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

[Pat Speer]

On 4/3/2024 at 10:14 AM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Sandy I think you have done a great job of drawing out an essential and simple point: The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body. They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back. 

Isn't there a flaw in your argument about the Z film showing the rear headshot? Isn't the head in the extant film at the wrong angle? I think it is. I think the Newmans saw this shot and it exited through the top/side of the head. Your trajectory doesn't have an exit.

It was actually just one of the autopsists, Boswell. And he never said anything about this until years afterwards. And then he specified that it was the smallest of the three bone fragments brought in during the autopsy that completed the beveled entrance.

Well, his recollection has been mis-represented by some to suggest the HARPER FRAGMENT!!!, which was not brought into the autopsy, or even discovered until the next day, and was far from small, AND had a lead smear at a beveled exit, was the fragment brought in that completed the entrance. And that's ridiculous.

Now, Sandy is working on a theory where the Harper fragment was brought into the autopsy and then taken back to Dallas to be found, and the supposed  beveled entrance was really an exit, and so on. But it's a really busy theory to no end, IMO. But at least he's trying to make the pieces fit, as opposed to those who have claimed, for years, that the Harper fragment, was the bone Boswell claimed matched up with a beveled entrance on the skull, while knowing full well that the beveling they claim matched up was exit beveling, not entrance beveling. 

 

Edited April 5 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

On 4/3/2024 at 11:14 AM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body. They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back.

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It was actually just one of the autopsists, Boswell. And he never said anything about this until years afterwards.

 

No, Dr. Finck revealed it too, just not as explicitly. First in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and then in a letter in 1965.

 

Finck, WC:

"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."     (Source)

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the intact skull edge where the fragment fits.

Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."     (Source)

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there.

 

All three autopsy doctors said that just a portion of the hole/crater was on the intact skull. Humes allows the reader of the autopsy report to assume that the fragment with the other portion of the hole/crater was in place when the skull was reassembled. But it wasn't. Instead of the fragment being in place, a rubber dam was so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 4/3/2024 at 6:49 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Eddy.

 

 

That's right! Though I would say that they "inadvertently admitted" there was a large hole in the back, since they didn't come right out and "state" it.

 

 

I assume you are referring to this prior statement of mine from page 1 of this thread:

"If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP."

You are right, there is no trajectory that fits the EOP entrance at ~Z312, because the exit would be somewhere on the face. And of course there was no wound on the face.

BTW, I wouldn't place much stock in what the Newmans said they saw. 

Thankyou for replying Sandy. There is another explanation I prefer to your theory which avoids the discounting of the Newman's. The Z film is missing JFK's slump prior to the first headshot from the rear ( seen by the Newmans and recorded in the Rydberg diagram). The second frontal head shot has been removed with JFK's backward movement a remnant of it.

I am pretty convinced the autopsists were told avoid mentioning frontal shots but only a sawn notch above the eye was necessary in respect of clandestine surgery. The rest is simply shattered/missing skull.

Edited April 5 by Eddy Bainbridge
Error

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No, Dr. Finck revealed it too, just not as explicitly. First in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and then in a letter in 1965.

 

Finck, WC:

"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."     (Source)

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the intact skull edge where the fragment fits.

Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."     (Source)

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there.

 

All three autopsy doctors said that just a portion of the hole/crater was on the intact skull. Humes allows the reader of the autopsy report to assume that the fragment with the other portion of the hole/crater was in place when the skull was reassembled. But it wasn't. Instead of the fragment being in place, a rubber dam was so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

 

Finck's saying there was "enough curvature" on the bone to identify it as an entrance does not mean half the entrance was missing, and found on a bone fragment delivered hours later. Nor does his stating he'd observed a portion of a crater. The bullet entered at an angle. It did not leave a nice round crater on the inside of the skull. Apparently it was half a crater and then a groove. Thus 15 by 6. 

And you don't need to take my word for it.

In his WC testimony Finck said the defect was in an area of intact scalp, and that when they reflected the scalp away from the defect they found "a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull."

in His FIRST letter to Blumberg, moreover, Finch specified that there was a "through and through wound of the occipital bone" "corresponding" to the 15 by 6 wound on the scalp. When later asked by the ARRB if the doctors put a skull fragment back in place that completed the entrance wound, he was totally perplexed, and replied "I don't remember that." (Gunn, stupidly, prefaced the question by saying Boswell had said they''d completed the hole with a fragment, which, of course, prevented Finck from saying such a thing was ludicrous, etc.) 

So that leaves Boswell, who said nothing about such a bone before telling Thompson it was the largest bone that was matched up. (Well it would appear from this that he'd simply misremembered the bone brought in with exit beveling that convinced them the large defects was an exit as a bone brought in that completed the entrance--something no one else remembered.) And then, of course, Boswell told the HSCA that it was the smallest bone that matched up.

So, in short, there is weak evidence, at best, that a bone was brought in that matched up with the entrance, and no reason whatsoever to take from this that this bone was the Harper fragment, which was not discovered until the next day AND had exit beveling, not entrance beveling. 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

HSCA Testimony of Boswell :-

 

 

"Dr Boswell-  But not much. because this bone all gone and actually the

smaller fragment fit this piece down here—there was a hole here, only half of

which was present the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right

on there and the bevelling was on the interior surface."

 

Two points : - Boswell is stating that 'half' the hole on the rear of skull was intact and another piece (not present initialy) 'fit right on there'

 

Secondly, he is stating the bevelling was on the interior surface. He may have lied, other fragments (Harper) may have bevelling on the outer surface, but Boswell most certainly is claiming there was a low entrance wound, above which was a SPACE that needed filling with later arriving bone.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

HSCA Testimony of Boswell :-

 

 

"Dr Boswell-  But not much. because this bone all gone and actually the

smaller fragment fit this piece down here—there was a hole here, only half of

which was present the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right

on there and the bevelling was on the interior surface."

 

Two points : - Boswell is stating that 'half' the hole on the rear of skull was intact and another piece (not present initialy) 'fit right on there'

 

Secondly, he is stating the bevelling was on the interior surface. He may have lied, other fragments (Harper) may have bevelling on the outer surface, but Boswell most certainly is claiming there was a low entrance wound, above which was a SPACE that needed filling with later arriving bone.

Yes, that is what he said. But it wasn't what he said initially, and it it isn't consistent with the bone's being the Harper fragment. 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Finck's saying there was "enough curvature" on the bone to identify it as an entrance does not mean half the entrance was missing, and found on a bone fragment delivered hours later.

 

The whole point of identifying the curvature in a skull bone is to know which side is on the inside of the skull and which side is on the outside. And the only reason that is important is so you know which side the observed beveling is on. If the beveling is on the inside, this is indicative of an entrance wound, and if it's on the outside, this is indicative of an exit wound. It's as simple as that.

That is the reason Finck noted he was able to observe the curvature. (See his statements in the OP.) Because he needed to know which side the crater/beveling was on... inside or outside of skull.

Now, if Finck was talking about the bullet hole being 100% (not partial, not half) on INTACT skull (i.e. not a fragment), why would he even be noting that he could determine the curvature? In that case, there would be no need to look for curvature to know which side the beveling was observed on.

Clearly Finck was referring to a fragment. It's only with a fragment that it is important to determine the curvature in order to know which side is in and which side is out.

If you read both of Finck's statement in the OP, you will see that he refers indirectly to a fragment (due to "curvature"), and to beveling/cratering that is only partially on the intact skull. (BTW, the latter ALSO implies a fragment... because if the beveling/cratering is only partially on the intact skull, where else would the remainder of it be? On a fragment, of course.)

Pat thinks that Finck is referring to some other off-the-wall, crazy thing. Why? Because what Finck says contradicts what Pat believes. But all one needs to do to see that my explanation is correct is to read what Boswell said at the time of the HSCA. BOSWELL CORROBORATES WHAT FINCK SAID! Not Pat's interpretation of what Finck said, but MY interpretation of what he said. (See Boswell's statements in the OP.)

It isn't at all surprising that Boswell sides with my interpretation because I have an open mind and no axe to grind. I adjust my understanding with every new piece of information that I come across. In contrast, Pat has an ideology that he won't budge from. He is determined to make every bit of evidence match his ideology regardless of how ridiculous his arguments become.

Such is the danger of being an ideologue.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The bullet entered at an angle. It did not leave a nice round crater on the inside of the skull. Apparently it was half a crater and then a groove. Thus 15 by 6. 

 

I told Pat before that the reported 15 x 6 mm hole was only in the scalp. Not the bone. But here he is again trying to make the evidence agree with his belief.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And you don't need to take my word for it.

In his WC testimony Finck said the defect was in an area of intact scalp, and that when they reflected the scalp away from the defect they found "a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull."

 

"Corresponding" doesn't mean that the bone hole size was precisely the same as the scalp hole size, 6 x 15 mm. It means only the the bullet passed through both the 6 x 15 mm scalp hole and the CORRESPONDING bullet hole through the bone.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

There is another explanation I prefer to your theory which avoids the discounting of the Newman's.

 

Eddie, I think you place far too much importance on what one witness, Newman, said.

The vast majority of the doctors and nurses said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:54 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Apparently the FBI was still there after the autopsy. They said that Humes kept the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment, but would make it available for further study.

Or maybe the FBI learned later of the arrival of the fragment and Humes keeping it, and added that to their report later.

Or maybe the FBI and Humes left the autopsy at about the same time but didn't go home right away, and the fragment arrived then, too late to  have it re-inserted.

 

 

I've never said the Harper fragment was broken off the "triangular" fragment. I've always said that it was broken off from the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment. The "triangular" fragment and 6.5 x 10 cm fragment are not the same fragment, as I proved earlier.

The "triangular" fragment was inserted back into the skull at the top of the head. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment would have been inserted into the back of the skull had it arrived in time.

 

 

Large orange.

From this ARRB document:

Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index fingers and thumbs of his two hands).

 

Yes, the patch was larger than the hole, which was the size of a small orange. 

Edited April 6 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

On 4/3/2024 at 9:11 AM, Sean Coleman said:

Just read your analysis on the link Sandy provides above and you have me convinced. Put to bed as far as I’m concerned. Thanks! I come here for answers.

At the end of the chapter you seek identification of a mystery surgical apparatus, did you solve it? It could be a 50’s/60’s version of something like this……

Thanks. The search continues. I've been told an effort is underway to get some medical professionals to take a look at this stuff, so maybe some progress is forthcoming. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The whole point of identifying the curvature in a skull bone is to know which side is on the inside of the skull and which side is on the outside. And the only reason that is important is so you know which side the observed beveling is on. If the beveling is on the inside, this is indicative of an entrance wound, and if it's on the outside, this is indicative of an exit wound. It's as simple as that.

That is the reason Finck noted he was able to observe the curvature. (See his statements in the OP.) Because he needed to know which side the crater/beveling was on... inside or outside of skull.

Now, if Finck was talking about the bullet hole being 100% (not partial, not half) on INTACT skull (i.e. not a fragment), why would he even be noting that he could determine the curvature? In that case, there would be no need to look for curvature to know which side the beveling was observed on.

Clearly Finck was referring to a fragment. It's only with a fragment that it is important to determine the curvature in order to know which side is in and which side is out.

If you read both of Finck's statement in the OP, you will see that he refers indirectly to a fragment (due to "curvature"), and to beveling/cratering that is only partially on the intact skull. (BTW, the latter ALSO implies a fragment... because if the beveling/cratering is only partially on the intact skull, where else would the remainder of it be? On a fragment, of course.)

Pat thinks that Finck is referring to some other off-the-wall, crazy thing. Why? Because what Finck says contradicts what Pat believes. But all one needs to do to see that my explanation is correct is to read what Boswell said at the time of the HSCA. BOSWELL CORROBORATES WHAT FINCK SAID! Not Pat's interpretation of what Finck said, but MY interpretation of what he said. (See Boswell's statements in the OP.)

It isn't at all surprising that Boswell sides with my interpretation because I have an open mind and no axe to grind. I adjust my understanding with every new piece of information that I come across. In contrast, Pat has an ideology that he won't budge from. He is determined to make every bit of evidence match his ideology regardless of how ridiculous his arguments become.

Such is the danger of being an ideologue.

 

 

I told Pat before that the reported 15 x 6 mm hole was only in the scalp. Not the bone. But here he is again trying to make the evidence agree with his belief.

 

 

"Corresponding" doesn't mean that the bone hole size was precisely the same as the scalp hole size, 6 x 15 mm. It means only the the bullet passed through both the 6 x 15 mm scalp hole and the CORRESPONDING bullet hole through the bone.

 

Finck said numerous times that when they reflected the scalp he saw a hole on the skull. He was very meticulous in his language. He would not have said he saw a hole if he meant to say he saw what he interpreted to be half a hole. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Finck said numerous times that when they reflected the scalp he saw a hole on the skull. He was very meticulous in his language. He would not have said he saw a hole if he meant to say he saw what he interpreted to be half a hole. 

 

Well, duh! The autopsists covered up the gaping wound in the back of the head for the Warren Commission. Dr. Finck's revelation of the fragment "curvature" in his WC testimony was an accident.

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, that is what he said. But it wasn't what he said initially, and it it isn't consistent with the bone's being the Harper fragment. 

I don't think the Harper fragment is the piece aligning with the low entry hole. I do believe it blasted out of the skull from the second frontal head shot.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Eddie, I think you place far too much importance on what one witness, Newman, said.

The vast majority of the doctors and nurses said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top.

 

Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. 

I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.  

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. 

I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.  

We are on the same page. Even if one were to throw the autopsy report and the statements of the autopsy doctors in the trash, Horne's position that there was NO gaping hole on the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating one is nonsense. There are witnesses such as Newman who saw the side of the head explode, and Parkland witnesses such as Baxter and Perry who noted a bone flap on the side of the head. The notion there were small holes on the forehead AND temple that went unnoticed at Parkland runs counter to the claim these were unassailable witnesses. And isn't that the basis for the body alteration theory--that the Parkland witnesses could not be wrong?

Now here's a frontal shot theory that makes sense, IMO. It's not my theory, but it's one with which I could agree. 

1. A low-velocity bullet from behind strikes JFK near the EOP and exits his throat. 

2. A shot from the behind the fence enters near the temple and blasts the top of Kennedy's head off, with the far back of the right side of his skull still attached by the scalp. 

While not perfect this accounts for the sounds from the knoll and smoke observed on the knoll, and accounts for the Parkland witnesses thinking the wound was on the back of the head (as hair and scalp draped down to cover the front part of the skull defect, and as the rear flap opened up, when Kennedy was laying on his back.)

Heck, you could even claim the EOP bullet damaged cerebellum and that it dripped out of the hole above it when JFK was placed in the Trendelenburg position, with his feet up in the air. 

But no, such a theory would never gain traction because people are hooked on the idea an evil "they" altered the body to conceal the truth of a conspiracy. 

(while writing autopsy reports and taking autopsy photos which unwittingly reveal a conspiracy.)