(PART 530)

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 [HERE and HERE]. 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 above X-ray 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 head).

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 FRAGMENTING ("to fall 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 apart" [ARRB Medical Testimony of Dr. James J. Humes; Page 102] after the scalp was reflected in order to remove the President's brain.

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 apart". 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 apart" 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; Page 101] 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 apart 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 brain.

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.

If I have misrepresented Paul's 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)]

Also, 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" or "falling apart" 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 words:


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 15, 2009