"Best Evidence" - 25 years on

[Pat Speer]

Obvously, I can only give my opinion, but

the back "wound" had little to do with the one in the throat if & when it was created that night.

With this wound in place it makes it clear that he was indeed shot from behind & strongly suggests that the other wounds on the body also were created by bullets from the same source, since there was "only one shooter".

I believe at the time there was only evidence on the body of shots from the front.

That evidence was disguised or, in the case of the head wound, obliterated.

Critics of this theory seem to often say that these guys must of been perfect, or had it all planned out, I think the opposite is true.

They had no idea what they would find when the got ahold of the body & they did the best they could, in what little time they had.

They kidnapped the body at Parkland & seperated him from the ever present Jackie, by force(the "swearng in") & later,  Humes describes the skull as in pieces, with the brain loose in the cranium, & with all tendons that keep it inside the head severered.

After seeing this, is it any wonder that Humes was suspicous of the back wound?

Does anyone have an explanation other than "pre-autopsy surgery" for the massive damage to the skull that greeted Humes & does anyone dissagree that the brain was removed by him & his team without surgery?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the back wound to have been faked, as this would have raised too many questions about the bullet creating the wound. If the bullet entered the torso, then they would have to go in and find it, otherwise it might not jive with Oswald's rifle. If it lodged in the back, and fell out, then they would have to explain what happened to the bullet. While it's possible the bullet found on a stretcher was planted to excuse the back wound they were preparing to fake, they had no way of knowing that the Parkland doctors would fail to inspect Kennedy's back.

The back wound is incredibly problematic for the lone-nutters, as is the Zapruder film. It would have been much simpler for them to argue that the throat wound came as a result of a skull fragment exiting the neck than to sell the SBT. The FBI tried this tactic and even leaked this info to the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Zapruder film and the autopsy report showed this to be false, however.

[Pat Speer]

double-post

Edited August 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Alan Healy]

I'll answer as best I can.

You do not need a loaded gun to create a wound like that in a body.

Indeed, the picture of the wound which we have been shown, if it is to be believed, could of been made quite easily by stabbing a cold blunt object into the back. There is no evidence that it was made by a bullet other than the Bennett & Kellerman "sightings".

As for questions, there were many asked at the autopsy & Humes at first did not believe this wound was made by a bullet, dispite the fact that he knew both he & his subject were in that very place & time because of a shooting in Dallas.

Where & when & how many bullets & of what caliber, were found at Parkland I have no idea.

I also cannot say if CE 399 was originally meant to be tied to any wound in partcular or if the planters of that bullet were on the same page as the ones who would later create the back wound.

It was tied to the victims & the rifle, that is all that was needed.

In my mind I am nowhere near trying to tie the back wound to either CE 399 or the throat wound, I am stiil only looking at the wound itself.

If I see evidence of a similar looking wound created by a bullet I will, most likely, leave it all alone.

Btw Alan,

you should at least attempt to read this if you haven't already,

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...Feinmanbio.html

I have trouble sticking with it.

[Alan Kent]

I don't buy Lifton's theory.  He began working on it in the sixties.  He was trying to explain the divergent descriptions of Kennedy's wounds, without calling anyone a xxxx.  This was admirable.  Once the Clark Panel and HSCA revealed that the autopsy doctors DID misrepresent the wounds, however, he should have incorporated that into his theory.  With the ARRB's release of the HSCA Bethesda personnel interviews, and the retractions of a number of statements made by the Parkland and Bethesda staff, it is obvious there is NO clear-cut difference of opinion between those in Dallas and those in Bethesda.  Consequently, his alteration theory seems unlikely.

Human memories are just a lot more fragile than people want to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Human memories can indeed be fragile. Years of lobbying can also affect the quality of memories. These are excellent reasons to be very skeptical of retractions of statements that were entered into the record long ago. Particularly in the matter of the Kennedy assassination.

A good example of this is the question of the size and appearance of the tracheotomy incision. It has been gradually growing from the "Parkland" end, and shrinking from the "Bethesda" end for many years. Dr. Perry, who told Lifton in 1966 that he made a small (2-3cm.) cut, told the JAMA folks that he made a "large incision." Dr. Humes, who originally described the wound as being 7-8 cm. (with "widely gaping, irregular edges, no less), verbally shrunk it to "about 3-4 cm."

These exercises in medical gymnastics do not affect the clear, clean case that has been made for a vast difference in the appearance of the trach between Dallas and Bethesda.

One area in which the autopsy physicians have never wavered (at least while under oath...) is the question of the dimensions and appearance of Kennedy's head wound. From their Warren Commision testimony to their ARRB depositions, Humes, Boswell, and Finck describe in graphic detail the enormity of the wound.

This is important because, in recent years, the case has been made that the Parkland and Bethesda observers saw essentially the same things. The problem here, I think, is that the wrong question is being asked. Yes, the large hole at the right rear of Kennedy's skull (the occipito-parietal wound described in great detail by McClleland and Clark from Parkland) is certainly there when Kennedy arrives at Bethesda. Just as clearly, as Lifton pointed out long ago, there is extensive damage forward of that wound that was not seen in Dallas.

The wound had become, as Finck describes it in the Blumberg Report, a "right fronto-parieto-occipital" opening. It was now "10 x 17 cm." This area was, as Humes and Boswell note in their ARRB interviews, devoid of bone. The defect "involved both the scalp and the underlying skull," as Humes told the Warren Commission. Four close-enough-to-symmetrical flaps, mirroring closely the type of "flapping" that is done preperatory to removal of the skullcap, were observed by Humes when he first viewed President Kennedy's body. Humes' description to the ARRB is, I think, especially telling: Q-Were any portions of the brain extruding from any wounds in the head? A-Well, the wound was so big that--I don't know what you mean by extruding. It wasn't really-it was just a gaping hole and the brain was right there..."

I think that these descriptions of the head wound are nearly impossible to reconcile with the original observations of the Parkland witnesses. The differences are powerful evidence of pre-autopsy surgery, the same surgery that Dr. Humes noted in astonishment when he first viewed Kennedy's body.

[Alan Kent]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I thought Lifton's work was a waste of time.  His work was very important; it was just too prominent.  By focusing everyone's attention on body alteration, the actual evidence displayed in the autopsy photos was over-looked.  Dr. Mantik makes this same mistake, and even implies that the autopsy evidence taken at face value would signify an open-and-shut case. Nothing could be further from the truth.  The autopsy photos and x-rays are clear-cut evidence for a conspiracy.  Ironically, I came to this conclusion after a number of visits to the same UCLA bio-med stacks Lifton once haunted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, Pat, that one can find good evidence in the existing photos and x-rays that points directly to conspiricy. (Just one example: As Weisberg, and later Howard Roffman pointed out long ago, the nature of the fragmentation seen in the x-rays is exculpatory of Oswald...) Mantik, and others, have found what they believe to be powerful evidence of alteration in this evidence. If that verdict can be factually overturned; well and good. If not (I am not aware of a convincing riposte to Mantik's optical-density studies of the x-rays...) then, I think, we need to be open to the possibility that those who altered the evidence were unable to remove everything they would have liked to remove, and so opted to change that which pointed most powerfully to conspiricy and/or that which could be removed with the technology available in the early 60's.

[Alan Kent]

Hi Alan & welcome,

I'm a fan of Liton & I love his work, not only that but, I still believe in the wound alteration theory, so without doubt I'm a "loyalist".  /cheer

I'm unable to answer all your questions but maybe others here could supply you with an email address to talk directly to the man himself.

Although, as you probably know, he's working on his new book so...... .

I'd recommend also to grab a copy of "The Great Zapruda Film Hoax" Liftons chapter in that book looks more to the the photographic evidence & his dealings with it, which were & are many, & so is very detailed & obvIously like BE an excellent read.

1. 

IMO the most persuasive evidence is Humes description of the state of the skull when he recieved the body.

Also, how he was able to remove the brain without any surgery.

Isn't it also now assumed fact that the casket came in the ambulance with Jackie but the body came in the decoy ambulance that went straight to the rear of Bethesda?

2.

Once again, the state of the skull according to Humes & how he was apparently able to lift the brain out of the head with next to no effort.

I've not heard this rebutted anywhere as yet but then I've not read everthing.

Maybe Bernice could tell us what William Law & Dr Mantik say about this.

3.

I'd hope for others to answer this or you Alan

4.

Hmm, I saw ths one asked @ JFKLancer sometime back & the main stickler was  the one that hit Connally, that came from behind & Lifton does not account for this.

Could it be that Connally was hit on purpose with the Carcano from the Sixth floor?

Then what of the Tague bullet??

I would like to hear Lifton talk about this concept now, I personally think it did not go as simply as that.

I do however still  believe in the back wound as false but 'm pretty much alone on that.

Hope that helps a little.

Keep the faith

Alan:)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the apparent ease with which Kennedy's brain was removed certainly seems to be powerful evidence of tampering. James Jenkins recalls that the brain stem was found to be severed, and that the brain was basically lifted out. This is supported by the Supplemental Autopsy Report, where Dr. Humes makes note of a section of damaged tissue he removed "from the line of transection of the spinal cord." Every other such section Humes took at that time was of tissue damaged by bullets; as Lifton points out, "the autopsy surgeon does not normally make microscopic slides of incisions he himself makes. His mission at the time of the autopsy is to investigate the cause of death-not the cause of his own incisions!" If the President's brain was able to be removed as easily as has been described, not only the spinal cord, but several other structures located at different points on the underside of the brain (on both sides) would have to have been severed. No bullet path proposed by anyone could have accomplished all of this.

On question 3: I'll critique several of the critiques of Lifton's work as we wander further into this topic. A few have been thoughtful; many others have, I think, been vapid.

I'm skeptical of Lifton's "trajectory reversal." I think that the primary goal of the "alterers" was to remove fragments that were large enough to be ballistically identifiable, and I do believe that shots were fired from the rear.

Much more to come. I'm glad the topic has provoked some spirited discussion!

[JL Allen]

Is it correct that JFK loyalists stayed gathered around his casket for the entire flight - only going to the front of the plane for a 5-minute swearing in? That took place before the plane took-off? I was under the impression that the spaces were rather confined and not conducive to clandestine "shenanigans" with so many aboard. Was that casket empty when it was carried on?

There must be a theory that JFK's corpse was flown in a separate plane back to Washington. Did the Bethesda autopsy begin immediately upon their arrival back to D.C. - or, was there any sort of delay or "missing time"? Sorry, this period of time always confuses me.

[John Dolva]

With regards to the different hole sizes I wonder (not based on indepth medical knowledge, but perhaps someone could comment) if when the tracheotomy hole was described in bethesda it was a description of a body just dead, so maybe surround was still swollen, engorged? after some hours and fluid draining down to lower parts etc. would such a hole 'grow'?

[John Dolva]

2post

[Pat Speer]

With regards to the different hole sizes I wonder (not based on indepth medical knowledge, but perhaps someone could comment) if when the tracheotomy hole was described in bethesda it was a description of a body just dead, so maybe surround was still swollen, engorged? after some hours and fluid draining down to lower parts etc. would such a hole 'grow'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question, John, and similar to one I've been pondering. Since Kennedy's head was tilted backwards when they placed him in the coffin, and rigor mortis locked his skull leaning back at roughly 30 degrees, it makes sense to see what leaning your head back does to your neck. And it pulls the skin tight in the area of the tracheostomy. Consequently, I suspect the tracheostomy incision was extended by the weight of Kennedy's own head during the long trip from Dallas.

Edited August 31, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Alan Kent]

Is it correct that JFK loyalists stayed gathered around his casket for the entire flight - only going to the front of the plane for a 5-minute swearing in?  That took place before the plane took-off?  I was under the impression that the spaces were rather confined and not conducive to clandestine "shenanigans" with so many aboard.  Was that casket empty when it was carried on?

  There must be a theory that JFK's corpse was flown in a separate plane back to Washington.  Did the Bethesda autopsy begin immediately upon their arrival back to D.C. - or, was there any sort of delay or "missing time"?  Sorry, this period of time always confuses me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The coffin was unattended by Kennedy loyalists during the swearing in. Also, I believe that there was a 4-5 minute time period when only Secret Service personnel were around the coffin; when it was first placed aboard AF 1, before Jackie Kennedy entered.

The "when and where" question is certainly of interest but, in the final analysis, is secondary to the extensive pattern of evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted. We now have courtroom-calibre evidence of 3 seperate casket arrivals at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63. The initial arrival of the "shipping casket" occurred at 6:35 PM, according to a document prepared by Marine Guard Roger Boyajian, head of the unit that protected the morgue during the autopsy. This tracks very well with the remembrances of Dennis David, Donald Rebentisch, Jerrol Custer, and others who recalled an "early" arrival of a casket. The motorcade from Andrews Air Force Base, containing the ceremonial casket in which the President had been placed in Dallas, arrived at the front of Bethesda at approx. 6:55 PM.

The audiotape of the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey is also extremely compelling evidence of interception. Lipsey, the military aide to General Philip Wehle (Commanding Officer of the Military District of Washington DC) in 1963, was responsible for the movement of Kennedy's body from Andrews to Bethesda. He told HSCA staffers that a decoy ambulance with a second coffin was used to move the body. He described this as a crowd control strategy. Obviously, if a second casket was used, Kennedy's body had to have been removed from the Dallas coffin at some point. Shenanigans took place.

[Alan Kent]

With regards to the different hole sizes I wonder (not based on indepth medical knowledge, but perhaps someone could comment) if when the tracheotomy hole was described in bethesda it was a description of a body just dead, so maybe surround was still swollen, engorged? after some hours and fluid draining down to lower parts etc. would such a hole 'grow'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question, John, and similar to one I've been pondering. Since Kennedy's head was tilted backwards when they placed him in the coffin, and rigor mortis locked his skull leaning back at roughly 30 degrees, it makes sense to see what leaning your head back does to your neck. And it pulls the skin tight in the area of the tracheostomy. Consequently, I suspect the tracheostomy incision was extended by the weight of Kennedy's own head during the long trip from Dallas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is certainly not implausible that the head tilt could have widened the incision, but it would not have completely obliterated evidence of the original wound. Finck testified that "I examined this surgical wound...a very close gross examination...I did not see the small wound described by the Dallas surgeons along that surgical incision...I don't know why it is not there."

Dr. Perry's initial reaction to the gaping throat gash depicted in the autopsy photographs was astonishment. He later told a fellow Parkland physician (David Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate." In an interview with journalist Jimmy Breslin that was conducted within 24 hours of the assassination, Perry also used the word "inviolate." In fact (just to confuse the issue a bit more...) Breslin quoted Perry as saying that he made the trach incision BENEATH the wound! Whether that was an accurate quote or not, Perry's repeated use of the word "inviolate" (and there are at least two other occasions in which he used the word in the same context...) make clear the vast difference in appearance between Dallas and Bethesda.

I know, Perry sings a different tune today, but there exists a much earlier, contrary record, that won't go away.