(PART 8)

To Paul Seaton,

I want to say that you've done a nice job presenting your arguments in
favor of your stated position regarding President Kennedy's head
wounds. Thank you.

But I'd like to add the following comments and observations:

The fractured and fragmented skull of the late President John F.
Kennedy was certainly "falling to pieces" into the hands of the
autopsy doctors at Bethesda, Maryland, on the night of November 22,
1963. From the testimonial record of the autopsy physicians, I think
that point has been made abundantly clear.

But, in my opinion, there is still a question as to exactly what
specific sections of the President's head were severely fragmented
(i.e., "falling to pieces").

I think that that question can be answered (for the most part anyway)
by looking at my favorite lateral X-ray once again (even though it's
only a "copy" of the original X-ray):

We can see from the X-ray above that there are some fracture LINES
that extend into the rear portions of JFK's head (even one clear fracture
line that extends into the right-rear, i.e., into the occipital area of the

But these "rear" fracture lines do not seem to MEET UP with any other
fracture lines. Therefore, it's my opinion that these fractures did not
result in any FRAGMENTATION ("falling to pieces") in the rear portions
of President Kennedy's head.

But when we look at the VERY TOP of the head in that X-ray, we can see
extensive and multiple fractures and, indeed, FRAGMENTATION of the top
of the skull. This is quite obvious, with some of the fractured/fragmented
skull bone even overlapping other parts of JFK's skull at the VERY TOP of
his head.

This area, the VERY TOP of the head, where severe fractures and
fragmentation are clearly visible in the lateral X-ray, is where I
believe the bulk of the "pieces" of JFK's head came from when Dr.
Humes (et al) described the head as literally "falling to pieces"
after the scalp was reflected in order to remove the President's

Now, yes, I suppose that a small amount of skull in the "back" part of
the head could have come loose too...but I still maintain that no part
of the OCCIPITAL region of the head/skull was fragmented or was
"falling to pieces". The X-ray just does not show the kind of severe
fragmentation that is needed for the occipital area of JFK's head to
have been part of Humes' (et al) testimony with respect to their
"falling to pieces" observations.

I still think it's quite likely that Dr. Humes did have to "cut" (or
"saw") some of the bone at the top portions of JFK's head in order to
remove the brain (and, as mentioned, Humes is on record in 1996 [in
front of the ARRB] as saying: "We had to cut some bone" [J.J. Humes;
02/13/96] in order to get the brain out of the President's cranium).

I think it makes a lot of sense (especially when we take another look
at the severely-fragmented condition of the VERY TOP of JFK's head) to
believe that the parts of the President's head that were "falling to
pieces" after the scalp was pulled back were mainly portions of the
VERY TOP of the head, rather than the back parts of the head.

And it makes sense from another standpoint too....a standpoint that
can be prefaced with this question:

What part of a deceased person's head is required to be removed in
order to extract the brain from that person's head?

And the answer is, of course, THE VERY TOP OF THE HEAD.

Yes, I suppose a portion of the "back" of the head would be included
when an autopsist does his usual cutting/sawing to remove a
brain....but the "back/rear" portions of the head in such a case would
certainly NOT include the "occipital" area of the skull. It would only
need to include the TOP portion of the very BACK of the head in order
to extract a brain.

Therefore, if a large portion of the very top of JFK's head was severely
fragmented at the time his scalp was peeled back (and the X-ray certainly
proves that it was), in conjunction with the large amount of skull that
was missing at the RIGHT-FRONT area of the head (i.e., the actual exit
wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet), then it seems reasonable that this
combination of things that affected the TOP and RIGHT side of JFK's head
could have resulted in a situation where the autopsy doctors had to perform
very little cutting (or sawing) of the head in order to remove the President's

But I just cannot place any faith at all in the specific head-wound
theories that have been placed on the table by Mr. John A. Canal in
recent years. (And I can only assume, based on Paul's recent Internet
posts, that Paul Seaton does not agree with the bulk of Mr. Canal's
hypothesis concerning the "BOH" wounds and the "scalp-stretching" and
the "lacerated scalp" of JFK, etc.; is that correct, Paul? If I have
misrepresented your position regarding JFK's head wounds by way of my
last remarks, I apologize.)

Anyway, John Canal's theory has the autopsy doctors engaging in a
mini-"cover up" (at least to a certain extent, since John believes
that those doctors were not as forthcoming about certain back-of-the-
head injuries as they could have been). And that's just something that
I bluntly have called "idiotic" in previous Internet posts (and I still think
it is).

And John C. really requires a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear SCALP
to be damaged too, in order for the Parkland Hospital witnesses to be
correct (and John C. has stated that he does think the Parkland witnesses
DID see a large-ish wound in the occipital area of JFK's head on 11/22/63;
but I just cannot agree with John on this point at all).

And to emphasize my own "BOH" position yet again, I'll once more re-post
the following quote from Dr. Michael Baden, the chief pathologist on the
HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel:

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]


For the benefit of any "lurkers" who might be viewing these endless
"BOH" threads here at the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, I want to
add the following important comment:

Even though there is a considerable amount of disagreement among John
Canal, Paul Seaton, and myself regarding these head-wound issues (but
I think my own disagreement with Mr. Seaton is to a much lesser
extent), these disagreements do not in any way undermine or negate the
BOTTOM-LINE conclusion that all three of us believe -- with that
bottom-line conclusion being: Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only
gunman who struck any victims in Dealey Plaza with rifle bullets on
November 22, 1963.

So, in the final analysis, if I were being forced to summarize all of
this "BOH" talk in just a few words (as impossible as that might be to
believe coming from a windbag named Von Pein ~grin~), I'd sum things
up this way (and I'm guessing that "Reclaiming History" author Vincent
Bugliosi would agree with me here, too):

When it comes to JUST the specific issue of President Kennedy's skull
"falling to pieces" AFTER his scalp was reflected (and after the
President was shot in the head by just ONE bullet fired from the Texas
School Book Depository, with that one bullet undeniably coming out of
the gun owned by Lee Harvey Oswald), I'd sum things up with these


But when it comes to the specific "Back-Of-The-Head Wound" and "Scalp-
Stretching" theories that have been espoused by John A. Canal for the
last several years, I'd sum things up with these two words:


David Von Pein
May 2009