JOHN CANAL SAID:
Question for you. What do you think that whitish irregular line is that extends forward and to the right from the red spot in the BOH photos? A part in his hair or a scalp laceration as Boswell described it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's the part in JFK's hair. It looks nothing like a "laceration" at all, IMO. It looks like his underlying scalp (where his hair is "parting"):
JOHN CANAL SAID:
The dots couldn't be closer together--I can't connect them for you, but, rest assured, some day (hopefully sooner rather than later) VB [Vincent Bugliosi] will connect them. He has certainly given some thought to the notion that he needs to re-investigate Baden's official line, which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense. All the dots have already been connected. And it couldn't be more obvious via the best possible evidence (the photos/X-rays) that there was no damage [i.e., a big hole] to the right-rear portion of JFK's head (and it's obvious that the entry hole is high on Kennedy's head, near his cowlick).
Vincent Bugliosi is certainly not going to endorse a theory invented by John A. Canal which has ZERO pieces of photographic evidence to support it.
Plus there's the fact that if Vince were to officially endorse Mr. Canal's crazy theory, VB would be officially calling a whole bunch of people "liars" (or "boobs") -- e.g., all nine members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, plus all four doctors on the Clark Panel too.
Here are Vince Bugliosi's choices (in a nutshell):
1.) Continue to endorse the final conclusion concerning the location of the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was arrived at by all 9 members of the HSCA's FPP and all 4 members of the Clark Panel -- that conclusion being: the entry wound was HIGH on JFK's head, near the cowlick (and the autopsy photos AND X-rays line themselves up perfectly -- i.e., the cowlick entry wound in the skull on the X-rays, per the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP, is located DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the cowlick entry wound located in the scalp in the autopsy photos). ....
And continue to endorse the firm conclusion reached by the leading pathologist on the HSCA's FPP (Michael Baden) concerning the question of whether or not there was any kind of a large wound in the back part of JFK's head other than the small wound of entrance near the cowlick -- this conclusion:
"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"]
Or:
2.) Endorse John A. Canal's theories concerning the head wounds of John Kennedy, which are theories that have no photographic or (Zapruder) film evidence to back them up whatsoever, and are theories which require incredible and extraordinary beliefs, including the belief that ALL of the photos and X-rays are depicting a misleading picture regarding the true nature of JFK's head wounds....and the belief that a minimum of 13 doctors who examined the ORIGINAL autopsy photographs and X-rays in 1968 and 1978 were either bald-faced liars or they were ALL totally incompetent and utter boobs when they arrived at their conclusions regarding JFK's head wounds in 1968 and 1978.
Which road should Vincent T. Bugliosi go down? #1 or #2.
IMO, that's not a real difficult decision.
David Von Pein
May 25, 2009
