The significance of the forward moving fragment

[Keven Hofeling]

On 3/5/2024 at 2:02 AM, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. 

Let me clarify a few things. First of all, the pathologists who viewed the bone in Dallas did so while under the impression the back of the head was blown out, as that is what had been reported in the papers--an entrance wound in the throat possibly connected to a large wound on the back of the head. They were not forensic anthropologists or neuroanatomists and had no special expertise in anatomy. So they were presented with a bone and asked if it could be from Kennedy and they said "Well, it looks kinda like occipital bone." But it didn't really. The occipital bone in that region is like Colorado (mountainous), and the Harper fragment is more like Kansas (flat).... 

 

 

This is a prime example of the issue acute confirmation bias poses to fundamental logic:

Let’s analyze the important issues relevant to the comparison of evidentiary weight between a hospital chief pathologist’s identification of a bone fragment as occipital bone and a contrary identification made by a forensic anthropologist or a neuroanatomist based on x-rays of the fragment without having the fragment itself:

1. Expertise and Background:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Typically a medical doctor with expertise in pathology.
     • Familiar with human anatomy, including bone structures.
     • May have practical experience handling and examining human remains.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • Forensic Anthropologist:
       • Specializes in the study of human skeletal remains.
       • Trained to analyze bones from an anthropological perspective.
       • May not have direct experience with clinical pathology or handling fresh specimens.
     • Neuroanatomist:
       • Specializes in the study of the nervous system and brain anatomy.
       • May have expertise in interpreting radiographic images related to neuroanatomy.
       • May not have direct experience with handling skeletal remains.

2. Identification Methods:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Likely examined the actual bone fragment visually and manually.
     • Could assess texture, color, shape, and other physical characteristics.
     • May have considered context (where the fragment was found).
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • Relying solely on x-rays (radiographs) lacks the full context.
     • Analyzed bone density, structure, and any visible features.
     • Did not physically handle the fragment.

3. Limitations and Considerations:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Direct examination provides tactile information.
     • May be influenced by contextual factors (e.g., location of discovery).
     • Subjective interpretation possible.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • X-rays provide objective evidence but lack the complete picture.
     • Missing information about the fragment’s physical condition.
     • Interpretation based on radiographic features alone.

4. Weight of Evidence:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Direct examination carries significant weight.
     • Personal handling and visual assessment enhance credibility.
     • Contextual factors strengthen the identification.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • X-rays provide objective evidence but are indirect.
     • Weight depends on the quality of x-ray analysis.
     • Lack of tactile information may weaken the identification.

5. Conclusion:

   • Both identifications contribute to the overall assessment.
   • Combining direct examination and radiographic analysis provides a more robust evaluation.
   • The missing fragment complicates the comparison, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence.

In summary, while both experts play crucial roles, the hospital chief pathologist’s direct examination holds greater evidentiary weight due to physical interaction with the bone fragment. 

 

An essential part of the analysis is that Dr. Angel's work was done within the context of the documented cover-up by the HSCA of the large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Dr. Angel faced a challenging and literally unsolvable puzzle due to the altered photographic and X-ray evidence that eliminated the most obvious solution, erasing the occipital-parietal wound from consideration. The Senate Select Committee's dedication to this task led to the suppression of interviews with Dr. Cairns and Dr. Harper, classifying the information as "top secret" for fifty years. The implications of this state of affairs were outlined in a Staff Memorandum of the Assassination Records Review Board, as follows:

STAFF MEMORANDUM

 

May 4, 1998 (Draft #5)

 

TO: JFK Research Community and Interested Citizens

 

FROM: Douglas P. Horne, Supervisory Analyst, ARRB T. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel and Executive Director, ARRB

 

SUBJECT: ARRB Efforts to “Clarify the Record” Regarding the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

 

...(5) On Saturday, November 23, 1963, Billy A. Harper, a premedical student, found a piece of bone in the grass in the middle of Dealey Plaza (just south of Elm Street), and took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who subsequently delivered it to A. B. Cairns, M.D., chief pathologist at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, for examination. Two each color positive transparencies of both the convex and concave surfaces of the fragment, shown next to an inch ruler for scale, were exposed by M. Wayne Balleter, chief medical photographer at that hospital (and later picked up from Mrs. Jack Harper by the FBI on July 10, 1964).11 This piece of bone was subsequently delivered to Military Physician to the President, RADM George Burkley, MC, USN, on November 27, 1963.12 Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, an eminent physical anthropologist who served as a consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel of 9 pathologists, determined from examination of the photographic images alone (since the Harper fragment was by then missing), along with JFK autopsy cranial fragment x-rays 4, 5 and 6 (of four other skull fragments--also missing by the time of the HSCA’s investigation) that it was a portion of the right parietal bone of President Kennedy’s skull.13 However, nowhere in HSCA, volume 7 is it mentioned that an HSCA staff member interviewed Dr. Jack C. Harper and Dr. A. B. Cairns, who both personally examined and handled the piece of skull bone on the weekend following the assassination, and that Dr. Harper told staff interviewer Andy Purdy on August 8, 1977 that “...the consensus of the doctors who viewed the skull fragment was that it was part of the occipital region;” 14 nor is it mentioned anywhere in HSCA volume 7 that Dr. Cairns told HSCA staff member Andy Purdy that “...the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately 2.5 to 3 inches above the spine area...it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” 15 Andy Purdy’s staff interview report summarizing his discussions with Drs. Harper and Cairns did not become public until 1993, following passage of the JFK Act. Failure by the HSCA to publish this interview report, or to mention in any way in its final report or accompanying volumes, this dissenting opinion of the head of the pathology department at a local hospital (that was contrary to Dr. Angel’s opinion), raised new doubts about the conclusions reached by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. Furthermore, given the location of the occipital bone (in the posterior skull), Dr. Cairns’ professional opinion (that the “Harper” bone fragment was occipital) seems to provide corroboration for the generally consistent Parkland Hospital Trauma Room One testimony that President Kennedy’s head wound was posterior (in the back of the head), vice superior and lateral (in the top and right side of the head), as shown in the autopsy photographs--making more problematic the disparity between Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the large (exit) wound in President Kennedy’s head...."

________________________

11. HSCA volume 7, page 122.

 

12. Receipt for two bone fragments signed by RADM Burkley on 11/27/63, HSCA Record Number 10910385, Agency File No. 002631.

 

13. HSCA volume 7, pgs. 123 and 228-230.

 

14. Andy Purdy staff interview report dated August 17, 1977, page 1.

 

15. Ibid., page 2

 

FIFTEEN INDICATORS OF AN OCCIPITAL ORIGIN FOR THE HARPER FRAGMENT BY DR. DAVID MANTIK

 

Edited March 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

Keven,

Thanks for posting that! It's nice to know that I'm not the only researcher who speculates that the fragment was returned to Dealey Plaza for the purpose of creating evidence of the fatal shot being from behind.

The only difference between my and Larry Rivera's hypotheses is that he believes that the Harper fragment constituted the whole fragment picked up by the child, whereas I believe that the Harper fragment was a piece broken off from the whole fragment.

The reasons I believe that just a broken-off piece of the fragment was sent back are these:

1. There were multiple witnesses who described the BOH wound as being very large... for example, "the back of his head was gone." (IMO, those who saw a substantially smaller hole did so because flaps of remaining scalp covered up much of the huge skull hole.)
2. SS Agent Sam Kinney, who actually held and studied the fragment in the C-130 cargo plane while flying back to Washington, said it reminded him of a clay pot. Well the Harper fragment, IMO, wouldn't remind one of a clay pot. But a larger fragment, one more round in shape and more concave, would.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

An essential part of the analysis is that Dr. Angel's work was done within the context of the documented cover-up by the HSCA of the large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head.

 

A big part of Pat's problem is that he is easily suckered into believing official narrative created by the coverup artists.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: