The JFK autopsy doctors revealed a back-of-head missing fragment.

[Sandy Larsen]

The topic of this thread is the fragment lost from the back of the head near the EOP, as revealed by two autopsists and implied in the autopsy report.

It is not about the three headshot theory. That is the topic of another thread.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Shot #1: EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation. No known exit for this bullet. No evidence this bullet was ever found. (Their theory is in trouble from the get-go. All credible experts on skull anatomy have concluded the Harper fragment is parietal bone and NOT occipital bone, and that's not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling.)

 

I resolve these difficulties here:

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The topic of this thread is the fragment lost from the back of the head near the EOP, as revealed by two autopsists and implied in the autopsy report.

It is not about the three headshot theory. That is the topic of another thread.

 

Ok. Since Dr. Boswell's fourteen years later claim a piece of bone was brought in to complete the entrance hole near the EOP, has been so wildly misrepresented, I thought I would remind people of what he actually said. 

During their meeting with the HSCA doctors Boswell and Humes were discussing how far they had to cut to get to the small entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Then Boswell said: "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment (of the fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy) fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

So he specified that it was a small fragment--and not the large fragment--that completed this hole. Well, that sinks Randy Robertson's claim he was talking about the large fragment, and that it matched up with the cowlick entrance. (If I remember his theory correctly)

And this fragment was brought into the autopsy. Well, that sinks Dr. Mantik's claim it was the Harper fragment, which was not brought into the autopsy.

Now, should one convince oneself the Harper fragment WAS brought into the autopsy, one still has to overcome that Humes and Boswell claimed they were unaware of the Harper fragment's existence on 11-22-63, and that Boswell specified that it was the smallest fragment that completed the entrance hole. Well, this rules out the Harper fragment, as it was anything but small. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. Since Dr. Boswell's fourteen years later claim a piece of bone was brought in to complete the entrance hole near the EOP, has been so wildly misrepresented...

 

It wasn't misrepresented by me. I merely quoted what the autopsists said.

(Later, Pat asked and in response I did outline my hypothesis on the Harper fragment. Which I suppose he could have thought of as a misrepresentation.)

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I thought I would remind people of what [Boswell] actually said. 

 

Except that you added your own phrase to what Boswell said. I correct it here:

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

During their meeting with the HSCA doctors Boswell and Humes were discussing how far they had to cut to get to the small entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

Then Boswell said: "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment (of the fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy) fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

 

(Pat should learn to put his own comments in square brackets.]

Pat is conflating the three triangular fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy with the occipital fragment that Boswell speaks of here. The one that is the topic of this thread.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So [Boswell] specified that it was a small fragment--and not the large fragment--that completed this hole. Well, that sinks Randy Robertson's claim he was talking about the large fragment, and that it matched up with the cowlick entrance. (If I remember his theory correctly.)

 

I don't have any idea if what Pat says here is true or not. I don't know what Randy Robertson's theory is, and the topic of the thread isn't his theory.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And this fragment was brought into the autopsy. Well, that sinks Dr. Mantik's claim it was the Harper fragment, which was not brought into the autopsy.

 

Dr. Mantik should ask me about my Harper fragment hypothesis. It explains how it came about that the autopsists saw the Harper fragment at the autopsy, and how it ended up in Dealey Plaza the following day.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, should one convince oneself the Harper fragment WAS brought into the autopsy, one still has to overcome that Humes and Boswell claimed they were unaware of the Harper fragment's existence on 11-22-63...

 

Did they in fact deny it?

If Humes and Boswell even remembered the back-of-head fragment coming in late -- what it looked like -- they would realize that they couldn't own up to it... given that doing so would reveal a hole in the back of Kennedy's head. Something that they worked so hard to hide.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

...and that Boswell specified that it was the smallest fragment that completed the entrance hole. Well, this rules out the Harper fragment, as it was anything but small. 

 

First, Pat assumes that Dr. Boswell was referring to one of the three triangular fragments (that were x-rayed at the autopsy) when Boswell spoke of the skull fragment from the back of the head. There is no reason to assume or believe that.

Further, Pat claims that the fragment from the back of the head was the smallest of the three triangular fragments. He says that because Dr. Boswell at one time said, "this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."  Pat figures, therefore, that the fragment from the back of the head was too small to be the Harper fragment.

Problem is, "small" is a relative term. In that very same sentence Dr. Boswell said, "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here."  Here, Boswell refers to the fragment as being "smaller," not "small." Smaller than what? My guess is that he meant smaller than the large triangular fragment (among the three that were x-rayed at the autopsy).

But, to put this issue to rest, let me remind the reader of something Dr. Finck told the the WC regarding this fragment from the back of the head:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

We learn from this that the fragment was large enough that it could be determined, from the curvature of the fragment, which side of it was from the inside of the skull and which side was from the outside. The Harper fragment was just large enough that the curvature could be discerned.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Shot #2: Entrance near the temple above the right ear. Blow-out exit on back of skull above EOP entrance that apparently left no exit beveling on Harper fragment or surrounding skull, or even a trail of fragments within the skull. (Now, this is what I mean by weird. There are actually two ways they could support an entrance in this location. One is to cite James Jenkins' recollection of an entrance defect in this location, and Two is to note there is beveling on the Harper fragment in this location when placed in Angel's orientation. But as they describe this wound in their presentations, they offer no support in the physical evidence for this proposed bullet's entrance... or its exit.)

According to Jenkins, the hole had a gray circumference and the autopsy doctors said, “a bullet did this. Jenkins thought it was an entrance, but that’s not what the doctors said. His “entrance” was based on the hole’s small size and his previous experience with an autopsy that had an entrance in that approximate location. Since, as you point out, no bullet was recovered from the head, I contend that this point was the exit for the AR-15 bullet that entered at the EOP. The first bullet entered at the forehead above the right eye and exited at the back of the head where the main blow-out was. The skull was damaged and the second bullet (high speed) didn’t need to make a blow-out hole because it dissipated its energy through the weakest part of the skull—the hole at the back of the head.

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Shot #3: Entrance high on right forehead. Exit on left side of back of skull. (Now this is a bullet trajectory connecting an entrance observed by no one at Parkland and Bethesda and an exit observed by no one at Parkland or Bethesda. So there's lot of serious stretching performed to shore this one up

Forehead entrance was the first shot. Per Alan Smith’s account, right after the turn onto Elm Street, supported by Pierce Allman and others, including Governor Connally, who said in his hospital press conference, “And then, we had just turned a corner. I heard a shot.”

 

 I agree that the evidence for a “third” head shot is weak. The bullet fragment trail can be explained as from the forehead shot if you pay attention to the caption of the HSCA published X-ray and recognize that the “computer enhanced” x-ray is a composite made with the living image. Moreover, there are no witnesses to this “third” shot, as far as I can tell.

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It wasn't misrepresented by me. I merely quoted what the autopsists said.

(Later, Pat asked and in response I did outline my hypothesis on the Harper fragment. Which I suppose he could have thought of as a misrepresentation.)

 

 

Except that you added your own phrase to what Boswell said. I correct it here:

 

 

(Pat should learn to put his own comments in square brackets.]

Pat is conflating the three triangular fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy with the occipital fragment that Boswell speaks of here. The one that is the topic of this thread.

 

 

I don't have any idea if what Pat says here is true or not. I don't know what Randy Robertson's theory is, and the topic of the thread isn't his theory.

 

 

Dr. Mantik should ask me about my Harper fragment hypothesis. It explains how it came about that the autopsists saw the Harper fragment at the autopsy, and how it ended up in Dealey Plaza the following day.

 

 

Did they in fact deny it?

If Humes and Boswell even remembered the back-of-head fragment coming in late -- what it looked like -- they would realize that they couldn't own up to it... given that doing so would reveal a hole in the back of Kennedy's head. Something that they worked so hard to hide.

 

 

First, Pat assumes that Dr. Boswell was referring to one of the three triangular fragments (that were x-rayed at the autopsy) when Boswell spoke of the skull fragment from the back of the head. There is no reason to assume or believe that.

Further, Pat claims that the fragment from the back of the head was the smallest of the three triangular fragments. He says that because Dr. Boswell at one time said, "this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."  Pat figures, therefore, that the fragment from the back of the head was too small to be the Harper fragment.

Problem is, "small" is a relative term. In that very same sentence Dr. Boswell said, "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here."  Here, Boswell refers to the fragment as being "smaller," not "small." Smaller than what? My guess is that he meant smaller than the large triangular fragment (among the three that were x-rayed at the autopsy).

But, to put this issue to rest, let me remind the reader of something Dr. Finck told the the WC regarding this fragment from the back of the head:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

We learn from this that the fragment was large enough that it could be determined, from the curvature of the fragment, which side of it was from the inside of the skull and which side was from the outside. The Harper fragment was just large enough that the curvature could be discerned.

 

If you read Humes and Boswell's interview with the HSCA, you will find that they claimed they did not see the Harper fragment on the night of the autopsy, and that they were looking at a number of photos and x-rays including the x-ray of the three fragments when Boswell said that the smaller fragment completed the entrance hole. As Humes had said, shortly before that, that the entrance wound on the skull was just below the small entrance wound on the scalp, moreover, it's clear he did not believe they needed a second fragment to complete the entrance hole, and most certainly did not believe half the hole was missing and present on a fragment they did not see that evening. 

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

According to Jenkins, the hole had a gray circumference and the autopsy doctors said, “a bullet did this. Jenkins thought it was an entrance, but that’s not what the doctors said. His “entrance” was based on the hole’s small size and his previous experience with an autopsy that had an entrance in that approximate location. Since, as you point out, no bullet was recovered from the head, I contend that this point was the exit for the AR-15 bullet that entered at the EOP. The first bullet entered at the forehead above the right eye and exited at the back of the head where the main blow-out was. The skull was damaged and the second bullet (high speed) didn’t need to make a blow-out hole because it dissipated its energy through the weakest part of the skull—the hole at the back of the head.

 

Forehead entrance was the first shot. Per Alan Smith’s account, right after the turn onto Elm Street, supported by Pierce Allman and others, including Governor Connally, who said in his hospital press conference, “And then, we had just turned a corner. I heard a shot.”

 

 I agree that the evidence for a “third” head shot is weak. The bullet fragment trail can be explained as from the forehead shot if you pay attention to the caption of the HSCA published X-ray and recognize that the “computer enhanced” x-ray is a composite made with the living image. Moreover, there are no witnesses to this “third” shot, as far as I can tell.

Governor Connally viewed the Zapruder film multiple times and placed the first shot around Z-190, when the limo was far from the corner. He later marked the location of the limo at the time of the first shot on an overhead photo, and marked it where the limo was around Z-224. He also insisted he heard but two shots, with the first shot being the one that, according to his wife, led Kennedy to reach for his neck, and the second one (which he did not hear) hitting himself, and a third one striking Kennedy in the head and showering the car with blood and brain matter. His statements are of no support for your theory Kennedy was hit in the head just as he turned the corner, and are actually strong evidence against it. 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I contend that this point was the exit for the AR-15 bullet that entered at the EOP.

 

Denise,

Please take your AR-15 shot theory to another thread. This thread is about the missing EOP-adjacent fragment that the autopsists revealed, not about any theory that it supports.

You can reference individual posts of this thread in your own thread if that is helpful to you.

Thanks.

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Governor Connally viewed the Zapruder film multiple times and placed the first shot around Z-190, when the limo was far from the corner. He later marked the location of the limo at the time of the first shot on an overhead photo, and marked it where the limo was around Z-224

But was the Z-film he saw authentic? Alterations to the film could account for his discrepancies in exactly where was shot. I believe that he was shot concurrent with the Moorman photo and that the Z313 head shot is a fake. Moorman thought that her picture was concurrent with the FIRST shot, not the last. Viewers of the “other” Z film said that the head shot happened when the limousine was closer to the stairs, which is where the FBI model placed it.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:41 PM, Pat Speer said:

The "triangular fragment" was nicknamed as such by Randy Robertson, based upon his viewing of the x-rays of this fragment. Your using this description to imply the "triangular fragment" is a different fragment from the 10 by 6.5 cm fragment is ill-founded, as the proportions of the fragment on the x-ray are that of the fragment described in the FBI's report. The fragments are one and the same.

 

Pat is completely wrong here. We are definitely talking about two different large skull fragments, not one. And I can prove it.

First, if you look at the x-ray of the large "triangular" fragment, you can easily see that it cannot be described as having oblong dimensions. So it cannot be the same fragment as the one whose reported dimensions were "10 x 6.5", which is an oblong dimension.

 

 

But my case is much stronger than that. The large "triangular" fragment (above) was inserted back into the skull by mortician John Van Hoesen, whereas the 10 x 6.5 cm one wasn't. It was brought into the autopsy too late to be inserted back into the skull. (In fact, a large rubber dam had to be inserted in its place to prevent leakage of embalming fluid.) Therefore the two fragments cannot be the same.

If you don't believe me, read the second and the last paragraphs of page 6 of the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy's proceedings. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was retained by Humes but made available for further inspection.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

 

[Gil Jesus]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:04 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994:

“The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”     (Source)

 

Sandy, I believe that Humes and Boswell lied about the "shelving" ( beveling ) being on the inside of the skull. Their own autopsy report and the autopsy photographs contradict what they claimed.

The photographs show the bevelling was on the OUTSIDE of the bone, indicative of an exit wound.

 

The orientation of the F8 photograph is crucial. Some have argued that it shows the right side or the right front of the head. I believe that it shows the back of the head and the chrome "saddle" head rest is visible in the lower right. I believe that it shows the entrance wound at the right front and the massive exit wound at the right rear. This would be consistent with Dr. Clark's opinion that the head wound was "tangential" ( struck the head at an angle ).

John Hunt is correct. A massive wound at the right rear of the head indicates a shot from the front.

It appears that there was more than one piece of skull fragment missing from the autopsy.

In fact, their autopsy report notes that they "received as separtate specimens from Dallas" three "fragments". It said that the, "largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly circular wound presumably of EXIT which exhibits bevelling on the outer aspect of the bone......" Beveling on the fragment was on the OUTSIDE of the bone, indicative of an exit wound.

If what we're looking at in the F8 photo is the back of the head, that would make the largest fragment either parietal or temporal bone, not on the side of the head, but rather on the BACK of the head, behind the right ear. This is completely consistent with what the witnesses saw in Dealey Plaza, what the doctors saw at Parkland and what the autopsy witnesses described at Bethesda.

If this exit wound was half on the fragment and half on the skull, as Boswell claimed, it HAD to be the wound shown above ( F8 ), because there is no other indication of any such wound as he described it. The F8 photograph of the skull shows a bevel on the outside of the bone. The autopsy report's description of the bevel on the large fragment corroborates that. The conflict between the physical evidence ( bevel on outside ) and what the autopsists claimed ( bevel on inside ) proves that either the photographs are fake and the autopsy report is wrong or the autopsists lied.

And that doesn't count the Harper Fragment, that wasn't found until the next day.

Yes, there was at least one and possibly as many as four skull fragments missing from the autopsy, IMO.

Edited April 2 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat is completely wrong here. We are definitely talking about two different large skull fragments, not one. And I can prove it.

First, if you look at the x-ray of the large "triangular" fragment, you can easily see that it cannot be described as having oblong dimensions. So it cannot be the same fragment as the one whose reported dimensions were "10 x 6.5", which is an oblong dimension.

 

 

But my case is much stronger than that. The large "triangular" fragment (above) was inserted back into the skull by mortician John Van Hoesen, whereas the 10 x 6.5 cm one wasn't. It was brought into the autopsy too late to be inserted back into the skull. (In fact, a large rubber dam had to be inserted in its place to prevent leakage of embalming fluid.) Therefore the two fragments cannot be the same.

If you don't believe me, read the second and the last paragraphs of page 6 of the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy's proceedings. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was retained by Humes but made available for further inspection.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

 

Uhh, no. As presented above, this fragment is an upside down triangle. The width along the base at the top is about 35% wider than the height of the fragment, from the base to the apex, at bottom. It is thereby a perfect fit for 10 by 6.5. Secondly, the FBI agents left before the skull was reconstructed and were apparently unaware what became of the fragments. These fragments were most certainly never seen again, and Humes and Boswell later specified that they were buried with the President. And you don't have to take my word on this. Just use common sense. The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull. If the large fragment or any other large fragment was not re-inserted at that time the hole at the end of reconstruction would have been much much bigger, and would have encapsulated the entire back of the head. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

 

I'm sorry Gil, but I disagree with most of your post.

I believe that your hypothesis is based on two false premises. First, I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

This is the mystery photo after adjusting for the angle:

 

 

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

Your other faulty premise is that you belief that the large "triangular" fragment is parietal bone from the BACK of the head. No, it is parietal bone from the TOP of the head and was removed from the skull (after possibly being made by hitting the head with a hammer) in the pre-autopsy clandestine surgery of the head, as mentioned by Humes and reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. It and other such man-made fragments were introduced to the autopsy as if they'd been found in Dallas. Sibert and O'Neill makes no mention of those fragments being brought in.

However, Sibert and O'Neill DO mention a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment being brought in late. It was brought in so late that it could not be inserted back into Kennedy's skull. Humes kept it, but made it available for further study.

There is a ton of evidence that backs my contention.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

But was the Z-film he saw authentic? Alterations to the film could account for his discrepancies in exactly where was shot. I believe that he was shot concurrent with the Moorman photo and that the Z313 head shot is a fake. Moorman thought that her picture was concurrent with the FIRST shot, not the last. Viewers of the “other” Z film said that the head shot happened when the limousine was closer to the stairs, which is where the FBI model placed it.

1. There is no other z-film. Decades later people came forward with vague claims they saw a film that was slightly different, etc. This is as expected after their viewing something once or twice and then trying to remember what they saw decades later. 

2. Moorman and Hill failed to notice the first shot that struck the President, which was observed by literally dozens of witnesses, and thought the first shot was the one striking Kennedy in the head. 

3. The prime proponents of Z-film alteration hold that the back of the head was painted in, and that a limo stop was edited out. Those presuming these alterations presume as much because there are witnesses whose statements can support that the back of the head was blown out and that the limo stopped. No one of any repute believes the film was edited to hide that the head shot was fired when Kennedy had just turned the corner, and that's because no credible witnesses said as much. In fact, all the witnesses noting Kennedy's reaction to the shots said that Kennedy reacted to the first shot, and was struck in the head by a subsequent shot. 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The FBI agents left before the skull was reconstructed and were apparently unaware what became of the fragments.

 

Wrong.

Most of the fragments, like the large "triangular" one, were re-inserted into the skull. We know that because the morticians didn't need to fabricate something to take their place.

As for the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was found in the the presidential limo and returned to the autopsy LATE, Sibert and O'Neill wrote:

The portion of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was maintained in the custody of Dr. HUMES who stated that it also could be made available for further examination.

Now, how in heaven's name could that fragment be made available for further examination if was put back into Kennedy's head? It wasn't put back.

The only reason you aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue, Pat, is because you simply ignore all evidence proving you are wrong. Well, that's probably a tactic that is good for your health... a "what, me worry?" attitude.

 

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull.

 

The rubber dam used to cover the remaining hole at the back of the head was the size of a large orange. Yep... large enough to cover a 6.5 x 10 cm hole.