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

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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)

This again?  The top of the back is never 4 inches below the bottom of anyone’s clothing collars.

The claim otherwise is fallacious.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

Sure, as long as we have JFKA Experts like Pat Speer to micro-analyze the evidence and argue endlessly with Lone Nutters.

Acknowledging the T3 back wound is hard on the Expert Class because it renders so many discussions moot.

Edited January 27 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

This again?  The top of the back is never 4 inches below the bottom of anyone’s clothing collars.

The claim otherwise is idiotic.

Sure, as long as we have JFKA Experts like Pat Speer to micro-analyze the evidence and argue endlessly with Lone Nutters.

Acknowledging the T3 back wound is hard on the Expert Class because it renders so many discussions moot.

Well I tried to raise your objection for you so you wouldn't have to jump in, but as long as you're here...

I honestly don't remember...From where do you think Burkley got T-3? It seems obvious to me he just took a glimpse at the body or face sheet and pulled T-3 from the air. But perhaps you think otherwise. Do you? Do you think he actually bent himself over and lined up the wound with a T-square or some such thing, and then counted the bumps on the spine, or some such thing? And, if so, why?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Well I tried to raise your objection for you so you wouldn't have to jump in, but as long as you're here...

I honestly don't remember...From where do you think Burkley got T-3?

From his knowledge of human anatomy gained in medical school.

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

This again?  The top of the back is never 4 inches below the bottom of anyone’s clothing collars.

The claim otherwise is fallacious.

Sure, as long as we have JFKA Experts like Pat Speer to micro-analyze the evidence and argue endlessly with Lone Nutters.

Acknowledging the T3 back wound is hard on the Expert Class because it renders so many discussions moot.

Since you don't take PM's, thanks here.

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

From his knowledge of human anatomy gained in medical school.

Well, there you go. Burkley was 61 years old at the time of the assassination. His specialty as a doctor was cardiology. It had been 35 years or so since he'd last studied anatomy, and for all we know it could have been his worst subject. 

Edited January 27 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/27/2024 at 3:01 AM, Pat Speer said:

...for all we know [anatomy] could have been [Burkley's] worst subject.

 

And for all you know, the WC coverup could have included forged photos. But for some reason you just won't accept that.

 

[David Von Pein]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And for all you know, the WC coverup could have included forged photos.

And then, 14 years later, the HSCA decided to continue the "cover-up" by having a Photographic Evidence Panel consisting of---what was it, 19 total members I think it was?---pretend that the autopsy pictures and X-rays (plus the Oswald backyard photos) were genuine and not "forged"?

Can you really believe in such generation-to-generation "cover-up" nonsense, Sandy?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And then, 14 years later, the HSCA decided to continue the "cover-up" by having a Photographic Evidence Panel consisting of---what was it, 19 total members I think it was?---pretend that the autopsy pictures and X-rays (plus the Oswald backyard photos) were genuine and not "forged"?

Can you really believe in such generation-to-generation "cover-up" nonsense, Sandy?

 

    WC = Coverup 1 + SBT Lie

HSCA = Coverup 2 + Make SBT Lie More Viable + Sure Up Other Lies

 

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And then, 14 years later, the HSCA decided to continue the "cover-up" by having a Photographic Evidence Panel consisting of---what was it, 19 total members I think it was?---pretend that the autopsy pictures and X-rays (plus the Oswald backyard photos) were genuine and not "forged"?

Can you really believe in such generation-to-generation "cover-up" nonsense, Sandy?

 

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the HSCA authentication is fraudulent Mr. Von Pein?

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.

Furthermore, 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 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And for all you know, the WC coverup could have included forged photos. But for some reason you just won't accept that.

 

It's not for "some reason", Sandy, it's for a large number of reasons, that I've explained in detail on this forum and on my website. 

While most anything could be true, the odds of any one thing being true are not the same as any other thing being true. 

P.S. I will agree with you and Keven in that we can't simply rely on the HSCA's panels. A lot of what their panels came up with was nonsense. 

Witness the bullet lead analysis supposedly supporting the single-bullet theory...the results may have been accurate, but the conclusions drawn from those results were nonsense. 

Witness the trajectory analysis performed by a NASA "expert", which supposedly demonstrated that the single-bullet theory made perfect sense...absolute nonsense

Witness the dictabelt analysis... Not necessarily nonsense, but certainly incorrect, IMO, since McLain was not riding across the plaza when the analysis held him to be. (To be clear, if someone were to find a way to reconcile the acoustics analysis with the open mike's being in a car and not on Mclain's bike, well, that might sway my opinion...)

And, finally, witness the HSCA's pathology panel, which claimed the entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was in the cowlick, despite no one's seeing it there, and the autopsy doctors' specifying that there was no wound in that location. 

Edited January 29 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While most anything could be true, the odds of any one thing being true are not the same as any other thing being true.

 

Oh absolutely, I agree. Let's calculate the odds of so many Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong gaping wound location... the back instead of the top or side.

Of the 18 Parkland doctors and nurses who said they saw the gaping wound, 17 placed it on the back of the head. None placed it on the top, and only one placed it on the right side.

According to you, 17 of those 18 medical professionals got it wrong. I will use the binomial distribution formula (BDF) to calculate the odds of that happening.

If we conservatively assume that each professional is (only) twice as likely as a random coin toss to get it right, the probability of getting it right is 3 in 4 and the probability of getting it wrong is 1 in 4.

p = 1/4 = 0.25

trials = 18

events = 17

Using this online BDF calculator, I calculate the odds to be 1 in 1,272,588,445.

Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong location is less than 1 in a billion.

In other words, it's virtually impossible for so many to get it wrong.

I'm sorry Pat, but what you believe about the location of the gaping wound is scientifically impossible.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong location is less than 1 in a billion.

 

Suppose that I and other alterationists are right (which, of course, we are). I thought it would be interesting to calculate the odds of the 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses being correct in their placement of the gaping wound on the back of the head. In this case our variables are:

p = 1/4 = 0.75

trials = 18

events = 17

Using the online BDF calculator, I calculate the odds to be 1 in 2.96.

Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the correct location is close to 1 in 3.

In other words, it's fairly close to even odds for 17 out or 18 to get it right. Which is to be expected

So, while what Pat thinks is scientifically impossible, what we think is entirely possible and close to expected.

 

[Pat Speer]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh absolutely, I agree. Let's calculate the odds of so many Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong gaping wound location... the back instead of the top or side.

Of the 18 Parkland doctors and nurses who said they saw the gaping wound, 17 placed it on the back of the head. None placed it on the top, and only one placed it on the right side.

According to you, 17 of those 18 medical professionals got it wrong. I will use the binomial distribution formula (BDF) to calculate the odds of that happening.

If we conservatively assume that each professional is (only) twice as likely as a random coin toss to get it right, the probability of getting it right is 3 in 4 and the probability of getting it wrong is 1 in 4.

p = 1/4 = 0.25

trials = 18

events = 17

Using this online BDF calculator, I calculate the odds to be 1 in 1,272,588,445.

Therefore, the odds of 17 out of 18 Parkland doctors and nurses picking the wrong location is less than 1 in a billion.

In other words, it's virtually impossible for so many to get it wrong.

I'm sorry Pat, but what you believe about the location of the gaping wound is scientifically impossible.

 

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. 

Some inconvenient truths... 

1. There were other witnesses with different impressions that you have left out of your analysis.

2. The Parkland witnesses themselves were not even close to unanimous in their impressions.

3. The recollections of the Parkland witnesses were not independent impressions, as nearly all of these impressions were recorded after the recollections of other witnesses had become known to them.

4. In fact, a number of the key witnesses said they'd been incorrect, once made aware of what others had said.

5. Many of these recollections were recorded after the impressions of others had been published, and had received a positive response by those interviewing the witnesses. 

6. The autopsy photographs, when compared to one another, reveal that the top of the head area on the photos which many witnesses believed to be inconsistent with their recollections...was a bone flap being held up by one of the doctors, and that the large defect when viewed without this flap's being held up would have extended a few inches further to the rear. 

7. As none of the Parkland witnesses were told this, their rejection of the photos is not even clear. It's perfectly reasonable, in fact, to assume that a large percentage of the Parkland witnesses would have said the photos were consistent with their recollections if they'd been told the top of the head in the photos was a flap that was opened up when they viewed the wound. 

8. Even if the witnesses were consistent, your claiming that the odds of them being uniformly wrong is some gigantic number is flawed thinking at it s worst. It would be like saying twelve jurors can't possibly be wrong, when we know they are wrong all the time. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There were other witnesses with different impressions that you have left out of your analysis.

 

I did the very same analysis one would do when calculating the odds of a coin flip landing on heads or tails 17 out of18 times. THERE IS NO NEED TO DO THIS ON EVERY COIN IN THE WORLD to get a valid calculation.

Same thing is true with the witnesses. There is no need to include every witness to get a valid calculation.

 

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The Parkland witnesses themselves were not even close to unanimous in their impressions.

 

Wrong! Seventeen specifically said on the BACK of the head.

 

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The recollections of the Parkland witnesses were not independent impressions, as nearly all of these impressions were recorded after the recollections of other witnesses had become known to them.

 

Okay. Do you want me do the calculation for a different group of witnesses? How about the Dealey Plaza witnesses? Or the Bethesda witnesses?

Oh I know... How about I do the calculation for ALL the witnesses?

No matter what, you're going to lose. (As long as you're not allowed to cherry-pick the way you like to do.)

 

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4. In fact, a number of the key witnesses said they'd been incorrect, once made aware of what others had said.

 

Yeah, once made aware of their account being inconsistent with the official story. That's the reason you like to use the changed testimonies of those witnesses.

But okay, no problem. I'll do the calculation using the statements of ALL the witnesses... including those who changed their minds! I'll even let you misinterpret McClelland's testimony the way you like to do.

You'll still lose.

There are just far too many back-of-head witnesses for you to win.