WHY PAT SPEER OWES THE FAMILY OF DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND AN APOLOGY

[David Von Pein]

I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven?

The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong.

But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured.

DVP's JFK Archives / Dr. Robert N. McClelland's Ridiculous And Crazy Beliefs

Edited January 24 by David Von Pein

[Keven Hofeling]

On 1/24/2024 at 2:25 AM, David Von Pein said:

I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven?

The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong.

But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured.

 

David Von Pein wrote:

Quote

I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven?

You seem to be acknowledging Dr. McClelland's historical consistency about the location of the back-of-the-head-wound in your post dated 1/23/2024, but in your post dated 1/4/2024, in this same thread, you posted your meme of McClelland composed of screenshots from the 1988 PBS Nova television program entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy," and you wrote above it "In that PBS program, Dr. McClelland twice put his right hand over the upper-right portion of the back of his head to indicate where he said the large wound was located in President Kennedy's head..."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525024

So although you acknowledged McClelland's historical consistency with regard to the location of the large avulsive head wound yesterday, just twenty days ago you were spinning the yarn that McClelland was instead demonstrating the wound to be in the "upper-right portion of the back of his head," over his ear, where his fingers are resting in the images, when in fact, Dr. McClelland was referencing the area on the back of his head behind his ear, as we see in the following slow-motion the same footage from where your screenshots are derived:

Dr. McClelland's circular hand gesture is outlining the location of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound as he sketched it the same year (1988) in the first episode of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

Does that answer your question about what the disagreement is?

David Von Pein wrote:

Quote

The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong.

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39)

The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy."

When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows:

"...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed.
⁠
By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.
⁠
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position....
⁠
In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents.
⁠
In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had.
⁠
The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288]
⁠
Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense.
⁠
More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses.
⁠
That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289]
⁠
So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants."
⁠
 ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar:

1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD

Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding.

Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials:

Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! 

Incidentally, a dissent to the authenticity report by Robert Groden -- who was a photographic consultant to the HSCA -- was published by the HSCA:

Said report is interesting to me for three reasons: First, Groden reported that "[i]n later generations of [the autopsy] photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined" indicated alteration of the back-of-the-head photos; secondly, Groden described the soft matte edge insertion process by which he believed those photos had been altered; and third, Groden submitted an attachment to his report attesting to the importance of the witness of testimony of the medical professionals who reported the occipital-parietal wound (which is ironic, considering the HSCA's suppression of witness statements). That report, in relevant part, is as follows:

VII. REPORT ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOAN F. KENNEDY

During the public hearings in September, witnesses from the com-
mittee's scientific panels stated that in their opinion the autopsy pho-
tographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were genuine, citing such
evidence as the fact that the film used was produced in 1963.
The importance of the photographs and X-rays cannot be over-
estimated. Every scientific panel-photographic, medical, acoustics.
ballistics, N.A.A., et cetera-all depend upon the autopsy materials for
their testing and conclusions.

The basic conclusions from all except the acoustics panel is that
two shots struck the President from behind.

On the surface it would seem that the autopsy materials bear out
that conclusion. That, however, may not be the case.

There is evidence that raises grave questions about the authenticity
of the items being relied upon by the select committee and its panels.
Moreover, there is medical data in the photos and X-rays which is
apparently being ignored.

1. THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY

The fact that the HSCA panels have been unable to establish in-
authenticity of these items may not reflect their authenticity but
rather the skill with which they were forged.

In considering the matter of authenticity of some of the autopsy
photographs, my main concern is that of the large head exit wound
and its exact and general location as described by the vast majority
of trained medical personnel at Parkland Hospital and reported by
many of the Dallas witnesses. The main issue here is that such a
wound may have been photographically eradicated from the only
visual record of the President's body following the assassination via
the simple technique of photo-compositing. If done with care, this
would be undetectable.

On this point, some of the photo panel's tests would be meaning-
less. For example, one test the panel claims proves authenticity is
that the film in evidence was manufactured in 1963. It seems that if
any one were to plot the forging of these pictures that they would
not wait until the film used in the other (genuine) autopsy photo-
graphs would be out of date, and that they would certainly use the
same film that would have been originally used in the entire autopsy
series. All this test proves is that the forgeries could have been pro-
duced in late 1963 or early 1964.

For the record, my visual inspection of the autopsy photographs
and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs
Color chromes No. 42 and No. 43 showing the rear of the head and
No. 15 and No. 16 which appear to be the same shots in black and
white (made from black and white duplicate negatives of No. 42 and
No. 43).

Within the circumference of the President's head, there is an irreg-
ular line. Within this line the hair appears black and wet. On the
outside of the line it is auburn and completely dry. In later genera-
tions of these photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes
apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined. This
phenomenon is characteristic of crop lines in matte insert processes
used for retouching and recompositioning of photographs.

It is my opinion that these two photographs are forgeries, com-
posites manufactured to eliminate evidence of an exit wound in the
rear of the President's head. The onlv method I am aware of that could
have been used to create these composites is known as "soft edge matte
insertion." (See attachment 1.)

The question of the authenticity of these particular photographs is
crucial because of the large volume of evidence indicating that at least
one shot struck the President in the head from the front, causing an
exit wound at the rear of the skull. The problem is that this wound,
seen by so many in Dallas, does not appear in the autopsy photographs
and X-rays.

The most reliable descriptions were those from the Parkland doctors
on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin,
McClelland, and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and several others all de-
scribe that same wound in great detail, and all place it at the same
point in the rear of the President's head in the area of the occipital
bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protruded from a large avulsive exit
wound. This too indicates a lower rear head exit wound. A partial list
of the many eyewitnesses who describe this wound is included as
attachment 2 to this memo. It seems highly improbable that all these
witnesses were mistaken.

Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Ken-
nedy's head wound at Parkland are corroborated by those who saw the
bullet impact upon the head in Dealey Plaza.

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the President's skull
fly from the President's head and travel toward the rear-left of the
car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to pick up this piece (and indeed from
a recently declassified portion of her Warren Commission testimony
we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and tried to
hold it onto the rear of her husband's head.

The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza.
Originally, the "Harper" fragment was identified by a qualified pa-
thologist as a section of occipital bone.

In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from
the rear of the President's head.

Zapruder film frames No. 335 and No. 337 clearly show the result
of the head shot. They are the clearest two frames showing the Presi-
dent after the head explosion.

I have examined and measured the contours of the President's head
on Zapruder film frames 335 and 337. The rear of the President's
head, in these frames, shows his hair pushed upward and away from
the scalp. That indicates the bones underneath were avulsed outward.
This matches the description of the wound provided by Dr. McClel-
land who said the bones at the rear of the head were "sprung open."
(See attachment 2 for full quote and other descriptions of this wound.)

Conclusions

The Dallas observations indicating a rear exit hole cannot be easily
dismissed. These accounts were provided by trained medical personnel.
It defies belief that so many people, viewing the President from dif-
ferent angles at different times, should all describe the same wound
condition and position. My own examination of the autopsy photo-
graphs of the rear of the head shows a sharp contrast buildup along
an irregular line at the rear of President Kennedy's head. This con-
trast buildup could be the result of a photocompositing process where-
by another photograph was superimposed on the back of President
Kennedy's head, thus eliminating evidence of that exit wound. Based
upon my observation of that contrast buildup, and the Dallas medical
observations indicating there was a wound there, it is my opinion, as
a photo-consultant to the House select committee, that these photo-
graphs are forgeries....

ATTACHMENT 1: SOFT EDGE MATTE INSERTION

Given the present nature of these photographs, the only method
that I am aware of that could have been used to alter them is called
soft edge matte insertion.

The technique uses a black and white masking process and this is how
it works:

An original 4 x 5 photograph; that is, transparency would be taken
showing the rear of JFK's head with the exit wound in the center (in
this case two, No. 42 and No. 43) . Using one at a time, it is pin reg-
istered and placed in a photographic enlarger along with a pin
registered piece of 4 x 5 black and white film called a registered black
core matte. This is clear film with a black center in a specific area
over the area on the original transparency to be eliminated. The
clear fades quickly to the black, not a sharply defined edge, hence the
term "soft edge."

This "sandwich" is then projected onto another piece of 4 x 5
Ektrachrome transparency film. In this case. the result so far would
be the rear of the President's head with a large blank, black area in the
rear. This new piece of film is then put in a light tight container.

At this point, another transparency of the back of another head, this
one with an entrance bullet hole and hair that matches J.F.K.'s head
photographed to the same size, is pin registered with a clear core matte
which is a piece of black film tapering to a clear center. This is a con-
tact film print of the black core matte and fits exactly in register
with the original transparency and the black core matte.

This new "sandwich" is then projected in register onto the par-
tially exposed Ektachrome. Now the photograph is complete.

The final result is what appears to be the rear of the President's
head with a small wound of entry near the top. The same thing is
done to the other original in register and the result is a pair of virtually
undetectable forgeries of the finest possible quality. The technique
would allow the integrity of stereo views.

ATTACHMENT 2: REFERENCES TO AN OCCIPITAL HEAD WOUND OF EXIT
IN WARREN REPORT (PART OF CE 392, APPENDIX VIII, PP. 516-530)

Kemp Clark-"Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the
anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were
noted." (p. 517) "There was a large wound in the right occipito
parietal region * * * both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were ex-
truding from the wound" (p. 518).

Charles Carrico-"Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from
cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted" (p. 520).

Malcolm Perry-"A large wound of the right posterior cranium was
noted * * *" (p. 521).

Charles Baxter-"* * * the right temporal and occipital bones were
missing and the brain was lying on the table * * * (p. 523).

Kemp Clark (handwritten at 4 :15 p.m.)-"There was a large wound
beginning in the right occipital extending into the parietal region"
525).

M. T. Jenkis-"There was a great laceration on the right side of the
head (temporal and occipital) causing a great defect in the skull
plate * * * even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded
from the wound" (p. 530).

Dr. John Ebersole (taped interview with Gil Delaney, Lancaster
Intelligencer-Journal) + (a.), March 8, 1978-"knew shot came
42-370 0 - 79 - 20
from the back or side because the back of his head was blown off."
(Ebersole now says he was misquoted.)
In an interview with Art Smith, Chester, Pa ., Ebersole said
the back of the skull was intact "except for maybe three small
fragments."

Dr. Ronald Jones-"What appeared to be an exit wound in the pos-
terior portion of skull," (61156).

Dr. Perry-"A large avulsive injury of the right occipital area
(61111).

Dr. Charles Baxter-"A large gaping wound in the back of the skull
* * * literally the right side of his head was blown off" (61140-41).

Dr. McClelland-"As I took the position at the head of the table
I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head
wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull
had been blasted. It had been shattered apparently, by the force
of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through
the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior
half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its
lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned
in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull
cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the
brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar
tissue had been blasted out" (61133).

Nurse Pat Hutton-"Pressure bandage was no use * * * because of
the massive opening on the back of the head."

Dr. Gene Akins-"Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his
head was shattered, with brain substance protruding" (61165).

Dr. Clark-"* * * examined the wound in the back of the President's
head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part,
with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed"
(6H20).

Dr. Peters-"We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the
large occipital wound" (6H71).

Diana Bowron-Parkland Hospital nurse.
[Warren Commission testimony follows:]
BOWRON, DIANA - TESTIMONY before Warren Commission:
These are some of the most relevant excerpts from the
testimony of Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron who was
the first trained medical person to observe the President
upon arrival at Parkland hospital and observed the President
face down in the car. She looked directly at the wound of
exit in the rear of the President's head.
TESTIMONY OF DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON
The testimony of Diana Hamilton Bowron was taken at 2 :05 p.m ., on
March 2-1, 1001, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Spec-
ter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission,
Mr . Specter. And what, to a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs . Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of  the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss Bowron. The back of his head.
Mr. Specter: And what was that condition?
Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad you know.
Mr. Specter. How many holes slid you see?
Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole.
Mr. Specter. Did yon see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss Bowron. No, sir.
Mr. Specter. Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
Miss Bowron. No, sir.
Mr. Specter. And what action did you take at that time, if any?
Miss Bowron. I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away
and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart
and walked off with it. We ran oil with it to the trauma room and she ran
beside us.

And an excerpt from a newspaper article labled as "Bowron
exhibit No . 3. in Warren Commission volume #19.

Diana, who was trained at Hope Hospital, Salford, said:- "I realised who the
man in the car was as soon as I Saw Jackie Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was slumped
forward in his seat and so was Mr. Connally."

 

 https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_5_GrodenComments.pdf

Dr. David Mantik's spectrographic testing of the "original" autopsy photographs subsequently confirmed Groden's suspicion that the back-of-the-head photos had been altered via the soft matte edge insertion process he had described to the HSCA, as indicated by Mantik in the following video:

Thus and therefore, contrary to your conclusion that the HSCA Final Report "proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong" for "all time," it is in truth the descriptions of Dr. McClelland and some fifty other witnesses as to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head that are in fact true.

David Von Pein wrote:

Quote

But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured.

No, not just "CTers," but any reasonable jury of your peers would not just "pretend" that the Autopsy Protocol, photographs, X-rays and Zapruder film are fraudulent, but would judicially find and determine that they are fraudulent

You don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world.

 

This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms...

 

FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD:

The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony.
_____________
Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize.

Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud.

With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud.
 

@James DiEugenio made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows:
_____________
"As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer.

I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?)

This is what would occur:

1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures.

2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas.

3. The lawyer would then ask him: what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it?

4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here?

5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand.

6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack.

7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am.

8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long.

9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity.

10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject.

Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible.

Judge: Motion is sustained.

Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections.

Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

 

Edited January 25 by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Crane]

Keven,

David Von Pein could watch ex president Ford say that he moved the back wound up & still disagree with that fact.

There was no cover up in any capacity.

DVP

Edited January 25 by Michael Crane

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

So although you acknowledged McClelland's historical consistency with regard to the location of the large avulsive head wound yesterday, just twenty days ago you were spinning the yarn that McClelland was instead demonstrating the wound to be in the "upper-right portion of the back of his head," over his ear, where his fingers are resting in the images, when in fact, Dr. McClelland was referencing the area on the back of his head behind his ear, as we see in the following slow-motion the same footage from where your screenshots....[cut]....

Gee, talk about someone not getting the point. Keven Hofeling has earned that distinction with ease in this discussion.

 

Edited January 25 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

David Von Pein could watch ex president Ford say that he moved the back wound up & still disagree with that fact.

Fighting the "Ford Moved The Wound" myth is a 24-hour-a-day battle. It never wants to die the death it so obviously deserves....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

 

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Fighting the "Ford Moved The Wound" myth is a 24-hour-a-day battle. It never wants to die the death it so obviously deserves....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

 

Specter's magic act doesn't jive.First off the angle isn't right from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

 

Then we look at other facts like THE BACK WOUND DID NOT TRANSIT THE BODY.

I have never mentioned this to you David,but there are some reasons that I believe that you are still here.

You have seen so much more other evidence,that you know in your heart that there was a conspiracy and a cover-up.

You are,and this is just my opinion,you are playing the role of a defense attorney.Your sole reason for being here is to try and create doubt.

You know that your client (White House) is guilty,you are just hoping to sway that one juror for a not guilty verdict.

The finest attorneys known to man,have said to you David...if you would like to be on our team....then go out there & win the battle and create doubt like a great defense attorney does and you can join our highly respected and illustrious team.

Is this reality?no,it's far from it,but that is how I look at you.

Edited January 25 by Michael Crane

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The angle isn't right from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

You're wrong. The angle seen in CE903 works just fine --- 17.72 degrees (17d43m30s).

But we must always be aware of this fact:

Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.

If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that the conspiracy theorists of the world would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

Via the CE903 visual demonstration, if a bullet proceeding downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees (aligning perfectly with a "Z210-Z225" angle from the "Oswald window") were to exit JFK's throat at the tie knot, it would then proceed on that same angle directly into the back of Governor Connally in exactly the place where we know a bullet DID enter Connally's upper right back.

That's a pretty impressive demonstration if you ask me. I wonder what the odds are of the Warren Commission being able to re-create such a nearly perfect SBT demonstration and yet NOT have such a demonstration represent the truth of what actually happened---even though the angle from the known sniper's window was right where it should be if the shot occurred at around Z217.5 AND the re-created bullet path travelled exactly where a bullet really did strike President Kennedy and John Connally on 11/22/63?

I wouldn't want to take those odds to Vegas if I was an anti-SBT conspiracy believer.

And yet I'm supposed to believe the CTers who tell me that two (or probably THREE) different bullets lined themselves up beautifully so that Arlen Specter could later present this impressive "one bullet" exhibit to the world. Talk about incredibly good luck for Mr. Specter & Company! ....

 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

 

Edited January 25 by David Von Pein

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Fighting the "Ford Moved The Wound" myth is a 24-hour-a-day battle. It never wants to die the death it so obviously deserves....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

 

Regardless of CE 903 showing Spector's pointing to the upper back while modeling a possible trajectory for a bullet to solve the Waren Commission's 3 shot timing dilemma...

...it nevertheless remains the fact of the matter that it was the official government position both for the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and for the government today, that the magic bullet struck JFK in the back of the neck.

 

COMMISSION EXHIBIT 385 ABOVE

Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford was aware of the following trajectory problem, as is everybody else, except diehard Lone Nutters like David Von Pein...

 

So Gerald Ford kept the magic bullet theory in play with a little bit of magic from his pencil, and if nothing else, Gerald Ford's revision demonstrates his knowledge of guilt of the fact that the Warren Commission was engaged in a frame-up...

 

With evidence like JFK's jacket being available for inspection at NARA, the official government location of the neck for the magic bullet entry wound just isn't going to cut it. As Dr. David Mantik tells us:

 

But let's assume -- maybe better said, "pretend" -- that the official government version of the magic bullet theory did place the entry wound in JFK's upper back...

The back wound was too low on JFK's back for the "magic bullet theory" to work. The best evidence of that fact is JFK's Death Certificate, executed by White House Physician George Burkley (who was present in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, and at the Bethesda autopsy) on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination. The Death Certificate states:

“A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”

The Warren Commission was well aware of this, and consequently omitted the Death Certificate from the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. Can you imagine that? Including Oswald's pubic hairs in the Warren Report, but omitting the President's actual Death Certificate?

 

Secondly, autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

Among the other evidence that the back wound was "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" is the following compiled by Dr. Gary Aguilar:

 

"...The autopsy photographs and a fractured right transverse process of the first thoracic process, “T-1,” support the current, official view, that JFK was hit 3- to 4-cm to the right side of the middle of the 7th cervical vertebra. or perhaps the 1st thoracic vertebra. That would place it at the very top of the back, close to the midline. But even so simple a fact as that isn’t beyond dispute. On the night of the autopsy Boswell prepared a diagram of the backside of JFK, marking a bullet’s entrance well below either “C-7” or “T-1.” Though the Warren Commission did not print it, an identical version of Boswell’s diagram turned up which was signed as “verified” by the President’s personal physician, George Burkley,[337] who gave his own evidence for a lower wound. In the official death certificate, which Burkeley wrote on 11-23-64, the day before he saw and verified the low wound depicted on Boswell's face sheet, Burkeley wrote that, “A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”[338] A good match for Boswell’s sketch. Other credible witnesses corroborated a lower wound:

 

· Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett was riding the follow up car. He was the first to document, in contemporaneous notes, Kennedy taking the back shot. He wrote, "I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."[339] The Warren Commission accorded his observations “substantial weight,” writing, "Although [Bennett’s] formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.”[340]

 

· Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who climbed aboard the President's limousine after the shooting, described the back wound to Representative Boggs under oath, "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column."[341]

 

· John Ebersole, the morgue described the back wound in a recorded telephone conversation with David Mantik, MD, PhD in 1992, as, "to the right of T-4", the fourth thoracic vertebra - one vertebral space lower than Burkley's death certificate placed it.

 

· The FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy described the wound in a formal report dictated on 11/26/63, saying, “Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."[342] Moreover, after a 1977 interview with one of the FBI agents, Francis O’Neill, the HSCA interviewers reported, "O'Neill mentioned that he does not see how the bullets that entered below the shoulder in the back 'could have come out of the throat." In addition, O'Neill hand-sketched a 'profile' drawing of the 'back-throat' wound showing the back wound considerably lower than the throat wound.[343] The other FBI witness, James Sibert, also drew a sketch of JFK’s ‘back-throat’ wound for the HSCA in which the entrance site on the back is considerably lower than the throat wound.[344]

 

Finally, Kennedy’s throat wound was described by the Dallas doctors as a “puncture” wound, a wound that had the appearance of an entrance wound. In fact, as already discussed, the treating Dallas doctors were convinced early on that Kennedy’s throat wound had been an entrance wound. Normally, when bullets exit a body they leave skin wounds that are irregular, stellate, with slit-like margins that are generally free of abrasions.[345] Yet, before Malcolm Perry, MD had obliterated it with the tracheotomy, Kennedy’s was reportedly small, round and regular, an untypical appearance for a wound of exit...."

 

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

 

And how about what the doctors thought about the magic bullet theory?

 

Drs Shaw, Finck and Humes expressing doubts about the SBT:

Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

 

Mr. SPECTER. And could it (CE399) have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

 

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?

Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.

And if the above is not enough, we can see in this slow-motion footage of the Zapruder film that JFK is obviously reacting to being struck by reaching for his throat when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway Sign at Z-226. Governor Connally is not reacting at that point and we know he hasn't yet been hit because he is holding his white Stetson hat with his 302right hand (the same right hand connected to the wrist that would be shattered by the bullet that hit Connally), and Connally is still holding that hat when it falls out of the field of view of the film at Z-277

Governor Connally testified to the Warren Commission that upon hearing a gunshot he turned around to look toward President Kennedy, and then upon starting to turn back around leftward was hit:

GOVERNOR CONNALLY: "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye. and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I Immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you. looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back..."

In the Zapruder film we see Connally make these maneuvers, turning around to his right almost to the point of looking at Kennedy, and then beginning to turn leftward toward the front when we see him grimace and react to being shot at Z-302. AT LEAST 4 seconds had passed between the time JFK had come out from behind the sign reacting to being shot, and Governor Connally getting shot, and this timing CONCLUSIVELY eliminates the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same magic bullet.

 

Edited January 25 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Regardless of CE 903 showing Spector's pointing to the upper back while modeling a possible trajectory for a bullet to solve the Waren Commission's 3 shot timing dilemma...

...it nevertheless remains the fact of the matter that it was the official government position both for the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and for the government today, that the magic bullet struck JFK in the back of the neck.

 

COMMISSION EXHIBIT 385 ABOVE

Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford was aware of the following trajectory problem, as is everybody else, except diehard Lone Nutters like David Von Pein...

 

So Gerald Ford kept the magic bullet theory in play with a little bit of magic from his pencil, and if nothing else, Gerald Ford's revision demonstrates his knowledge of guilt of the fact that the Warren Commission was engaged in a frame-up...

 

With evidence like JFK's jacket being available for inspection at NARA, the official government location of the neck for the magic bullet entry wound just isn't going to cut it. As Dr. David Mantik tells us:

 

But let's assume -- maybe better said, "pretend" -- that the official government version of the magic bullet theory did place the entry wound in JFK's upper back...

The back wound was too low on JFK's back for the "magic bullet theory" to work. The best evidence of that fact is JFK's Death Certificate, executed by White House Physician George Burkley (who was present in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, and at the Bethesda autopsy) on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination. The Death Certificate states:

“A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”

The Warren Commission was well aware of this, and consequently omitted the Death Certificate from the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. Can you imagine that? Including Oswald's pubic hairs in the Warren Report, but omitting the President's actual Death Certificate?

 

Secondly, autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

Among the other evidence that the back wound was "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" is the following compiled by Dr. Gary Aguilar:

 

"...The autopsy photographs and a fractured right transverse process of the first thoracic process, “T-1,” support the current, official view, that JFK was hit 3- to 4-cm to the right side of the middle of the 7th cervical vertebra. or perhaps the 1st thoracic vertebra. That would place it at the very top of the back, close to the midline. But even so simple a fact as that isn’t beyond dispute. On the night of the autopsy Boswell prepared a diagram of the backside of JFK, marking a bullet’s entrance well below either “C-7” or “T-1.” Though the Warren Commission did not print it, an identical version of Boswell’s diagram turned up which was signed as “verified” by the President’s personal physician, George Burkley,[337] who gave his own evidence for a lower wound. In the official death certificate, which Burkeley wrote on 11-23-64, the day before he saw and verified the low wound depicted on Boswell's face sheet, Burkeley wrote that, “A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”[338] A good match for Boswell’s sketch. Other credible witnesses corroborated a lower wound:

 

· Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett was riding the follow up car. He was the first to document, in contemporaneous notes, Kennedy taking the back shot. He wrote, "I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."[339] The Warren Commission accorded his observations “substantial weight,” writing, "Although [Bennett’s] formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.”[340]

 

· Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who climbed aboard the President's limousine after the shooting, described the back wound to Representative Boggs under oath, "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column."[341]

 

· John Ebersole, the morgue described the back wound in a recorded telephone conversation with David Mantik, MD, PhD in 1992, as, "to the right of T-4", the fourth thoracic vertebra - one vertebral space lower than Burkley's death certificate placed it.

 

· The FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy described the wound in a formal report dictated on 11/26/63, saying, “Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."[342] Moreover, after a 1977 interview with one of the FBI agents, Francis O’Neill, the HSCA interviewers reported, "O'Neill mentioned that he does not see how the bullets that entered below the shoulder in the back 'could have come out of the throat." In addition, O'Neill hand-sketched a 'profile' drawing of the 'back-throat' wound showing the back wound considerably lower than the throat wound.[343] The other FBI witness, James Sibert, also drew a sketch of JFK’s ‘back-throat’ wound for the HSCA in which the entrance site on the back is considerably lower than the throat wound.[344]

 

Finally, Kennedy’s throat wound was described by the Dallas doctors as a “puncture” wound, a wound that had the appearance of an entrance wound. In fact, as already discussed, the treating Dallas doctors were convinced early on that Kennedy’s throat wound had been an entrance wound. Normally, when bullets exit a body they leave skin wounds that are irregular, stellate, with slit-like margins that are generally free of abrasions.[345] Yet, before Malcolm Perry, MD had obliterated it with the tracheotomy, Kennedy’s was reportedly small, round and regular, an untypical appearance for a wound of exit...."

 

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

 

And how about what the doctors thought about the magic bullet theory?

 

Drs Shaw, Finck and Humes expressing doubts about the SBT:

Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

 

Mr. SPECTER. And could it (CE399) have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

 

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?

Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.

And if the above is not enough, we can see in this slow-motion footage of the Zapruder film that JFK is obviously reacting to being struck by reaching for his throat when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway Sign at Z-226. Governor Connally is not reacting at that point and we know he hasn't yet been hit because he is holding his white Stetson hat with his 302right hand (the same right hand connected to the wrist that would be shattered by the bullet that hit Connally), and Connally is still holding that hat when it falls out of the field of view of the film at Z-277

Governor Connally testified to the Warren Commission that upon hearing a gunshot he turned around to look toward President Kennedy, and then upon starting to turn back around leftward was hit:

GOVERNOR CONNALLY: "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye. and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I Immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you. looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back..."

In the Zapruder film we see Connally make these maneuvers, turning around to his right almost to the point of looking at Kennedy, and then beginning to turn leftward toward the front when we see him grimace and react to being shot at Z-302. AT LEAST 4 seconds had passed between the time JFK had come out from behind the sign reacting to being shot, and Governor Connally getting shot, and this timing CONCLUSIVELY eliminates the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same magic bullet.

 

So, to be clear, you're claiming that the back wound photos...that show a wound incompatible with the single-bullet theory...are also fake???

The photos showing a wound in a location so problematic that Warren and his staff sought to cover it up?

That led them to have the doctors' create schematic drawings of the President's wounds?

And refuse to let the doctors compare these drawings with the photos? 

That led the Justice Department, years later, to pressure the doctors into saying, after reviewing the photos, that they confirmed the accuracy of the schematic drawings--drawings everyone now knows to be inaccurate?

Those back wound photos?

The ones so problematic that Senator Arlen Specter stopped claiming the wound was on the back, and began claiming it was on the back of the neck...after being shown photos proving it was on the back? 

That led him to put a chalk mark on the back of the stand-in at the May 24, 1964 re-enactment...that proved too low to support the single-bullet theory, and was consequently not shown the public in the only photo published demonstrating the single-bullet trajectory? 

Those photos? 

The back wound photos so problematic that Warren Commission defenders like Lattimer would come to claim the President was a hunchback? 

That the reason the President's back wound was inches above his neck wound was that his back had a giant hunch on it, whereby a bullet entering his back (at the level of his chin) could descend inches within his neck before exiting from his throat? 

That led the HSCA to hire a trajectory analyst, and give him permission to move the wounds for his trajectory?

Which allowed him to present schematics with the wound back in the location depicted in the Warren Commission's exhibits, while at the same the HSCA's medical panel was testifying that the wound was actually two inches lower? 

Those photos???

Are fake???

Huh... As an American taxpayer, and the son of taxpayers, I sure hope whoever faked those photos--photos so problematic they tarnished the reputations of President Gerald Ford, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Senator Arlen Specter--was fired...or worse...

I mean, having a corrupt government is bad enough, but a corrupt and grossly incompetent one???

Wow. 

P.S. And Connally wasn't hit till Z-302---Seconds after he'd yelled out "My God! They're going to kill us all!" Right. 

Edited January 25 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, to be clear, you're claiming that the back wound photos...that show a wound incompatible with the single-bullet theory...are also fake???

The photos showing a wound in a location so problematic that Warren and his staff sought to cover it up?

That led them to have the doctors' create schematic drawings of the President's wounds?

And refuse to let the doctors compare these drawings with the photos? 

That led the Justice Department, years later, to pressure the doctors into saying, after reviewing the photos, that they confirmed the accuracy of the schematic drawings--drawings everyone now knows to be inaccurate?

Those back wound photos?

The ones so problematic that Senator Arlen Specter stopped claiming the wound was on the back, and began claiming it was on the back of the neck...after being shown photos proving it was on the back? 

That led him to put a chalk mark on the back of the stand-in at the May 24, 1964 re-enactment...that proved too low to support the single-bullet theory, and was consequently not shown the public in the only photo published demonstrating the single-bullet trajectory? 

Those photos? 

The back wound photos so problematic that Warren Commission defenders like Lattimer would come to claim the President was a hunchback? 

That the reason the President's back wound was inches above his neck wound was that his back had a giant hunch on it, whereby a bullet entering his back (at the level of his chin) could descend inches within his neck before exiting from his throat? 

That led the HSCA to hire a trajectory analyst, and give him permission to move the wounds for his trajectory?

Which allowed him to present schematics with the wound back in the location depicted in the Warren Commission's exhibits, while at the same the HSCA's medical panel was testifying that the wound was actually two inches lower? 

Those photos???

Are fake???

Huh... As an American taxpayer, and the son of taxpayers, I sure hope whoever faked those photos--photos so problematic they tarnished the reputations of President Gerald Ford, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Senator Arlen Specter--was fired...or worse...

I mean, having a corrupt government is bad enough, but a corrupt and grossly incompetent one???

Wow. 

P.S. And Connally wasn't hit till Z-302---Seconds after he'd yelled out "My God! They're going to kill us all!" Right. 

Actually, once again, your comment is unresponsive. But since you bring up the autopsy photographs of the back wound, maybe you can explain the discrepancies Dr. Mantik has discovered in the photos of the back wound at NARA?

 

[Micah Mileto]

The autopsy photos have a comically bad chain of custody. That would be true even if the photos were genuine.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So, to be clear, you're claiming that the back wound photos...that show a wound incompatible with the single-bullet theory...are also fake???

 

Well, of course they are fraudulent. For one thing, the photos show a back-of-head without a gaping wound, which is inconsistent with what nearly every witness said. For another, they don't show a wound to the right of T-3, which the holes in JFK's jacket and shirt prove should be there.

What's you point in noting that the fraudulent photos caused the WC problems? This is just another piece of evidence to be considered.

Intelligent researchers would take these two facts ("fraudulent photos" and "WC problems") and hypothesize on how the two can be reconciled. That would be the proper analytical approach to solving something that appears irreconcilable.

 

[Pat Speer]

39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well, of course they are fraudulent. For one thing, the photos show a back-of-head without a gaping wound, which is inconsistent with what nearly every witness said. For another, they don't show a wound to the right of T-3, which the holes in JFK's jacket and shirt prove should be there.

What's you point in noting that the fraudulent photos caused the WC problems? This is just another piece of evidence to be considered.

Intelligent researchers would take these two facts ("fraudulent photos" and "WC problems") and hypothesize on how the two can be reconciled. That would be the proper analytical approach to solving something that appears irreconcilable.

 

Just as the lifting of the flap in the back of the head photos made the wound appear to be more forward than its actual location, the laying of the body on its side, and the subsequent upward lift of the the shoulder, made the wound in the back wound photo appear higher than its actual location. The doctors stood by the autopsy measurements, in which the wound was presented as equidistant between the bottom part of the head and the shoulder tip. This places it around T-1, and perhaps a little lower. This is too low to support the single-bullet theory. As far as Burkley's approximation of the wound at T-3, it was just that: an approximation. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Burkley took his own measurements. I mean, when would he have done this? At the autopsy? Then why did no one see this? The most logical assumption then is that he guessed T-3 after viewing the face sheet, which had a distorted outline of a body...that would serve to make a wound at T-1 appear to be a wound at T-3.

Edited January 26 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Just as the lifting of the flap in the back of the head photos made the wound appear to be more forward than its actual location, the laying of the body on its side, and the subsequent upward lift of the the shoulder, made the wound in the back wound photo appear higher than its actual location. The doctors stood by the autopsy measurements, in which the wound was presented as equidistant between the bottom part of the head and the shoulder tip. This places it around T-1, and perhaps a little lower. This is too low to support the single-bullet theory. As far as Burkley's approximation of the wound at T-3, it was just that: an approximation. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Burkley took his own measurements. I mean, when would he have done this? At the autopsy? Then why did no one see this? The most logical assumption then is that he guessed T-3 after viewing the face sheet, which had a distorted outline of a body...that would serve to make a wound at T-1 appear to be a wound at T-3.

Are you saying that you accept the bunched-clothing theory to explain the location of the rear clothing holes? The rear clothing holes clearly put the wound below T1.

And wouldn't it have been a rather surprising error to mistake a wound at T1 for a wound at T3, given that T1 is right at--or very slightly below--the base of the neck?

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Are you saying that you accept the bunched-clothing theory to explain the location of the rear clothing holes? The rear clothing holes clearly put the wound below T1.

And wouldn't it have been a rather surprising error to mistake a wound at T1 for a wound at T3, given that T1 is right at--or very slightly below--the base of the neck?

The bunching nonsense was invented so they could pretend the wound was where it is in the Rydberg drawings. The back wound location in the autopsy photos is not incompatible with the holes in the clothing, however. (although Cliff Varnell will claim otherwise) An entrance at T-1 as pushed by the HSCA is however lethal to the SBT, as it places the wound right over the first rib.

Now the medical panel tried to avoid this problem by asserting that Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when shot, and they assumed this must have happened when JFK was behind the sign in the Z-film.

But the photography panel and acoustics panel had separately concluded he was hit BEFORE he went behind the sign in the film.

So this put Blakey in a corner. How could he confirm the SBT when this medical panel wouldn't sign off on it at the time his other panels were claiming the shot was fired? 

He ended up handing it off to someone more controllable, Thomas Canning from NASA. Canning was given the authority to move the wounds as he saw fit, and he took advantage of this when creating his exhibits. Problem solved. But not really.

Edited January 27 by Pat Speer