(PART 139)


So, David VP, you're saying that your and Vincent Bugliosi's amateur interpretations of the autopsy photos trumps the "expert" opinions of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel? How does that make you two any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist?


In this particular narrow-based instance, I will readily admit that it doesn't make me "any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist", due to the fact that I am doing what almost all conspiracy-happy people love to do with virtually ALL of the evidence in the case -- I'm completely ignoring the official conclusion of the HSCA's Forensic Panel in this particular "height of the wounds" regard.

(I'll bet Pat was glad to hear that admission from an LNer.) ;)

But when referring specifically to Vincent Bugliosi's thoughts on this matter, you can't really say that Vince and I think alike on this issue (at least when based on Pages 423 and 424 of VB's JFK book)....and that's because, based on the text found on those two pages, Vince says that he totally accepts the HSCA's findings as being true regarding the wound locations AND he also asserts that he does not accept the HSCA's conclusions (via his comments on page 424 at any rate).

But, to summarize, the HSCA's FPP was and is definitely DEAD WRONG when it comes to their conclusion that the back wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound. And even Dr. James J. Humes, JFK's leading autopsy doctor, has said so -- i.e., Humes himself said, in 1964 to the Warren Commission, that JFK's throat wound was "physically lower" than the wound located in Kennedy's upper back (2 H 368).

RELATED ADDENDUM (from my "Reclaiming History" book review):

"Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir."

Now, I can only logically assume that Dr. Humes, when he made the above comment to the WC about the location of JFK's back and neck wounds, was referring to John Kennedy's body being in an "anatomical" (upright) position with respect to those comments about the wounds (although Humes didn't specifically use the word "anatomical" in his testimony).

But since JFK was lying flat on his back on a table during the autopsy, what other posture (other than the "anatomical position") could Dr. Humes possibly have been referring to when he said what he said in 1964? Humes, in that quote above, surely wasn't suggesting that Kennedy's neck (throat) wound was "physically lower" than the back wound only if the President's body was tilted or leaning in some strange fashion.

And yet, in total opposition to Humes' quote cited above (which is a quote that VB cites in this book as well), and directly contradicting Bugliosi's stance regarding the wound locations as depicted in the autopsy photograph previously mentioned and linked, we find Vince saying this on Page 423 -- "The...bullet track, which is going downward through the president's body, is traveling upward anatomically."

I can only shrug my shoulders and softly mumble three words: Curious, curious, curious."
-- DVP; 2007


And, why, if, as you assert, these imminent pathologists are TOO FREAKIN' INCOMPETENT to figure out the anatomical location of a back wound on a photo, should we trust anything they say, including that there is evidence for but two gunshots on Kennedy's body, both fired from behind?


I wouldn't compare the two things as being on equal levels. In one instance, the HSCA was attempting to determine how many bullet holes John Kennedy had in his body (and from what directions those shots were fired).

But the other instance is quite different (and a bit more subjective in nature, given the fact they had no photo to work with that showed BOTH Kennedy's throat wound and his upper-back wound in the same photo for direct "relative height" comparison) -- i.e., the HSCA was trying to answer the "lower or higher?" question regarding those wounds by utilizing the autopsy photographs and the written record and the testimony of the autopsists (testimony taken 15 years after the assassination).

And that's just exactly what other people have tried to do as well, using the very same pictures and documented testimony. And the HSCA, for some reason I'll never be able to fathom, came to the cockeyed determination that the two photos shown below (when viewed IN TANDEM and when using each of them to compare to the other) depict the upper-back wound as being located anatomically LOWER than the wound in the front of JFK's neck, which is a wound that is fully visible in the right-hand photo. And this is the type of photo comparison test that I can only ASSUME that the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel DID perform with regard to these two critical autopsy photographs:

But as anyone with just one good eye can see (when comparing the individual wounds seen in each of the above photos), the bullet hole in JFK's upper back (which was determined by the HSCA to be the TOP SPOT [or "artifact"] in the right-hand photo above) is not even close to being located anatomically LOWER on Kennedy's body when compared to the wound in the throat.

David Von Pein
February 2008