The Mystery of Kennedy's Brain Deepens

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Focusing on Stringer's latter-day recollections of the film used at the supplemental exam does little to prove conspiracy....

 

Pat,

If you spent more time looking for the truth and less time looking for evidence of a conspiracy, the quality of your findings would be much greater.

IMHO

 

[Tom Gram]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Tom. I have been reluctant to read research papers these days but this one proved no problem. In any event, this almost entirely supported my arguments. Kennedy's large head wound was described as an absence of scalp and bone. This article describes and depicts soft tissue wounds in which the skin split at exit, where the exit wounds (the wounds apparent when the skin flaps were opened) were of varying size, depending on the position of the temporary cavity within the subject. 

Note conclusion number 3. 

 

I do see your point, but I think that’s just a reference to the mechanism of wound enlargement. The photos show what appears to be a significant amount of missing skin on the exit that occurred within the temp cavity, while the front and behind cavity exits show tearing but no missing skin at all. 

The authors do mention that according to forensic pathology textbooks, most exit wounds are characterized by a lack of missing skin. However, there is no discussion in the study of whether or not the enlarged wounds from temp cavity exits are any different - and the 16cm test block sure looks to be missing a sizable chunk of skin. I’m curious if that photo is not missing any actual tissue but only appears to be due to extreme overstretching from cavity expansion. Is there any reliable way to tell the difference at autopsy? I have no idea. 

Also, according to the authors, none of the test shots fragmented. In a situation where there were multiple exits due to bullet and/or bone fragments, it seems plausible that temp cavity induced stretching along multiple exit paths could create discontinuities and tear away pieces of skin. Fackler describes this same fragment path/temp cavity dynamic as a source of massive tissue damage. He was mostly talking about internal damage, if I recall, but the same concept should be applicable to surface wounding if the point of maximum cavity expansion is coincident with the plane of exit. I’m pretty sure the Fackler quote I’m thinking of is on your website. 

I agree that the scenario I’m describing is highly unlikely, in general. However, the study I linked provides the most plausible explanation for the high fragment trail - EOP entrance/explosive exit theory that I’ve seen, by a wide margin. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than Sturdivan’s bogus blood leaking theory, and I do not recall if you ever found the same type of scattered fragment pattern in any tangential wound victims. 

Basically, I’m curious if there exists a perfect combination of variables that can reconcile the WC head shot scenario with the extant medical evidence. You’ve shown conclusively that JFK’s head wounds are not in any way typical of FMJ rifle shots to the head, including shots from the same rifle and ammo, but there’s a big difference between improbable and flat out impossible. Proponents of the official story, will seize on any inaccuracy to promote their views; so it doesn’t hurt to explore atypical wounding scenarios etc. and study the limit of what’s actually possible, IMO. 

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Basically, I’m curious if there exists a perfect combination of variables that can reconcile the WC head shot scenario with the extant medical evidence. You’ve shown conclusively that JFK’s head wounds are not in any way typical of FMJ rifle shots to the head, including shots from the same rifle and ammo, but there’s a big difference between improbable and flat out impossible.

It's that improbable part that is the key.  It's interesting when you start to think about it this way.

Lone assassin theorists look at each event that would occur in isolation then claim that the event discussed - no matter how improbable is possible without looking at the probability of the event.

If you start with the single assassin assumption and then put together the string of probabilities - some estimated experimentally & some estimated subjectively if experimental evidence isn't available - you get an estimate of the probability of a lone gunman.

The probabilities for each event that has to occur for the lone gunman hypothesis not to be rejected are multiplied together if they are independent events to get the final probability estimate.

To test the hypothesis of a lone assassin you would set it up as a test of the null hypothesis that a lone assassin murdered JFK against the alternative hypothesis that 2 or more were involved.  The probability estimate is then used to see if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypo.

So starting with the head wound under discussion - assuming atypical as a 1 in 10 chance - the probability of a lone gunman in 0.1.

100 MC rounds were fired into goat carcasses & cadaver wrist bones all were more significantly deformed than the magic bullet.  So, 1 in 100 would be a conservative probability estimate for this event.

p(lone gunman) = 0.1 * 0.01 = 0.001

Add in a subjective probability for gunman going down steps in TSBD w/o detection on stairs by other employees of 0.5 -- 50 50 chance.

p(lone gunman) = 0.001 * 0.5 = 0.0005

Add in the probability of the shooter getting off the 3 shots in the allotted time and hitting the target from the CBS recreation of 2 out of 13.

p(lone gunman) = 0.0005 * 2 / 13 = 0.0000769  or about 1 in 13,000.

etc...

Which would lead to a rejection of the null hypothesis of a lone gunman for most.

There is, of course, some evidence that by itself would disprove the lone gunman hypothesis if accepted.

If one is discussing this with a LN supporter, it would be interesting to get their subjective probabilities for a list of independent events that would have to happen for the hypothesis test and compute the probability which can also be thought of as an estimate for their belief in the LN theory.

Apologies for the aside.

 

[Pat Speer]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

If you spent more time looking for the truth and less time looking for evidence of a conspiracy, the quality of your findings would be much greater.

IMHO

 

LOL. I was speaking on the actions of others, not myself. The Oswald-did-it all by hisself solution to the Kennedy assassination didn't pass many a person's smell test. So they went looking for proof of conspiracy. Aha! Some witnesses rant to the knoll! Aha! Some people saw smoke on the knoll! Aha! Some of the Parkland witnesses thought the large head wound was on the back of the head! 

This then led to an ongoing effort to prove a shot came from the knoll. I saw both the problems with the evidence and the problems with this approach (which had led to all too-many CTs denouncing the witnesses upon whom their claims had been built). I spent years full-time reading and studying the statements and testimony regarding the shooting scenario and medical evidence related to the JFK assassination, as others had done, but added into this mix dozens of forensics books and hundreds of forensics articles. And I came away with a number of realizations--many if not most unexpected and previously unexplored. 

The witness statements regarding the shooting strongly suggest...

1. The last two shots were fired closely together around the time of the head shot. (This is something many, including members of the Warren Commission, had noticed.)

2. The first shot hit Kennedy. While this was the scenario pushed in the aftermath of the shooting, it had fallen out of favor over the years with both LNs and CTs. LNs wanted the first shot to miss so they could pretend a single-assassin had more time to fire his shots, while CTs wanted the first shot to miss so they could claim there were more shots than could be fired by a single-assassin, seeing as there were two shots fired around the time of the head shot, and separate shots hit Kennedy and Connally. (This conclusion was largely expected, as I'd read articles by Barb Junk and Doug DeSalles showing this to be likely.) 

3. The last shot missed. By following Tink Thompson's lead and sorting the witness statements by their location at the time of the shooting, it became clear that a large proportion of the closest witnesses to JFK at the time of the head shot, heard a shot after the fatal shot. (This conclusion was not widely held at the time and was totally unexpected.)

 

As far as the medical evidence, my study of statements and textbooks led me to conclude...

1. The single-bullet theory is highly unlikely. (This conclusion had been reached by many others, but I thought I would find more wiggle room where it was slightly possible. Going in I thought it was let's say 10% possible, but coming out I concluded it was less than 1% possible, which is to say highly unlikely.)

2. A bullet entered the back of JFK's head by his EOP, as claimed in the autopsy protocol. (While this conclusion was not unexpected on my part, it was a minority opinion at the time. LNs clung to the cowlick entrance because they wanted to be in alignment with the HSCA FPP, being so official and all, and CTs gravitated to it because it felt right to side with a civilian panel and dump on the military doctors who'd performed the autopsy. Since that time, 20 years now, the work of myself and a number of others, including the LN John Canal, has led to a reversal of attitude on this subject, whereby most  with an interest in the case, LN and CT alike, have come to believe the autopsy doctors were right and the Clark Panel wrong, regarding the location of this wound.)

3. The large exit was at the top of JFK's head, above his right ear. (I went into my study with an open-mind on this issue, but came away quite convinced of the authenticity of the x-rays and photos. Strangely, my concluding as much has led to some claiming I refused to follow the evidence by following the evidence. This has been discussed on many threads and has become quite boring, IMO. In any event, I came away convinced the photos are legit.) 

4. I concluded, furthermore, that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This conclusion, in turn, supported my conclusion re the authenticity of the photos, x-rays and Z-film. They depict, after all, a separate impact from the impact at the EOP, and suggest more than one shooter. So why would a government intent on convincing the public there was but one shooter, fake evidence that demonstrates the opposite? (This conclusion was totally unexpected. After coming to this conclusion, I expected a large backlash, but instead found wide acceptance among well-known writers on the subject.  I suppose this was because it didn't negate what they had already come to believe. They simply ignored the evidence leading me to suspect the bullet came from behind and incorporated the tangential nature of the wound into their own theories of a bullet fired from the knoll. I'm actually fine with this. I believe the realization the evidence accepted by the mainstream is actually clear-cut evidence--forensic proof--for a second head shot and will someday lead some mainstream doctor to write an article on it that will get covered in the press and maybe on TV and maybe even lead to a realignment in the mainstream media, whereby it is acknowledged that the medical evidence was misinterpreted, and that it's possible if not likely there was a second shooter.)

 

In any event, I continued researching the case against Oswald and so on, but the bulk of my research came in a 5-6 year period and led me to a number of unexpected conclusions. So, no, I didn't go looking for proof of conspiracy. I started out by double-checking most of what I'd read, and discovered that much of it--material written by both CTs and LNs--was weak sauce, wishful thinking, and total bs. I then put it back together using textbooks as a guide.

This trip dow the rabbit hole led me to conclude there was more than one shooter, and that Oswald was not one of them. 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Jonathan Cohen]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

If you spent more time looking for the truth and less time looking for evidence of a conspiracy, the quality of your findings would be much greater.

IMHO

 

Isn't it a bit rich for you to be telling anybody here how they should be researching this case?

[Leslie Sharp]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:21 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Milicent Cranor chimes in on Facebook:

Hey Jimmy! Interesting article. But I was surprised to read you had not known of the Mastrovito interview, since I'd written about it for you in PROBE. It was in, "On the Rim of the Black Hole" under the subhed "A Bit of Brain Down the Drain." And, since you're intereted in this issue, here's more on what Vrtacmik saw (from my story, "Traces of Witness Tampering"):

Kenneth Vrtacnik, a medical photographer at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told Douglas Home... Highlights of the 11/12/96 interview:

Number of Bullet Paths? Unsure

He described it as “one long section, tan in color” with “wooden pegs (or arrows) showing bullet trajectories running through it. Asked if there was one peg, or more than one peg, he said he was unsure, but later in the interview again used the word “pegs.”

Size? Unsure

Asked what percentage of the brain it was, he said he could not be sure and declined to give an estimation. He would not even say whether it was less than one-half, or more than one-half, said he “could not be sure.”

r it was perforated by one peg or two would have been obvious to a child. How could he have been unsure about this? I doubt if a failing memory explains it. He had a keen interest in the assassination. He went to the trouble to get a look at this forbidden item. How could he forget what he saw, especially if it so dramatically contradicted the government?

In this case, what seems superimposed is not an image, but amnesia, a blank with a distinct outline that has become very familiar to those of us who research this crime. But it may be that Kenneth Vrtacnik was so meticulous he would rather say nothing than be wrong in the slightest way.

I didn't understand that last paragraph of Cranor's -- what did she mean about "superimposed?"  So I looked up the article it came from and found the answer.  The first paragraph explains it:

 

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm

 

In a composite photograph, you can see the hard edge of the matte line around the superimposed image. There may be nothing wrong with the component parts of the picture, but you still know it is a composite because of that hard edge. The same is true of a verbal picture. Much of the original testimony in the case of John Kennedy’s assassination - when viewed as a whole - creates a verbal picture suggesting conspiracy. But when new testimony was obtained from the same witnesses, many revised their stories, and the picture that evolved, taken at face value, is less suggestive of conspiracy. The interesting thing is, many revised only parts of their stories - but in each case, it was the same part revised the same way. This unnatural sameness has created a hard edge, what I think of as the matte line of a lie.

[Michael Crane]

On 8/26/2023 at 8:33 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Did Boswell remove JFK's brain from his skull? 

Or did Humes? 

Did Humes or Boswell cut JFK's brain stem?

If Boswell handed JFK's brain to Jenkins, that suggests Jenkins was not far away from Boswell and or Humes during the brain removal...correct?

Did Jenkins describe anything specific regards the removal that was different than a normal saw cutting and pulling down, then eye nerve and muscle cutting procedure that Corpsman Paul O'Conner described in his "Trial Of Lee Oswald" testimony?

From the X-rays of the top of JFK's skull it was hugely shattered into many separated pieces. Cutting through that with a power saw seems like it would have been a bloody mess.

The actual removal of JFK's brain is a poorly described action in Humes's transcribed testimony imo. 

Like his answers as to why the brain wasn't weighed. 

Humes described most of his recollections of his autopsy actions in great and well recalled detail. The few that were vague seemed oddly selective.

In slow motion viewing of the Z film, it was always clear to me that you can actually see a large part of JFK's skull top being unnaturally uplifted upon the bullet strike.

I believe it is a visual of the massive shattering of the upper skull in live time.

We also see a large bone flap separate outward above JFK's right ear where you can actually see a glistening wet tissue exposure underneath accompanied by a bright red/pink 5 to 6 foot high and broad tissue and fluid spray cloud that was so condensed it wafted back hitting the Dallas motorcycle officers full on with enough force they could feel it doing so.

Is all that combined explosive damage to JFK's skull and brain somewhat typical to other human or animal headshots from a high powered rifle?

The testimony that JFK's brain was not significantly damaged through all the massive and explosive skull damage you can so clearly see in the Z-film just doesn't seem possible imo.

 

 

 

Joe,

Knowing you...you have already watched this.Jenkins on camera is the stuff I like.He was the only person that was in the autopy room from the very start to the very finish.He did not ever have to leave.Not even when they took X-rays.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Mike Aitken]

“Incredibly, Mastrovito said he eliminated the content of the vial in a machine that destroys food.”

So after receiving a piece of President Kennedy’s brain he thought it was a good idea to toss it in a garbage disposal 🤔

[James DiEugenio]

Incredible is it not Mike.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Only in the JFK case.

Edited August 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Incredible is it not Mike.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Only in the JFK case.

Eh. Is Jenkins not a bit of a clown, if only by design?

[Joe Bauer]

6 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Joe,

Knowing you...you have already watched this.Jenkins on camera is the stuff I like.He was the only person that was in the autopy room from the very start to the very finish.He did not ever have to leave.Not even when they took X-rays.

 

40 minutes into the top video I have to take a break.

Jenkins quotes Humes as saying "The damn thing just fell into my hands." Referring to Humes pulling JFK's brain out of his skull.

Jenkins mentioned the brain stem showing uneven cut marks on one side versus the other which seemed untypical in his experience.

How did Humes get to the unopened skull front area to cut JFK's optic nerves to the eyes which had to be done to free the brain from them?

Jenkins said there was no cranium skull sawing at all.

Jenkins explanation as to how they got the brain out without sawing and even peeling back the dura matter was confoundingly vague.

Jenkins said the brain handed to him was smaller than a typical man's brain in his opinion. More typical of woman's smaller brain.

It was frustrating to listen to Jenkins halting answers. 

When Jenkins was asked about the damage he saw to the brain handed to him, he again was halting and more nonspecific than specific.

I wanted to shout to him...look, how much of the brain was flat out missing and in what area?

He said parts of the brain seemed gelatinous which he explained was sometimes caused by trauma to that area.

So far, the information Jenkins is sharing in this interview is astounding in it's contrariness to Humes vague recollections and much more detailed.

Jenkins mentioned Paul O'Conner's presence right there next to him most of the time during the autopsy with his occasional absence to retrieve various items needed for autopsy doings. Verifying O'Conner's claims that he was.

I haven't yet heard Jenkins account of the shipping container he and O'Conner lifted JFK's body out of to place his wrapped body onto any exam gurney or table.

Was his description of this different than Humes description of taking JFK's body right out of the huge weight ornate one from the Dallas funeral home.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Now it is always nice to get at the truth by using a bit of stagecraft.

This was the farce of a mock trial held in London back in the eighties and which Bugliosi used to write his  book Reclaiming History.  One of the witnesses was Dr. Charles Petty the pathologist from Dallas.

Jerry Spence: Is it important to inspect the brain if the cause of death was a bullet in the head?

Charles Petty: It would be nice if the brain were available.

Spence: Is it not essential to see the brain?

Petty: Its not essential, we have the photos and xrays.

At this moment, by a pre arrangement with the court, Spence walks off and MARK LANE take his place.  Cheers and yelps of joy are heard on the set.

Lane: I was designated by Mr. Spence to do a special inquiry into this aspect and I have brought with me a certified transcript to submit as evidence in this case.  With the judge's permission I wish to present it to the court and the jury.

Judge: Permission granted. 

Go to part 2

[James DiEugenio]

Part 2:  Revised London trial.

Lane:  Dr Petty do you know a man named John Stringer?

Petty: I think he was the official autopsy photographer in the JFK case.

Lane: Yes he was.  I did a deposition with him at NARA and showed him his alleged photos.  I asked him what kind of film the photos were based on.  As I hand you this court certified deposition, please turn to page six as I have underlined his reply. Please read it to the jury.

Petty: This is Ansco film.

Lane:  Now read the next question.

Petty: Did you use Ansco?

Lane: And what is the reply?

Petty: No, I used Kodak.

Lane:  Now, Dr. Petty you know what a press pack technique is, correct?

Petty: Yes its when you take a series of photos in one camera.  And the pictures come out with numbers on them.

Lane:  Please go to page nine in the transcript and read the question i asked him about this.

Bugliosi: Your honor this is highly irregular.

Judge: You agreed to his counselor.  Objection overruled. Hm.  I have to say, its getting interesting.

Petty: The question is : Did you use the press pack technique?

Lane:  And what did he reply, please read the whole response.

Petty: The witness got up and walked over to the photos, he started to look at the number in the corner.  He said, "See these numbers, this is a press pack. That is why the numbers are there. I did not use press pack.  I used duplex holders"

Lane:  Now you know the difference between the two methods do you not?

Petty: Yes I do.

Lane: Could an experienced autopsy photographer really confuse one with the other?

Petty: I don't think so.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Part 3: Revised London Trial

Lane: Now Dr.  Petty, you have testified in many trials.  Is not a rule of law that the person taking the photo or illustration must certify that he took it under oath?

Petty:  Yes that is correct.

Lane: So these autopsy photos would not be admissible then?

Petty: No they would not be.

Lane: Now, I would like to show the court some films and photos taken in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination.  This is a montage taken for a certain purpose.

Bugliosi: Your honor, please.

Lane: I am laying a foundation for my next questions of his witness your honor. Its an offer of proof.

Judge: Overruled. 

Lane shows the video in the courtroom.  

Lane: Now that was a film composed of the Zapruder film with a freeze frame at Z 313 showing the head explosion. You all saw the blood and tissue flying into the air. I followed that with pictures of the back seat of the limousine caked in blood and tissue, the Secret Service actually tried to wipe this off. I then showed photos of Jackie Kennedy's dress, a very memorable sight. The next to last person in the montage was Dr Jenkins at Parkland Hospital, he said that the widow handed him a piece of Kennedy's brain. The very last witnesses were the two cyclists to Kennedy's left; they said they were pelted so hard with brain tissue and bone that they thought they were being shot at.

Lane:  Dr Petty, should not a pathologist always weigh the brain during autopsy?

Petty: Yes.

Lane: That was not done in this case was it?

Petty: No it was not.

Lane: In fact at some time before December 6 th, Dr. Humes recorded the weight of the brain.  But before we get to that, let me ask the witness this: What is the weight on average of someone's brain?

Petty: About 1350 grams. 

Lane:  That is correct according to an extensive Dutch study of over 8000 specimens.  Now I am going to flash on the screen a blown up part of the supplementary autopsy report which records the brain weight by Dr. Humes.  I would like the witness to read off the figure.

Petty: It says 1500 grams.

Lane:  Now Dr Petty, how in God's name can Kennedy's brain weigh 150 grams above the average after all that evidence I presented showing it exploding into the air, splattered in the back seat, covering his wife's dress, and smashing with great force onto bystanders.

Petty does not answer.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Part 4: Revised London Trial

Lane:  Your honor, with the pictures brought into question and the brain weight now in dispute, I would like to show another video.  

Bugliosi: (Pleading in his voice) Your honor please!

Lane: Your honor this will all be very relevant to the question I am  posing, its a film of primary witnesses who all saw Kennedy's brain the day he was killed.

Judge: I think that is relevant.

Lane shows the montage video of witnesses.

Lane:  Now your honor, I have a matching transcript which I will submit.  But I would note that there are as many witnesses from Parkland as from Bethesda who all say that there was a substantial part of Kennedy's brain missing that day. I mean, this includes FBI agents at the autopsy, Dr, Carrico from Parkland, mortician Tom Robinson.  Twelve witnesses total.  Can they all be wrong about what they saw?  Their testimony matches the previous montage I showed you about Kennedy's head exploding in Dealey Plaza. In fact, your illustration for the HSCA shows a pretty much intact brain Dr, petty does it not?

Petty: Yes I would say so.