Doug Horne Responds to Gary Aguilar's Recent Review of "What the Doctors saw"

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Conspiracy Myths Continue

----------------------

PATRICE MITSOS SAID:

No, David. You're the one who's wrong. You don't face facts. And, you dismiss the 80% of Americans who stongly believe that there was a conspiracy, and that the deadly bullet was shot from the front. And I know that these would be two separate polls, as it's two different issues...where did the kill shot come from?, and do you believe the WC?

And about 80% of Americans believe that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll, and about the same percentage KNOW...IN THEIR HEARTS AND/OR THROUGH THEIR RESEARCH that the WR is nothing but GARBAGE. You lack a BIG DOSE of common sense. You think one damn bullet is going to do ALL THE DAMAGE that little Spector [sic] said it did?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Patrice,

And just how many of that "80% of Americans" do you really think know a great deal about the facts and circumstances surrounding JFK's death? (Answer--a very small percentage of that 80%.)

And btw, the latest poll, as discussed earlier at this Facebook group, shows a drop in the number of people who believe in a conspiracy. It's down to 59% now (per the AP poll). That's still a high percentage, yes, but the conspiracy theorists like to exaggerate the poll numbers in their favor. I see that happen all the time at various forums, with some conspiracist claiming that "90 percent of Americans think the Warren Commission was full of [feces]" (paraphrased).

But, again, most of those people being polled probably wouldn't know who J.D. Tippit, Buell Wesley Frazier, and Earle Cabell were if their lives depended on it. Point being: the vast majority of Americans who participate in news polls are, for the most part, ignorant of the intricate facts about the JFK case. So what does their opinion really mean? I think it means they've watched a few conspiracy-oriented documentaries or movies (particularly Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy flick, "JFK"), and they've based their opinion on those few things they've seen or heard about the case.

And we all know that Oliver Stone wouldn't present the true facts about JFK's assassination on the big screen if he had a gun pointed at his head. The people who went to see his movie came out of the theater not even knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky paper package into the Book Depository just hours before JFK was murdered. That tells you how anxious Oliver is to tell the whole truth.

David Von Pein
June 2013

 

Edited January 8 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

Dr. Gary Aguilar's review of Paramount+'s documentary "What the Doctor's Saw" notes that the filmmakers missed an important opportunity by failing to explore the fraudulent treatment by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of the overwhelming witness evidence that President Kennedy had a large avulsive wound in the back of his head. The HSCA final report had concluded that the testimony of the Bethesda autopsy participants and witnesses the Bethesda autopsy had indicated that all of the Parkland witnesses that had reported the back of the head wounds had been mistaken, but in fact "[t]he autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram," and as elsewhere reported by Dr. Aguilar, the HSCA had denied its Forensic Pathology Panel access to this crucial evidence and classified it "top secret" for 50 years. It was only upon the release of these classified files by the Assassination Records Release Board in the 1990's that this fraud was exposed, and then at a 1995 JFK conference attended by former HSCA counsel Andy Purdy and former Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht where HSCA officials were confronted about the fraud, it turned out that none of the HSCA officials would take responsibility for the misrepresentations made in the HSCA final report, and denied having knowledge of who had authored them.

The following is the excerpt from Aguilar's recently published article that appeared in Kennedy's & King:

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

"...In neglecting the autopsy witnesses, the program missed a great opportunity – a long known, underreported HSCA scandal that the producer, Jacque Lueth, knew all about from repeated, personal conversations with me over the past several years. (Ms. Lueth told me she wanted to present this material on film but was blocked by others involved in the documentary.) Only when the ARRB released the accounts of the autopsy witnesses in the late 90s did we discover that the Select Committee had misled the public about what they had said in the 1970s. It had everything to do with the heart of Paramount’s documentary: JFK: What the Doctors Saw.

Confronting the conflict between autopsy photos that show no damage to the rear of JFK’s skull and the Parkland doctors who said damage was in the rear, the HSCA reported it had resolved the problem. “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors,” they wrote. “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 wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts … Further, if the Parkland doctors are correct, then the autopsy personnel are either lying or mistaken. It did not seem plausible to the Committee that 26 persons would by lying or, if they were, that they could provide such a consistent account of the wounds almost 15 years later. Second, it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and thorough examination of the body…it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.” (7HSCA37-9. Emphasis added.[12])

This was clearly false. The autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram. The HSCA, however, reported that the autopsy witnesses had refuted the Dallas witnesses whom, in fact, they had actually corroborated. There is an additional aspect of this that might have also been worth a few moments of film.

At the one hour, 18-minute mark, the program showed a clip of the HSCA’s Andy Purdy declaring that the ‘Dallas doctors are wrong; these recollections afterward are faulty.’ As noted above, it was Purdy who was wrong, as the doctors’ ‘recollections afterward’ closely aligned with what Parkland’s experts documented on the day of the murder as per the Warren Report. They also snugly fit with the suppressed claims of the autopsy witnesses whom Purdy had himself interviewed, and whose diagrams he had signed (See Figs. 1 & 2). Though arguing that the public has been misled, Paramount Plus missed a perfect opportunity to both expose the government’s false claim, while debunking one of the government officials whom they had on film pushing that claim, Andy Purdy...."

___________________

[12] 7HSCA37-39 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

___________________

EXCERPT REGARDING HSCA BACK OF HEAD WOUND WITNESSES

In formerly suppressed witness interviews that were not available to David Lifton when he wrote Best Evidence, but were to Doug Horne, the HSCA reported the following:

• Bethesda lab technologist James Jenkins told the HSCA that, “he saw a head wound in the ‘…middle temporal region back to the occipital.’”[2]
• In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA, FBI agent James Sibert wrote that, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head … a large head wound in the upper back of the head…”[3]
• The HSCA’s Andy Purdy interviewed Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial.: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Purdy asked. "Directly behind the back of his head," Robinson answered. Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.”
• Jan Gail Rudnicki, Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.”[4]
• When first asked, John Ebersole, MD, the attending radiologist who took JFK's autopsy X-rays, told the HSCA, “The back of the head was missing,” Hethen waffled after being shown the autopsy photographs.[5]
• Regarding the Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA reported that, “(Wehle) noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up.”[6] (emphasis added throughout)

__________________________________

[2] HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #65, see p.4 and diagram on p. 16.

[3] HSCA rec # 002191. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #85, see p. 3 and diagram on p. 9.

[4] HSCA rec. # 180-10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p. 2.)

[5] https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm

__________________________________

 

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

 

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

Gary L. Aguilar, MD, is one of the few physicians outside the government ever permitted to examine the still-restricted photographs and X-rays taken during President Kennedy’s autopsy. He has published widely on the medical evidence in professional journals, books and on-line. He has lectured before academic medical, academic medico-legal, and non-professional public audiences on the subject. He is currently Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, U.C. San Francisco, and the head of ophthalmology and the Vice Chief of Staff at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco.

 

 

 

Greetings, Keven. As a long-time soldier on the battlefield, it was easy for me to spot the point of Gary's article. I hope you spotted it as well.

Gary's article was not just to repeat his long-standing claims the head wound as recalled by the Parkland witnesses was inconsistent with the autopsy photos. He has, after all, been recycling this same stuff for decades now. No, his article was designed to spin this fact--that the wounds as recalled were different than the photos--to suggest the photos were faked, and that NO alteration of the body occurred. This has been his stance for decades. And he is re-stating it now to combat the seemingly resurgent tide of Liftonism within the research community. 

So, yes, his review is both a re-statement of his core beliefs, and a denouncement of the Lifton/Horne wing of the CT party. 

On what side do you stand? You've been here such a short time, and have spent so much of your energy attacking people like myself, and now Jonathan, that I've yet to figure out what you actually believe. Was the body altered so the photos would reflect the wounds of someone who'd been shot twice from behind? Or were the photos faked to reflect the wounds of someone who'd been shot twice from behind?

And, assuming you choose one, or even both, why would body or photos have been faked to show three shots were fired? 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

Dr. Gary Aguilar's review of Paramount+'s documentary "What the Doctor's Saw" notes that the filmmakers missed an important opportunity by failing to explore the fraudulent treatment by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of the overwhelming witness evidence that President Kennedy had a large avulsive wound in the back of his head. The HSCA final report had concluded that the testimony of the Bethesda autopsy participants and witnesses the Bethesda autopsy had indicated that all of the Parkland witnesses that had reported the back of the head wounds had been mistaken, but in fact "[t]he autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram," and as elsewhere reported by Dr. Aguilar, the HSCA had denied its Forensic Pathology Panel access to this crucial evidence and classified it "top secret" for 50 years. It was only upon the release of these classified files by the Assassination Records Release Board in the 1990's that this fraud was exposed, and then at a 1995 JFK conference attended by former HSCA counsel Andy Purdy and former Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht where HSCA officials were confronted about the fraud, it turned out that none of the HSCA officials would take responsibility for the misrepresentations made in the HSCA final report, and denied having knowledge of who had authored them.

The following is the excerpt from Aguilar's recently published article that appeared in Kennedy's & King:

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

"...In neglecting the autopsy witnesses, the program missed a great opportunity – a long known, underreported HSCA scandal that the producer, Jacque Lueth, knew all about from repeated, personal conversations with me over the past several years. (Ms. Lueth told me she wanted to present this material on film but was blocked by others involved in the documentary.) Only when the ARRB released the accounts of the autopsy witnesses in the late 90s did we discover that the Select Committee had misled the public about what they had said in the 1970s. It had everything to do with the heart of Paramount’s documentary: JFK: What the Doctors Saw.

Confronting the conflict between autopsy photos that show no damage to the rear of JFK’s skull and the Parkland doctors who said damage was in the rear, the HSCA reported it had resolved the problem. “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors,” they wrote. “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 wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts … Further, if the Parkland doctors are correct, then the autopsy personnel are either lying or mistaken. It did not seem plausible to the Committee that 26 persons would by lying or, if they were, that they could provide such a consistent account of the wounds almost 15 years later. Second, it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and thorough examination of the body…it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.” (7HSCA37-9. Emphasis added.[12])

This was clearly false. The autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram. The HSCA, however, reported that the autopsy witnesses had refuted the Dallas witnesses whom, in fact, they had actually corroborated. There is an additional aspect of this that might have also been worth a few moments of film.

At the one hour, 18-minute mark, the program showed a clip of the HSCA’s Andy Purdy declaring that the ‘Dallas doctors are wrong; these recollections afterward are faulty.’ As noted above, it was Purdy who was wrong, as the doctors’ ‘recollections afterward’ closely aligned with what Parkland’s experts documented on the day of the murder as per the Warren Report. They also snugly fit with the suppressed claims of the autopsy witnesses whom Purdy had himself interviewed, and whose diagrams he had signed (See Figs. 1 & 2). Though arguing that the public has been misled, Paramount Plus missed a perfect opportunity to both expose the government’s false claim, while debunking one of the government officials whom they had on film pushing that claim, Andy Purdy...."

___________________

[12] 7HSCA37-39 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

___________________

EXCERPT REGARDING HSCA BACK OF HEAD WOUND WITNESSES

In formerly suppressed witness interviews that were not available to David Lifton when he wrote Best Evidence, but were to Doug Horne, the HSCA reported the following:

• Bethesda lab technologist James Jenkins told the HSCA that, “he saw a head wound in the ‘…middle temporal region back to the occipital.’”[2]
• In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA, FBI agent James Sibert wrote that, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head … a large head wound in the upper back of the head…”[3]
• The HSCA’s Andy Purdy interviewed Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial.: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Purdy asked. "Directly behind the back of his head," Robinson answered. Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.”
• Jan Gail Rudnicki, Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.”[4]
• When first asked, John Ebersole, MD, the attending radiologist who took JFK's autopsy X-rays, told the HSCA, “The back of the head was missing,” Hethen waffled after being shown the autopsy photographs.[5]
• Regarding the Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA reported that, “(Wehle) noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up.”[6] (emphasis added throughout)

__________________________________

[2] HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #65, see p.4 and diagram on p. 16.

[3] HSCA rec # 002191. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #85, see p. 3 and diagram on p. 9.

[4] HSCA rec. # 180-10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p. 2.)

[5] https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm

__________________________________

 

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

 

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

Gary L. Aguilar, MD, is one of the few physicians outside the government ever permitted to examine the still-restricted photographs and X-rays taken during President Kennedy’s autopsy. He has published widely on the medical evidence in professional journals, books and on-line. He has lectured before academic medical, academic medico-legal, and non-professional public audiences on the subject. He is currently Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, U.C. San Francisco, and the head of ophthalmology and the Vice Chief of Staff at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco.

 

 

 

Greetings, Keven. As a long-time soldier on the battlefield, it was easy for me to spot the point of Gary's article. I hope you spotted it as well.

Gary's article was not just to repeat his long-standing claims the head wound as recalled by the Parkland witnesses was inconsistent with the autopsy photos. He has, after all, been recycling this same stuff for decades now. No, his article was designed to spin this fact--that the wounds as recalled were different than the photos--to suggest the photos were faked, and that NO alteration of the body occurred. This has been his stance for decades. And he is re-stating it now to combat the seemingly resurgent tide of Liftonism within the research community. 

So, yes, his review is both a re-statement of his core beliefs, and a denouncement of the Lifton/Horne wing of the CT party. 

On what side do you stand? You've been here such a short time, and have spent so much of your energy attacking people like myself, and now Jonathan, that I've yet to figure out what you actually believe. Was the body altered so the photos would reflect the wounds of someone who'd been shot twice from behind? Or were the photos faked to reflect the wounds of someone who'd been shot twice from behind?

And, assuming you choose one, or even both, why would body or photos have been faked to show three shots were fired? 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Keven:

I am really glad you posted that snippet from the COPA conference.

Just recall, without the ARRB, we would have never known about how the HSCA misrepresented their own evidence.  Or at least not until about 30 years later.

Gary found these documents and it was one of the most important discoveries from the ARRB.

Because not only did it show that the witnesses at Bethesda agreed with Parkland, it showed the HSCA tried to cover this up.  Some would say, like Bob Tanenbaum, that they deliberately misrepresented their own evidence.

When confronted with this by Gary in person, they all scurried away from saying that they had written the fraudulent phrasing denying the agreement between Parkland and Bethesda.  If I recall correctly, Purdy, Baden and Blakey all denied it.

In fact, I think Baden and Wecht said they never saw the reports.

So that leaves: Purdy, Blakey or Billings who wrote the misrepresentation.

Could Billings really have written it without Blakey's knowledge?

Edited January 8 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, bringing this up should remind us of what happened to the HSCA after Sprague left.

1. The phony NAA testing of Guinn

2. The wild ride of Thomas Canning and his NASA trajectories

3. The infiltration by Joannides

4. And this misrepresentation of the hole in the rear skull.

Does anyone think this would have happened under Sprague and Tanenbaum? 

Edited January 8 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Tanenbaum published a book recently called Coal Country Killing about Sprague and the Yablonski case.

It is a good book and it shows how you go about unraveling a murder conspiracy.

Sprague did this with a lot of skill and patience.  The whole thing took about 5 years since Tony Boyle, the guy at the top of the plot, appealed and had to be retried.

Dick Sprague was named special prosecutor for the case and he was quite hard nosed during the series of I think five trials on the way to convicting Boyle.  He would not cut any deals until after the trial was over and he knew the value of the defendant's testimony.

If you read the book you will see why everyone in Washington feared the HSCA under Sprague, and why the MSM was determined to get rid of him.

[Keven Hofeling]

DOUG HORNE'S RESPONSE TO GARY AGUILAR'S REVIEW

 

insidethearrb

January 6 2024, 20:20

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/23105.html

Dr. Gary Aguilar just posted a review of the Paramount Plus documentary, JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW, at Jim DiEugenio's website Kennedys and King: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

He had largely favorable things to say about the documentary---just as I have---but he essentially "trashed" me and the things I had to say in the program. In doing so, he has attacked the central thesis of my work, so I feel compelled to respond.

POSTED BELOW IS MY PUBLIC RESPONSE TO HIS VERY PUBLIC REVIEW:

Dear Gary,

I am in receipt of the blind copy of your review that you just sent to me, as a professional "courtesy."

I'm not going to "fulminate" or rant about the very different ways we view the autopsy evidence, because people have well-formed views at our stages of life, and are unlikely to change their minds.

But in defense of my position, I would simply like to observe that I do think you have a major "blind spot" about the Bethesda evidence. I'm going to do this in what I consider to be a respectful, rational manner. No ad hominem attacks here. I don't endorse that kind of behavior. Reasonable people can disagree about what evidence means, and about which evidence is more important than other evidence.

I believe that what I perceive as your "blind spot" concerns two major items of evidence: namely, the Boswell autopsy sketch of the damage to the top of JFK's skull, and the two sets of autopsy photos showing the top of JFK's skull opened up, with the cranial bone missing and the scalp shredded (one set in color, one set in black and white).

I wish to make a couple of points:

(1) If the Boswell notation on his sketch of "10 X 17 [cm], missing" in the top of the skull [the area of missing cranial bone, denoted by the dotted line in his sketch] had been the condition of JFK's skull in Dallas, surely all of that missing bone in the top of the cranium, and the concomitant scalp tears, would have been noted by the Parkland treatment staff. 

 

 

But that was not the case. Both Audrey Bell and Charles Crenshaw told Jeremy Gunn and I in 1997 that the top of JFK's head appeared to be intact at Parkland.

 

 

 

And furthermore, Dr. Jones testified at his ARRB deposition in August of 1998---volunteered, actually---that he observed no such damage to the top of the skull when he saw JFK at Parkland. 

 

Furthermore, none of the treatment notes the day of the assassination mentioned that the top of the head was missing, or damaged.

 

See  COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

 

(2) If the top of JFK's head shown in those two sets of autopsy photos was the way the top of his head looked at Parkland, then why didn't any of the Parkland physicians see that and describe that kind of damage? The answer is that they DID NOT see the top of his head totally disrupted and missing, as shown in those two sets of autopsy photos.

 

And, there are two witnesses at Bethesda who saw JFK's head sawed open, even though Humes stated under oath to Arlen Specter in 1964 (and to Dr. Finck, during the autopsy after Finck arrived late, 30 minutes after the autopsy began) that he did not perform a craniotomy. As Humes told Dr. Finck, "No sawing of the skull was necessary" (per Finck's notes to Blumberg). Humes lied about this, to both Specter, and to Finck.

 

The two witnesses to the unorthodox craniotomy performed by Humes with a saw were Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home, and Navy x-ray technologist Ed Reed.

(1) Robinson told the ARRB in 1996 that the dotted lines in his diagram of the back of the head were where the pathologist made "saw cuts" before removing the brain.

 

 

(2) Ed Reed testified to the ARRB in 1997 that it was Dr. Humes, by name, who he observed sawing open JFK's frontal bone just behind the hairline, in the forward-top portion of the head.

 

 

Thus, as observed by both Robinson and Reed, we now know the true cause of the massive area of missing bone in Boswell's autopsy sketch, and in the two aforementioned sets of autopsy photos showing massive damage to the top of the head: saw cuts made by a pathologist at Bethesda.

IN FACT, when Tom Robinson studied the massive damage to the top of the head in the B&W autopsy photos, he said to the ARRB staff in 1996: "That makes it look like that's what the bullet did; THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BULLET DID---THAT'S WHAT THE DOCTORS DID." (Since Robinson was present at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and not at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, when he said "That's what the doctors did," he was clearly referring to the Bethesda pathologists.)

 

Therefore, as I see it, JFK's cranial damage---as represented by Boswell's sketch on the back of the autopsy descriptive sheet, by his skull model markings at his deposition, and by those two sets of autopsy photos showing the top of the cranium (bone) removed---is damage incurred at Bethesda prior to 8:00 PM. It has to be damage incurred prior to 8 PM at Bethesda, given that no such damage was noted in 11/22/63 treatment notes from Parkland. This, to me, is definitive.

JFK's body arrived at Bethesda with the same localized, occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of the skull that was observed in Dallas at Parkland Hospital. The three witnesses to this fact were Tom Robinson (note his HSCA and ARRB occipital wound diagrams); CAPT Canada (per his 1968 description of an avulsed, occipital blowout to researcher Michael Kurtz); and Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist at Bethesda (per his 1978 HSCA deposition, in which he termed the head wound "occipital"). None of these three Bethesda eyewitnesses noted any gross or apparent damage to the TOP of JFK's head; nor did Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland, who consistently described the head wound the day of the assassination as "posterior." (Dr. Perry did not describe the head wound as "superior" or "anterior.") It was this localized posterior head wound in the right rear of the head---observed at Parkland Hospital as well as upon the arrival of JFK's body at Bethesda shortly after 6:35 PM---that was so dramatically expanded prior to 8:00 PM by the post mortem surgery described by Tom Robinson and Ed Reed, and which was then documented, afterwards, by the two graphic series of autopsy photos showing the top of the head gone. Shortly after 8:00 PM, when the "autopsy of record" began, JFK's cranium was no longer in the same condition that it had been in Dallas, or at 6:35 PM, when his body arrived at the Bethesda morgue. The "extraordinary evidence" of this is provided by a simple comparison of the autopsy photos of the top of the head with the way JFK's head wound looked to Tom Robinson, CAPT Robert Canada, and to Dr. Ebersole, when it first arrived at Bethesda, 85 minutes before the official autopsy began.

 

 

And Navy corpsman Jim Jenkins noted that when Humes publicly removed the brain after 8 PM, the spinal cord had already been surgically severed on both sides by two uneven perpendicular cuts (he did not see Humes do this after 8 PM when Humes removed the brain in front of the large morgue audience), and that he had extreme difficulty in infusing the brain because the brain's two carotid arteries had retracted into the Circle of Willis. These two observations have led Jenkins to conclude, both in Dallas in 2013 (you were there, and I have the video taken by a member of the audience), as well as in 2018 to Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Mike Chesser, that the brain had been previously removed prior to 8 PM that night. The only reason he could cite for someone having done this, in his discussions with Mantik and Chesser in 2018, was for someone to remove bullet fragments from JFK's brain, thus sanitizing the crime scene. I respect his observations and opinions. The very fact that Jenkins observed JFK's brain practically fall out into Dr. Humes' hands after 8:00 PM, without Humes performing any cutting of the brain stem or other structures helping to secure the brain in the cranium, is the most obvious evidence of its prior removal that night at Bethesda.
 

The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963

by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board
(former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board)

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

SO, to sum up, I see the Boswell autopsy sketch of damage to the top of the head as a "con job," intentionally misrepresenting the results of post mortem surgery---to get access to the brain and remove bullet fragments and bullet tracks---as "what the assassin's bullet did." This is why that one set of notes (the sketch), in spite of being blood-spattered, was not burned along with the other bloodstained notes: his diagram was retained to justify the massive damage to the top of the skull seen in the autopsy photos.
 

I have summarized here what I consider to be our major points of disagreement---points that, as far as I can determine, you do not publicly discuss in your discussion of the Bethesda evidence. (What I have perceived is that you avoid discussing these items of evidence.) I see widespread evidence in the record of an intentionally fraudulent autopsy, and you do not; you believe the only serious problem with the autopsy was "incompetence." INCOMPETENCE DID NOT CREATE TWO ROUNDS OF AUTOPSY PHOTOS SHOWING THE TOP OF JFK'S HEAD MISSING, WHEN THAT DAMAGE WAS NOT DESCRIBED AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION IN TREATMENT NOTES.

Nevertheless, the Paramount Plus documentary has performed a valuable public service by presenting Dr. McClelland and Dr. Jones as eminently credible, and by presenting powerful remarks by Robert Tannenbaum in support of the credibility of the Parkland physicians. I was pleased to play my own limited role in resurrecting the story of the Parkland doctors' observations to a new generation of Americans. Part of the context of their story is what happened after JFK's body arrived at Bethesda; it was this part of the story that Paramount Plus wished me to comment on, and I was honored to do so.

I suppose that for the remainder of our lives, if you do not change your position and come to interpret the evidence I have provided above as I do, then we will have to "agree to disagree."

I wanted to take the opportunity presented by your review to make sure that you understand my position. My interpretation of the evidence has nothing to do with David Lifton, and everything to do with the evidence I find so compelling: the Boswell autopsy sketch which shows damage to the top of JFK's head not seen at Parkland; the two sets of autopsy photos showing damage to the top of JFK's head not seen at Parkland; and the recollections of Robinson and Reed (to the ARRB) that JFK's head was indeed sawed open to get the brain out. [And of course, Reed identified the culprit as Humes, when he was under oath before the ARRB.] If Humes' sawing the skull open to remove the brain had been a legitimate procedure done for normal forensic purposes, I do not think Humes would have denied it, and lied about it.

If I did not respond to the comments you made about me in your review, it may inadvertently have given the impression that I was acquiescing to your criticisms. Since I take great exception to your critique of my participation, I considered a spirited and evidence-oriented response to be mandatory.

END OF MY PUBLIC RESPONSE.

[James DiEugenio]

Why is this posted twice, once here and another time on another thread by the same person?

Namely, Keven.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why is this posted twice, once here and another time on another thread by the same person?

Namely, Keven.

 

Because there was this existing thread to which the Horne response is relevant that has prior posts that may be of interest, AND because the response seems to me to be entitled to a thread in its own right.

I've not been on the forum long, but I've learned in the short time I have been here that most theads go without response, and are quickly gone with the wind.

I figured one of these might inspire some interest, but I never know which ones do. So I provided two options.

Have I violated some forum rule in your estimation?

Edited March 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:00 AM, Keven Hofeling said:

I've learned in the short time I have been here that most theads go without response, and are quickly gone with the wind.

 

Keven,

One thing you can do to give more time for forum members to read or respond to a thread is to "bump" it back to the top of the list. It's easy to do... just reply to the thread. Type the message "bump" so that people will know that's what you're doing.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Detail is at times necessary.  I understand.  But this is the JFK Assassination Debate.  It's not a lecture with bold statements and colored ones as well.  I generally don't read long diatribes myself.  Conciseness is required in a debate.  They are timed, I remember.  If you can't post it in 3-4- maybe 5-6 paragraphs what is the point on here?  It disappears from the front page quickly, and is read by few.  Use links.     

[Paul Cummings]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Detail is at times necessary.  I understand.  But this is the JFK Assassination Debate.  It's not a lecture with bold statements and colored ones as well.  I generally don't read long diatribes myself.  Conciseness is required in a debate.  They are timed, I remember.  If you can't post it in 3-4- maybe 5-6 paragraphs what is the point on here?  It disappears from the front page quickly, and is read by few.  Use links.     

Amen. KISS.

[Robert Burrows]

On 1/7/2024 at 9:05 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

Moderator(s):

Doesn't this constitute harassment? 

In addition, from the Fourm Rules and Membership Behavior thread:

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14 by Robert Burrows

[Benjamin Cole]

On 1/9/2024 at 2:46 AM, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, bringing this up should remind us of what happened to the HSCA after Sprague left.

1. The phony NAA testing of Guinn

2. The wild ride of Thomas Canning and his NASA trajectories

3. The infiltration by Joannides

4. And this misrepresentation of the hole in the rear skull.

Does anyone think this would have happened under Sprague and Tanenbaum? 

The story of Sprague and Henry Gonzalez, and John Connally's blood-drenched shirt, is beyond anything fiction has come up with. 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The story of Sprague and Henry Gonzalez, and John Connally's blood-drenched shirt, is beyond anything fiction has come up with. 

Here is that story, for anyone who is unfamiliar with it:

 

Kennedys & King

Saturday, 20 November 2021 22:01

'The Strange, Strange Story of Governor Connally’s Shirt & Coat and Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez'

Written by Benjamin Cole | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-strange-strange-story-of-governor-connally-s-shirt-coat-and-congressman-henry-b-gonzalez

 

Benjamin Cole continues his expose of the evidence regarding the bullet holes in Governor John Connally’s clothing by tracing their curious, even wacky, journey, dubious chain-of-custody, and contamination, culminating in the bungled failures of the Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations to properly analyze them in ascertaining the facts of the JFK assassination.