Limo fragment question

[Johnny Cairns]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I think that was in part 1) to show the skin below the hairline (it was mentioned there was some bruising there, caused by?), 2) to show that the scalp there was rather complete (however, under the scalp the bones were fractured etc). But Pat will correct me on this.

Hi Jean 

Thanks for replying. If the back of the head was virtually intact, which some religiously believe, then a picture of the back of the head without any outside interference should have been taken. 
 

The thing that the Commission apologists want to disappear is the over 30 testimonies on the record regarding the mass exit wound in the back of the head, this to me is simply incontestable. 
 

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

6 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Kevin, 

Are you trying to tell me that over 30 witnesses which range from Doctors, Nurses, SS Agents, Funeral home employees, morticians etc were all grossly in error in their reports and testimony regarding the massive exit wound in the back of the Presidents head? 

I agree there was a massive wound in the back of the head. The question is, is it an exit wound?

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

The crime scene on Elm St. allowed cars and people to travel through DP after the JFKA and you wonder where the Harper fragment was located?

Yes, I do. Especially if the Harper fragment is from the rear of the skull where the massive head wound was located. A tangential trajectory from back to front along the right side of the skull would account for both a large rear wound and the damage along the right half of the head as seen in the Zapruder film and the location of the Harper fragment considerably to the front and to the left of where the limo was located at Z-313. It would be hard to explain for a shot from the front either from the grassy or south knolls. As would a shot from the grassy knoll exiting the rear of the skull. A shot from the south knoll would explain such a wound but can’t explain why none of the motorcycle officers to the right and rear of the limo were hit with debris.

If the location of the Harper fragment was not important, why would people citing it as being found behind the limo use it for justification of a frontal shot?

[Johnny Cairns]

38 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

I agree there was a massive wound in the back of the head. The question is, is it an exit wound?

Yes. 

[Johnny Cairns]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Yes, I do. Especially if the Harper fragment is from the rear of the skull where the massive head wound was located. A tangential trajectory from back to front along the right side of the skull would account for both a large rear wound and the damage along the right half of the head as seen in the Zapruder film and the location of the Harper fragment considerably to the front and to the left of where the limo was located at Z-313. It would be hard to explain for a shot from the front either from the grassy or south knolls. As would a shot from the grassy knoll exiting the rear of the skull. A shot from the south knoll would explain such a wound but can’t explain why none of the motorcycle officers to the right and rear of the limo were hit with debris.

If the location of the Harper fragment was not important, why would people citing it as being found behind the limo use it for justification of a frontal shot?

I am sure Dr Robert Shaw and others examined the harper fragment and believed it came for the occipital region, which of-course implies a frontal shot. Can we see the harper fragment today? To stop all this speculation? No, it’s been “lost” for decades. 

[Kevin Balch]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

I am sure Dr Robert Shaw and others examined the harper fragment and believed it came for the occipital region, which of-course implies a frontal shot. Can we see the harper fragment today? To stop all this speculation? No, it’s been “lost” for decades. 

How does it imply a frontal shot if it was found a significant distance in front of the limo?

According to a previous poster, Harper was asked twice where the fragment was found and consistently gave a location in front of the limo.

It’s widely agreed that the autopsy was poorly conducted, the evidence clouded by numerous investigations and many believe that much of the autopsy photos are fakes. Yet people continue to cite the autopsy.

[Kevin Balch]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Yes. 

Based on what?

[Johnny Cairns]

45 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

How does it imply a frontal shot if it was found a significant distance in front of the limo?

According to a previous poster, Harper was asked twice where the fragment was found and consistently gave a location in front of the limo.

It’s widely agreed that the autopsy was poorly conducted, the evidence clouded by numerous investigations and many believe that much of the autopsy photos are fakes. Yet people continue to cite the autopsy.

Because the Occipital Region is in the back of the head. 
 

As for where the fragment was found, if the Dallas Police had shut off the area and processed it for evidence we would know a lot more about the state of the crime scene in the immediate aftermath of the killing. Outrageously, cars were going down elm street within minutes of the killing. Talk about contamination of the scene/evidence. It also leaves the possibility that were the fragment was found, was not in the place were it was directly after the assassination. 
 

The autopsy of President Kennedy was a disaster. The pathologists were controlled. Notes and draft burned by the chief pathologist. Not one of the trajectory of the wounds was explored, how can that be? The Brian wasn’t even sectioned, I mean come on. An autopsy is supposed to reveal how the victim died, not cover it up.  
 

Michael Baden said “where bungled autopsies are concerned, President Kennedy‘s is the exemplar”. 
 

 

[Paul Cummings]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Yes, I do. Especially if the Harper fragment is from the rear of the skull where the massive head wound was located. A tangential trajectory from back to front along the right side of the skull would account for both a large rear wound and the damage along the right half of the head as seen in the Zapruder film and the location of the Harper fragment considerably to the front and to the left of where the limo was located at Z-313. It would be hard to explain for a shot from the front either from the grassy or south knolls. As would a shot from the grassy knoll exiting the rear of the skull. A shot from the south knoll would explain such a wound but can’t explain why none of the motorcycle officers to the right and rear of the limo were hit with debris.

If the location of the Harper fragment was not important, why would people citing it as being found behind the limo use it for justification of a frontal shot?

I was trying to point out the evidence of the Harper fragment wasn't found until the next day. It could've been run over, kicked or deflected.

Edited August 13 by Paul Cummings

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

I was trying to point out the evidence of the Harper fragment wasn't found until the next day. It could've been run over, kicked or deflected.

Do you really believe anyone finding evidence of the crime of the century would have run over it, kicked it or deflected it perhaps a hundred feet from it’s supposed location behind the limo in a single day? Or that a dog came upon it, carried it away and lost interest in it? Or the same people behind the Z-film alteration and the witness clean up squad decided to plant it there?

[Tom Gram]

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No, but since the bullet definitely did not enter at the EOP level (IMO), any deflection angle from that point is rather irrelevant.

 

I don’t think so David. The case against the cowlick is very, very strong, and many prominent lone assassin theorists agree, including HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.

Also, if you accept Bugliosi’s interpretation of the mystery photo, which I believe is based on the Canal/Sturdivan theory, the alleged entrance on the inner table of the skull is right where the autopsy doctors placed it, by the EOP. 

The entire cowlick theory is based on a blood smudge. I think Boswell said that spot was the posterior margin of one of the scalp tears, and based on the top-of-head photos I bet he’s right. It’s also just ridiculous that all three autopsy doctors would misplace a wound by four inches. 

The bullet definitely did not enter the cowlick, so understanding the implications of an EOP entrance is a very important issue, IMO. 

[Paul Cummings]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Do you really believe anyone finding evidence of the crime of the century would have run over it, kicked it or deflected it perhaps a hundred feet from it’s supposed location behind the limo in a single day? Or that a dog came upon it, carried it away and lost interest in it? Or the same people behind the Z-film alteration and the witness clean up squad decided to plant it there?

It was found the next day. What kind of dog took it?

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Pat, 

You know what has always troubled me about this picture? Why is either Humes, Boswell or Fincks hand look like it is pulling the Presidents scalp forward? That surly cannot be standard procedure? 

I think they were demonstrating that there was a bone flap in that picture. By holding it up. 

I really don't think they were trying to hide that the wound went back that far. The drawing they created for the WC, after all, showed a wound which was pretty much at the crown of the head. 

It is telling, IMO, that a number of those saying they thought that picture was inconsistent with what they remembered had no problem with or even readily IDed the TOH photo as what they remembered.

The Horne clique, of course says there was NO damage to the top of the head in the shooting. Well, this is totally at odds with what people like McClelland would later claim. 

 

Edited August 13 by Pat Speer

[Johnny Cairns]

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I think they were demonstrating that there was a bone flap in that picture. By holding it up. 

I really don't think they were trying to hide that the wound went back that far. The drawing they created for the WC, after all, showed a wound which was pretty much at the crown of the head. 

It is telling, IMO, that a number of those saying they thought that picture was inconsistent with what they remembered had no problem with or even readily IDed the TOH photo as what they remembered.

The Horne clique, of course says there was NO damage to the top of the head in the shooting. Well, this is totally at odds with what people like McClelland would later claim. 

 

So in you’re opinion, did President Kennedy have a small entrance wound at the back of his head or a large exit wound? 

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

So in you’re opinion, did President Kennedy have a small entrance wound at the back of his head or a large exit wound? 

IMO, based upon the witnesses and the photographic and film evidence, he had a small entrance wound low on the back of the head AND a large wound (of both entrance and exit) on the right rear quadrant of the head (when viewed from above). The bone fragment at the rear of this latter wound, moreover, was fractured from the skull on the back of the head, and plopped open when JFK was on his back. The brain review and brain photos prove these wounds were not related, moreover. So my conclusion is and has been that there were two head shots, and almost certainly two shooters.