JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "1. Do you "honestly" think that [BOH autopsy] photo was taken even near to when the body was first received?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no way of knowing with 100% certainty.
But it would certainly appear, via Dr. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission
testimony, that several photographs (and most of the X-rays, per
Humes' comments below) were taken before the autopsy got underway:
"Some of these X-rays were taken before and some during the
examination which, also maintains for the photographs, which were made
as the need became apparent to make such. However, before the
postmortem examination was begun, anterior, posterior, and lateral X-
rays of the head, and of the torso were made, and identification type
photographs, I recall having been made of the full face of the late
President. A photograph showing the massive head wound with the large
defect that was associated with it. To my recollection all of these
were made before the proceedings began." -- DR. JAMES J. HUMES; WARREN
COMMISSION TESTIMONY; 1964
The above testimony doesn't specifically mention the "BOH" photo which
shows the entry wound in the cowlick area of the President's head, but
it's also obvious that Dr. Humes was relying on memory for a lot of
the things he said to the Commission, via phrases like "to my recollection".
>>> "2. Do you think it's even remotely possible that, before the body was placed in the casket [at Bethesda], holes in the scalp were closed in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<
There was no scalp repaired or sewn up in the BACK of President
Kennedy's head--at ANY time. And the reason for that is obvious--there
was NO NEED for any such repairing of the back part of Mr. Kennedy's
scalp, because the BACK of his head (scalp) was never damaged in the
The lateral X-ray proves that fact. The X-ray doesn't show the SCALP
of John Kennedy, that's true. But it shows us the underlying bone and
skull of the late President....and that bone and skull is not damaged
(or missing) at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head.
In short, John, this X-ray (which you agree is not a "fake") does not
and cannot support your theory about a large-ish "BOH" wound existing
in John Kennedy's skull (regardless of how you want to interpret Dr.
J. Thornton Boswell's 1996 ARRB testimony):
>>> "3. Do you "honestly" think that, if holes in the scalp were closed for an open-casket funeral, you, DVP, should be able to tell from the photo that repairs were done, e.g. the ends of sutures left hanging, flourescent [sic] colored sutures seen, holes not completely closed, scissors left hanging out from under the BOH scalp, empty tubes of Super-Glue carelessly left in the picture, etc.?" <<<
I do, indeed, believe that if repairs had been made to JFK's scalp, we
would certainly be able to see evidence of those "repairs" in this
color autopsy photograph:
The above photo is a pretty good quality color image, with good
lighting on the back of the President's head as it was being
photographed by Mr. Stringer. And the whole scalp of JFK seems to be
intact, undamaged, with no signs of any "suturing" or "sewing up". And
I don't see any Crazy Glue adhering to the scalp either (in case you
want to ask me that tongue-in-cheek question next, John C.). :)
Then again, come to think of it, maybe that can be your next
unsupportable theory about JFK's head wounds, John -- i.e., perhaps
the piece of dried brain tissue located at JFK's hairline in the above
autopsy picture is REALLY a trace of something left behind by the
doctors after they sewed up the back of JFK's scalp.
Food for BOH thought....eh, John? :)
Oops...no, no. That last theory won't fly with John Canal....because
John Canal thinks that the white piece of dried brain matter at the
hairline of JFK is really an entry wound for Lee Oswald's 6.5mm. bullet.
Sorry, I forgot about that silly theory for a moment, John. Forgive me.
John actually thinks the dried brain tissue looks like a BULLET HOLE
(evidently). Go figure that.
Yes, I know that Humes and Finck, et al, said the very same thing.
They looked at the same photo of JFK and said that the white piece of
tissue was the entry hole. So, if you want to accuse me of berating
the autopsy surgeons one minute, while supporting their overall
conclusions the next minute -- go ahead. Because you'd be correct to
accuse me of that.
The autopsists who said that that hunk of white tissue was an entry
wound are just nuts (as far as that singular observation, that is).
And the reason we can know they were nuts with respect to that silly
observation is because the following statement exists in those same
doctors' November 1963 autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally
to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is
a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
So, unless the doctors (during the autopsy itself on 11/22/63)
literally couldn't tell the difference between above the EOP and
below the EOP, then their later observations about the white hunk of
tissue on JFK's neck being the entry wound are all but meaningless and
worthless. Because that white thing at the base of JFK's hairline is
certainly NOT located above the EOP on Kennedy's head.
>>> "4. If holes in the scalp were closed (with amazing professionalism, so one, even the LN's super sl[e]uth, DVP, would have a difficult time telling they were), "honestly", are you 100% positive that the BOH photo was taken BEFORE any such repair was done?" <<<
I'll refer you to my answer to question #2 above.
And it sounds to me like John Canal is playing a little shell game here, as
he seems to be trying (in a "back door" kind of fashion) to get me to say
that I think there WERE repairs performed on the totally intact BOH [Back
Of the Head] of John F. Kennedy on 11/22/63.
Because either way I choose to answer this carefully-worded #4
question of John's--with either a Yes or a No--I would be (in essence)
admitting that I agree with John that some kind of "BOH" repairs were
done to JFK's head at his autopsy.
Nice try, John. But, no thanks. I'm not biting. See my #2 answer
>>> "Lurkers, why do I have the feeling DVP's definition of "honestly" may be different than that of most? Just kidding, of course...and I'm not just saying that because I don't want this to get rejected [by the moderators at the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup/forum]." <<<
What "lurkers"? (Other than Gary Mack, that is.)
>>> "BONUS QUESTION: If that photo that you linked us to wasn't taken when the body was first received (we want to inter[r]upt this post at this time for a newsflash for DVP: the Bethesda witnesses said they saw a BOH wound when the body was first received), "super-honestly", can you even venture a guess for why a photo wasn't taken of the BOH when the body was first received (if ne[c]essary, use your imagination)?" <<<
The exact TIME when each photo was taken isn't overly important, IMO.
Nor, obviously, was that kind of strict "timeline" of photo-taking
super-important in the minds of Dr. Humes and the other autopsists.
Why would it be deemed critical by Humes, et al, for a picture to be
taken at the moment when JFK was first placed on the autopsy table?
For, whenever the pictures were taken on the night of 11/22/63, those
pictures were still pictures of the dead President Kennedy. And his
wounds LATE in the autopsy were STILL THE SAME WOUNDS that existed
EARLY in the autopsy. They didn't change. They weren't being
manipulated or moved around like a jigsaw puzzle to avoid the word
"conspiracy" (Lifton-esque style).
It's just silly beyond belief to think that Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck
would want to HIDE any information concerning the autopsy of the
President of the USA.
I know that a lot of people (including John Canal, an LNer) think that
my last sentence above is a lot of baloney. But I truly feel this way.
Because: As I've said in prior posts re this subject, if John Kennedy
had really and truly been shot ONLY FROM BEHIND by the two bullets
that struck him in Dallas (which all the evidence indicates is correct),
and the autopsy doctors really and truly KNEW that JFK had, indeed,
been struck in the head by only one bullet from BEHIND, then why on
this Earth would there have been any NEED whatsoever to start
"covering up" ANYTHING (or hiding anything) with respect to this
autopsy or the facts that were derived from it?
Given the above circumstances of positively only one bullet striking
John Kennedy's head FROM BEHIND, any such large-ish "BOH" damage to
JFK's head (if it had existed at all) could easily have been explained
by the autopsists as damage that was sustained as a result of the one
and only bullet that struck JFK from the rear.
How do I know this?
Because it would have been THE TRUTH. Plain and simple.
How did I hold up on the "honesty" scale, John? Did I pass your rigid
standards today? Or will I have to go stand in the corner and stare at
the BOH photo all day long as punishment?
David Von Pein
November 22, 2008
Posted By: David Von Pein