, nor do I agree with Sturdivan. I’m just relaying what I’ve read in wound ballistics articles, etc.

The fragment trail is indeed a massive problem with the “EOP single assassin theory” - not so much for the existence of the fragments but for the location. It is possible for an FMJ bullet to leave a fragment trail. Here’s a fairly recent paper comparing single and double head shots in pig skulls that may be of interest: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013744/#!po=1.92308

It’s also possible for an FMJ bullet to change its trajectory after striking bone. JFK was leaning sharply left and slightly forward at the time of the shot - so the trajectory change required for a top/front/right of the head exit seems to be within the range of possible angles, though I could definitely be wrong. Here’s an article that shows FMJ bullet trajectory changes in simulated headshots: 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-017-1737-9

That said - it seems pretty ridiculous for the fragment trail to be only located across the top of JFKs head if he was shot only once in the EOP. I think Sturdivan’s “explanation” is that the fragments uniformly leaked out with blood flow or something, which is just absurd. The only idea I can come up with - and I doubt this is even possible - is if the bullet hit maximum yaw and fragmented right near the exit and the fragments that remained in the head got blasted across the inner table of JFKs skull by the pressure from the temporary cavity, or something like that. 

Random speculation like this may seem pointless, but it’s the sort of thing I’d want to look into if I were writing an article or something on what’s theoretically possible with single shot to the EOP. I think Pat Speer is right that the medical evidence at face value very strongly suggests two headshots, but if there’s even a minuscule possibility that a Sturdivanesque scenario could happen in the real world someone’s gonna figure it out and claim it’s an indisputable fact - so I think it can be useful to get ahead of the counterarguments with this sort of thing. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Bob Ness]

Well... if he didn't lie, then McClellan did. Either that or the wound shrank 4 3/4" during the flight from Dallas. Maybe someone can explain how that happened.

I find McClellan very believable and although Humes seems believable, he has vastly more external pressures to conform to official versions and had a chain of command to answer to.

At least that's the way I understand it. How anyone in the MSM or anywhere else can be comfortable with that conflict is beyond me. 

Just another reason it's hard to believe the official WC accounts of the JFKA. 

[Sandy Larsen]

Eddie,

I hope you don't mind that I corrected the spelling of "Hulmes" in the title.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Humes testified that he did not know why JFK's brain was not weighed during the autopsy. He did not weigh the brain. Or, if it was, why the weight was not listed until weeks later in the final report. That weight was listed as more than an average male brain weight.

Everyone testified that some of JFK's brain was missing. Humes said at one point JFK's brain just fell out into his hands. Inferring it was mush instead of a firmer fibrous covered organ?

These under oath testimony JFK brain discrepancies alone beg serious doubt questions.

Humes sworn testimony to the ARRB in 1996:

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
A. Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
A. I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why.
Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or

---

Page 75

no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can't recall why--I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that.

 

[Gil Jesus]

Humes not only lied to the Warren Commission, he lied about the location of the "neck" wound in his description to Harold Rydberg who did the drawings. 

In February 2003, author William Matson Law did a telephone interview with Rydberg. That interview is documented in Law's book, In the Eye of History , beginning on page 289.

On pages 293-94, Rydberg tells Law regarding Humes' location of the wounds :

"He was giving me anatomical landmarks...the neck wound was explained the same way. It was down at the C-6, C-7 on the cervical vertebrae and it was angled down bruising the pleural area of the right lung--the superior portion of it  and exiting out by the knot of the tie".

Law: That's what Humes told you ?

Rydberg: yes.

Law: Did they have notes with them ?

Rydberg: No.

Law: They just did this off the top of their heads ?

Rydberg: Yes. They wanted no  paper trail.

Humes knew damn well that the wound was at T-3 below the top of the shoulders where the shirt and coat said it was, where Burkley's death certificate said it was , where Boswell's original face sheet said it was, where the witnesses said it was and where the autopsy photos showed it was. Rydberg drew it up according to Humes' description which Boswell agreed with.

Humes did a lot of lying, pure and simple. There is NO CORROBORATION for the prosectors' location of the wound at the base of the neck from the documentation, physical evidence, witness testimony or autopsy photos. This means that the whole Single Bullet Theory is in error because it's predicated on a mislocation of the back wound. If Humes lied or was mistaken about the location of the "neck" wound, then is SBT is debunked.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Gil Jesus