(PART 548)


The autopsy report says that the wound was chiefly parietal and extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal.


Yes. I know it. So what?

But the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in NO WAY comes even close to the kind of massive wound that you, John C., really need to have present in JFK's head. Not even close.

The fact that you think that those ambiguous words in the autopsy report DO indicate the kind of major "blow out" that was described by the Parkland witnesses is a real mystery.

Would you like to now "understate" the Parkland witnesses' observations again, John, to merge with your theory which has a BOH wound in Kennedy's head that is KINDA LARGE, BUT NOT TOO LARGE?

IOW -- Canal gets to decide what size the wound will be in the back of President Kennedy's head.

And yet John Canal ALSO believes that Dr. George Burkley "ordered" Humes to NOT place in the autopsy report anything about the "occipital" damage or the BOH wounds that John has invented for himself (or at least Burkley supposedly said to "understate" the BOH injuries).

But why didn't Burkley go whole-hog and "order" Humes to eliminate ALL "occipital" references from the autopsy report? What was Burkley doing...just being nice to CTers like John Canal when he (and Humes) decided it was okay to leave a little tidbit of the full truth in the autopsy report for people to latch onto at a later date?

David Von Pein
May 20, 2009