James DiEugenio on America's Untold Stories

[Benjamin Cole]

 

[James DiEugenio]

This was a pretty good interview.

I did it at CAPA, this past November.

These two guys are well informed.

Some funny stories about Oliver.

[Derek Thibeault]

Love watching these guys. Looking forward to watching this. They really push out some great info about the assassination along with some other very interesting stories. Like Out of the Blank this is good watching.

[James DiEugenio]

Derek:

I thought the guest was pretty good also.

Although I am a little biased.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Hi Mr Eugenio,

 

I want to ask you about the bullet fragment part of your discussion. I have read Pat Speers explanation that this fragment is actually behind the eye socket. I am persuaded by his argument, are you?

 

[James DiEugenio]

I don't know what you mean Eddy.  Can you clarify what you are talking about?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know what you mean Eddy.  Can you clarify what you are talking about?

I think in the discussion you refer to the 6mm bullet fragment that was not identified at the autopsy. Before Pat's analysis it was thought to be at the back of the skull. Pat puts it at the front.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh you mean the 6.5 mm disk shaped fragment.

I don't agree with that.

Mantik and Aguilar have been to the Archives a total of 11 times, actually looking at the x rays.

And Mantik is a radiologist.

Edited February 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I think this issue is very important. I try not to judge analysis by the qualifications of the analyser. Why it's important: If Pat is correct, It evidences a shot from the rear, and if this is true we might be closer to a conclusion.

Why I believe Pat is right; I have read both David Mantik's analysis and Pat Speers. Pat's is very plausible, largely because his interpretation of the front and side x-rays identify a matched location for the fragment. He lays out why, at first glance, these two views don't match, but do with more careful study. I encourage anyone to read Pat's analysis and judge it in its merits.

I find Mantik's analysis simplistic and conspiracy biased in comparison. His efforts to describe the fragment as a mixture of a smaller fragment and some form of overlay are demanding of a far simpler explanation, open to anyone to provide ; the fragment varies in thickness, it's three dimensional shape is not a simple cylinder. Not everything in the evidence has to be fabricated.

Jim D states it is implausible that the middle of a bullet could appear at the back of the skull. I find it plausible that a large fragment of bullet, to one side of the large side blowout, could lodge where Pat posits it did. A large enough fragment will have the outside features of the bullets profile.