(PART 2)



>>> "Read carefully what Humes said [during the 1967 CBS-TV special,
"A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"]
. All that he said is that there was only one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been careful all along not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry was...cowlick or near-EOP)." <<<

You're right, [John Canal], I haven't committed to an exact location [as of
April 2007; but since that time, I have expressed my strong belief that
the entry wound in JFK's head was located high on the head, near
President Kennedy's cowlick, which is where the Clark Panel and the
HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel have placed the wound]
. Mainly
because I truly don't think it matters a darn bit. The key fact is that
all the doctors agree that there was ONLY ONE entry wound at the
back of the head (regardless of the exact square inch on the head).
This fact proves that the one and only head shot had to have come
from the REAR, not from the front (Grassy Knoll).

>>> "David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided any mention of the BOH...except for the entry." <<<

Yes, and there's a very good reason for that, IMO. And that reason is:
Because there was no real REASON to mention the "BOH" except with
respect to the one small entry wound in the BOH.

IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
the body?

The whole argument over any potential "Large BOH" wound is really
pretty much a moot point altogether, due to the undeniable FACT that
President Kennedy sustained just the ONE gunshot wound to his head,
and that shot definitely came from the rear (consistent with having
come from the TSBD).

The large exit wound on JFK's head covered a decent-sized area of the
right side of the head, but it was "chiefly parietal", per the autopsy
report and the words of the autopsy doctors.

But the autopsy report includes the words "occipital" and "temporal"
as well, but the word "somewhat" is also used in the report, just
preceding the references to those locations.....

FROM JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT -- "There is a large irregular defect of the
scalp and skull on the right, involving chiefly the parietal bone but
extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."

Now, my next question would be this -- Since the autopsy report and
doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND
ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively
consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of
exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the
President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the
slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any
"BOH" wound (large or small)?

You said that the doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound
they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK
had been shot from the front.

But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.

There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even
WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere
to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger
BOH hole.

Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet
striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could
obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the
extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet
which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after
entering the skull.

Jackie Kennedy's handling of the President's head during the ride to
Parkland could also have been a partial explanation for any such large
BOH wound. Jackie later confirmed that she was "trying to hold his
head on".

These doctors weren't stupid. One BEVELLED-INWARD entry hole in the
BOH (which we definitely have in this case) and no other signs of ANY
other entry hole anyplace else on the head HAS to mean just what it
does mean -- John Kennedy was shot just once in the head from behind.
Period. No obfuscation required, regardless of where the larger
exiting hole(s) are located.

Now, Vincent Bugliosi, in his upcoming book, could have a different
view than I have regarding all of this "BOH" talk. But one thing's for
certain--Vince will certainly be talking about the one bevelled-in
entry hole at the back of JFK's head, and the total lack of any other
entry wounds on the President's head.

That fact is key and should be placed atop all other "head wound"
facts, and Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly (as I have done in my forum
posts) be greatly emphasizing that fact re. the SINGLE entry hole in
JFK's cranium....which, as I said, pretty much makes all of the "Large
BOH" wound talk a meaningless and moot endeavor altogether.

In fact, Mr. Bugliosi has already talked about that very thing, during
the 1986 TV Docu-Trial:

"The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.

"If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?

"Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 1986


There's also this interesting portion of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
(re. the cerebellum)....

DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the
cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But
they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut
the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting
the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the
cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."


To summarize:

In my opinion, there was no "large BOH" wound in President Kennedy's
head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
such a massive "BOH" wound.

1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.

2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound
(and Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled,
IMO; lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what
happened, in perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).

3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.

4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound.

The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
I cannot deny that fact.

But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
(while never turning the body over, of course).

More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore,
btw, has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland

Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm dead-wrong, and I suppose it's
possible that a large BOH wound did exist on JFK's head on 11/22/63.

But even WITH such a wound present on JFK's head, conspiracy theorists
who think such a wound at the FAR RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
caused by a FRONTAL gunshot still have a huge hurdle to overcome --
that hurdle being: Where is the ENTRY wound for any such frontal shot?

Do CTers think the parietal exit wound that resulted from Oswald's
from-the-rear head shot miraculously masked the entry hole for a
frontal shot?

Did the plotters truly get THAT lucky, yet again? Much in the same way
those same Patsy-Framers got incredibly lucky (per many CTers'
beliefs) when two or THREE different bullets caused wounds that just
happened to line themselves up on two victims in a manner that could
even begin to suggest the "SBT"??

Boy, did those conspirators have Lady Luck shining on them that
Friday, if conspiracists want to believe all of that crazy stuff.

Plus: WHERE could a frontal gunman have possibly been located to have
caused only the FAR RIGHT-REAR portion of Kennedy's head to be blown
out by the bullet? Why isn't ANY of the LEFT hemisphere of JFK's head
affected by a shot coming from (per most CTers) the "Badge Man"/Grassy
Knoll area of Dealey Plaza?

That bullet sure did some crazy zig-zagging inside Kennedy's head, it
would seem, if CTers want a wound caused by "Badge Man" to be present
in THIS part of Mr. Kennedy's head:

David Von Pein
April 2007