(PART 19)


>>> "It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match, why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the large hole in the right-rear. .... It may be something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing.
Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of the case." <<<


In a nutshell, Chris, I simply do not see the type of damage in ANY of the autopsy photos or X-rays that I believe needs to be present in those pictures and X-rays in order for the Parkland "BOH" witnesses to be correct. It's really as simple as that.

Plus: The autopsy report is pretty clear on where the large wound was really located -- it was "chiefly parietal" -- not "chiefly occipital". Seems pretty clear to me.

Moreover, those THREE THINGS (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the autopsy report) CORROBORATE EACH OTHER. They fit together like bread and butter, like a hand and a glove, or like Dave Healy and his crackpipe.

The pictures, X-rays, and autopsy report are the things that positively refute the notion that JFK had a big hole in the back of his head.

Plus there are the things I didn't even mention on the "Big Three" list:

There's the Zapruder Film, which is a film that also corroborates what I'm seeing in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And the film also perfectly corroborates what the autopsy report says about the big wound being "chiefly parietal", which is just exactly where we see the wound in the Zapruder Film.

And there are also the many statements and testimony given by the three autopsy surgeons (Humes, Finck, and Boswell). None of those doctors ever claimed that there was a great-big hole at the back of JFK's head. They always maintained that the large exit wound was toward the RIGHT-FRONT of the head.

I'd like for you to find just ONE quote from any of those three autopsy doctors which has any of them saying something akin to this:

"I was wrong and the autopsy report I signed in 1963 was wrong. The large exit wound in President Kennedy's head was really located in the right-rear portion of his head, just as the many Parkland witnesses claimed. The large wound was not located 'chiefly parietal', which is what we stated in our 1963 autopsy report. I'm sorry, I was mistaken for all these years when I have said the big hole in JFK's head was located to the 'right-front' part of his head. It was really not even close to that right-front location. It was at the far-right-rear of the head. I hope God can forgive my ignorance (and lies) regarding this key issue."

But instead of finding something like the above comments coming from any of the autopsy physicians, what do we find? We find this:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967

David Von Pein
January 30, 2012



>>> "The man [Dr. J. Thornton Boswell] tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp forward." <<<


Dr. Boswell wasn't talking about pulling the scalp forward to cover a hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head, you goof. He was obviously talking about the possibility of pulling the scalp forward to cover the ONE AND ONLY large exit wound in JFK's head, which was (of course) located just where all of the autopsy doctors said it was located -- above the right ear of JFK (i.e., the right-frontal-top "chiefly parietal" portion of JFK's cranium).

Notice in that quote how Boswell twice says the word "wound" (singular). Now, given the fact that the autopsy report clearly indicates that the large singular "wound" of exit was "chiefly" in the "parietal" (right-front) region of the head, why in the world would anyone think Boswell was talking about a big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head when he said this to the Assassination Records Review Board on February 26, 1996?:

"The scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

Chris, you REALLY think the "wound" (singular) that Boswell was talking about there was a "wound" in the right-rear-occipital area of Kennedy's head (even though we find this description of the large head wound on page 3 of the autopsy report [Warren Report; Page 540])?:

"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. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Yes, the autopsy report does say the wound extended "somewhat into the occipital" area of the head. But that language is very vague and non-specific. But it's quite clear from that same paragraph in the autopsy report that the wound would certainly NOT be considered to be a hole in the far-right-REAR of Kennedy's skull. Not even close.

And also take note of the fact that that same paragraph of the autopsy report says that there is an "absence of scalp" in the area of the large "chiefly parietal" wound. Which I think is, indeed, significant language there, because it pretty much eliminates the "McClelland Theory", which is a theory that has INTACT scalp (in the very same right-rear area of JFK's head!) being pulled up over a big hole in the right-rear of the head.

But how would that scenario be remotely possible, given the language I just quoted from the official autopsy report, which clearly indicates that in the area of the big hole in JFK's head there was "an actual absence of scalp", which most certainly indicates a condition that is not seen at all in the scalp at the back of Kennedy's head.

Let me re-emphasize a little bit more of that section of the autopsy report:
The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was located.

Therefore, given the fact that we know there was an "absence of scalp and bone" in the area where the large head wound was located, can anyone tell me how in the world that type of description can possibly apply to the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head (as seen in the autopsy photo and X-ray shown below)?

Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:

Plus: Dr. Boswell, as far as I know, has NEVER once explicitly said that the big hole in JFK's head was located anywhere on the head other than where it is said to be in the November 1963 autopsy report -- "chiefly parietal" (which is NOT in the right-rear of the head).

You can play around with Boswell's later ARRB statements all you want to (which are statements that are quite ambiguous and unclear in many respects, in my opinion), but Dr. Boswell never came out and said to ANYONE that President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear of his head.

If Boswell ever did make such a crystal-clear statement about there being a big hole in the BACK of the President's head (instead of being chiefly located in the right-frontal part of the head), it would mean that he would have been admitting, in essence, that the autopsy report he signed on 11/24/63 was a total fraud and a lie with respect to the location of JFK's large head wound. And Dr. Boswell, as far as I am aware, has always stood by the integrity and the basic truth that resides in that autopsy report.

David Von Pein
January 30, 2012