JFK Medical Betrayal by Russell Kent

[James DiEugenio]

I just reviewed this at Kennedys and King.com

Its an interesting take on the medical evidence in the Kennedy case.  Its also a unique contribution in that the author does not do a microanalysis of the evidence.  What Kent does is approach the evidence by doing an analysis of the various inquiries e.g. Rockefeller Commission, Clark Panel etc--and shows how the men on those panels had certain connections to each other both personally and professionally.  And how this ended up aiding a kind of collegial cooperation that guaranteed the JFK cover up.

He did a lot of archival work to ferret out these relationships, what he does with the Clark Panel is unprecedented.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-medical-betrayal-where-the-evidence-lies-by-russell-kent

[Benjamin Cole]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just reviewed this at Kennedys and King.com

Its an interesting take on the medical evidence in the Kennedy case.  Its also a unique contribution in that the author does not do a microanalysis of the evidence.  What Kent does is approach the evidence by doing an analysis of the various inquiries e.g. Rockefeller Commission, Clark Panel etc--and shows how the men on those panels had certain connections to each other both personally and professionally.  And how this ended up aiding a kind of collegial cooperation that guaranteed the JFK cover up.

He did a lot of archival work to ferret out these relationships, what he does with the Clark Panel is unprecedented.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-medical-betrayal-where-the-evidence-lies-by-russell-kent

Excellent work by Kent and the reviewer. From the review: 

But Shaw did not buy it because “he did not think the bullet was tumbling or had struck anything before hitting the governor.” (p. 191) He therefore doubted any bullet could have emerged like CE 399.

Not to be a Johnny-One-Note, but there is indisputable evidence the bullet that struck Gov. JBC was not tumbling.

There is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's shirt that he wore that day, just large enough to accommodate a straight-on shot from a Mannlicher Carcano or other similar slug. 

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

How on earth Baden and Blakely accepted the "tumbling bullet" theory...is just inexplicable. The slug that passed through JBC's shirt left a small roundish hole (even after some enlargement to remove cloth for testing).

The autopsy is another event that remains inexplicable. Why didn't Humes or Boswell say out loud, before proceeding: "I am not a practicing forensic pathologist. Let's wait and get someone in here that really knows this stuff. Even a hobo shot dead in a field deserves better than me."   

How else to view the JFK autopsy as other than a snow job? 

 

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Jim D's review of Kent's work emphasises to me the strange disagreement between alleged co-conspirators. The evidential development through the various bodies to re-align the rear head-wound makes sense : The new alleged location now matches the extant Z film and fragment trail (the trail goes in the wrong direction, front to back, and that is less easy to explain). The puzzle for me lies in the Autopsy Doctor's refusal to go along with the movement of the head-wound. Reading the HSCA discussion between the Doctors, I don't get the impression the Autopsy Doctors are describing a unified cover-up, that their interviewers are on board with. I get the impression the Autopsy Doctors are describing what they honestly did, and saw.

This leads me to believe that someone else had sawn away the entrance wound in the forehead and cut through the scalp to make two large exit wounds (Side of head and rear, with shattered bone in between) into one. The autopsy Doctors may have been duped by pre-autopsy assurances of the direction of the headshots and by the crude physical removal of a frontal shot. What they weren't willing to do was to move the ONLY actual evidence of a rear headshot, a small hole low in the rear of the skull.

[James DiEugenio]

Kent's book is an interesting take on the subject.

He concludes that what should have happened was that a group of forensic pathologists who were completely  independent of any influence should have been called in.

He actually names three men from England who were famous for solving crimes in England, like the Rillington Place murders, who should have done the job.

From the argument he makes, he is probably correct.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I am pretty sure that Mr Kent will be on Len's show soon.

I will post it.  He is really articulate and knowledgeable.

And as I said he comes at the subject from a different angle and lens.

The not so subtle villain of his piece is Russell Fisher.

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

While I haven't read the book, it appears that much of it is a new look at territory previously covered by Kathy Cunningham, Gary Aguilar, and myself. The one new thing I've spotted in Kent's interviews and Jim's review is the correspondence between members of the Clark Panel. I don't believe anyone else has read this correspondence. So, bravo. 

I did spot what appears to be an error in Jim's review, or, if not, Kent's book. Jim writes: "The Clark Panel met for two days and the second day was not a whole day. (p. 77) Boswell and Humes appeared before the panel. " My understanding is that Humes and Boswell were not allowed to meet with the Clark Panel, and that Fisher and his gang moved the head wound entrance without consulting anyone who'd actually viewed the body. If they were in fact consulted--well, that's news to me. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Mart Hall]

Russell Kent did a presentation at the last DPUK seminar. 

He acknowledges that he was influenced by the work of the researchers that Pat referred to.

His presentation included an observation that associations existed between all of the HSCA Pathologists (with the exception of Cyril Wecht) and from obtaining drafts of their reports and comparing to the final report it looks obvious that somebody did not want them to cast any doubt on the SBT. 
 

FWIW I noted that one of the links between several of the pathologists was a book published in 1980, so if that’s the only link to associate them it would question a large part of this “association” observation. 

I did not know that the HSCA pathologists were unpaid (were some of them rewarded/recognised in some other form?) and spent so little time working together. 
 

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Mart Hall said:

Russell Kent did a presentation at the last DPUK seminar. 

He acknowledges that he was influenced by the work of the researchers that Pat referred to.

His presentation included an observation that associations existed between all of the HSCA Pathologists (with the exception of Cyril Wecht) and from obtaining drafts of their reports and comparing to the final report it looks obvious that somebody did not want them to cast any doubt on the SBT. 
 

FWIW I noted that one of the links between several of the pathologists was a book published in 1980, so if that’s the only link to associate them it would question a large part of this “association” observation. 

I did not know that the HSCA pathologists were unpaid (were some of them rewarded/recognised in some other form?) and spent so little time working together. 
 

 

I'm pretty sure the 1980 book he mentions is Modern Legal Medicine, Psychiatry and Forensic Science. This was "discovered" by myself some years back. It is a huge volume put together by a trio of doctors, with HSCA FPP member Charles Petty overseeing and writing the sections on Forensic Pathology and gunshot wounds. In it, he claims that the exits for shored wounds, while small, are still not as small as the entrance for that bullet. Well, this helped explain why the HSCA FPP presented JFK's back wound as far larger than its measured size--they needed to so they could pretend the throat wound was an exit for this bullet. (I can still recall the look on Dr. Wecht's face when I showed him this in 2014.) As stated, the book is huge, and was almost certainly written during Petty's time on the HSCA panel. 

In any event, I was the first to "discover" this book. More problematic, in my opinion, is another book I "discovered"--this one put together by Fisher and Petty, with a grant from the Justice Department. Entitled Forensic Pathology: a Guidebook for Pathologists, this slim volume was put out in July 1977. The majority of this book was written by members of the HSCA FPP. So here we have an actual transfer of money from the Justice Department--whose findings were under review---to Fisher--whose findings were under review--to members of the HSCA FPP...mere months prior to their being tasked with conducting this review. It smells to high heaven. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

This is what Kent says :

"When Boswell revealed he and Humes were actually present with the Clark Panel during their review, "And discussed the case and so forth" any residual belief that the panel was unbiased vanishes." (p. 78)

So if that is a mistake, its the author's.  But I should add, this was new to me also.

To give Kent full credit, he searched through various archives at various colleges and universities for his research on the Clark Panel. And I think he did a good job on that in proving that it was really Clark who picked those guys.  That is just one  good piece of searching he did.

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Bjørn Gjerde]

From pages 215–218 of Boswell’s ARRB testimony:

Q [Gunn]. I'd like to show you the document that ended up coming from--it's called the Clark Panel Report. I'm showing you a copy of Exhibit 59, which is the Clark report. Have you previously seen the document that's now marked Exhibit 59?
A [Boswell]. Yes.
Q. Other than writing the letter that helped prompt the creation of the Clark Panel, did you have any further role in conjunction with the panel?
A. I was there at the time they met and went over the material. I guess we had lunch together and discussed the case and so forth.
Q. Was anyone else from the autopsy present with the Clark Panel, such as Dr. Humes or--
A. Jim was there. Finck may very well have been. I'm not sure. And I sort of think Eberhart was there, but I'm not sure.
Q. Ebersole?
A. Ebersole. This was the good panel. We met with a couple of panels. This one were all people that, for some reason, Jim and I knew. Not that we had anything to do with selecting them, but these guys--well, we did know Oscar Hunter and Russ Fisher.
Q. I'd like you to turn to page 14 of Exhibit 59, the bottom paragraph, the first sentence of which reads, "One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance.
    Did you have any discussions with members of the Clark Panel about the entrance wound location for the skull wound?
A. We had a lot of discussion with them.
Q. Did you understand or did you ever come to believe that the Clark Panel located the entrance wound at a point superior to where you had identified the entrance wound in the autopsy protocol?
A. I never believed this. I think Jim at one point came to believe this, because he testified before the House commission to that effect, I think. But if you can believe that photograph that we were just looking at, this is not true, because that is way below the point they're indicating.
Q. So, in other words, when you say that this is not true, you're referring to the portion that I just read to you?
A. Right, from the Clark commission.
Q. About how much time did you spend with the Clark Panel members?
A. At least a half a day, maybe all day.
Q. What was the principal purpose that you understood they were trying to perform?
A. Just review the material that was available and see if their conclusions were different or the same or similar to ours.