(PART 1287)


This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr. James Humes burning his notes:


"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy." -- David Von Pein

Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having blood stains on it.

I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2) x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then, after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)

I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st conclusion. That may explain why he did [not] elaborate as to what those "errors" might have been. Those errors might have been:

1) Generally, before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed.

2) The clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them, so it may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about it.

3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol.

4) Finally, the conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.

Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the wound!"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN


[Quoting David Emerling:]

"I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat."

Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again, you're not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now, aren't you glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?

This came out shortly after midnight.


Thanks, Tony, for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article [pictured below].

It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on Saturday, November 23rd!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." -- The Boston Globe; November 23, 1963



Hey, look, folks, it's an artist's sketch published in the Boston Globe, so it must be accurate! That pretty much nails it.

The Parkland ER photos showing the entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead must have been fakes.


Of course, I wasn't implying that the Boston Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23/63, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just two wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.


I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts)?


Because they thought JFK had been hit by only one bullet (coming from the TSBD), and they knew he had a massive head wound and a wound in his throat.

Given those limited facts regarding the wounds, it's really the only conclusion they could have reached at that early stage on November 23rd. The media people certainly had no info concerning the autopsy as of Nov. 23.

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.


As a follow-up to my last comment above, below is a newscast from the NBC Radio Network that was aired on November 26, 1963, four days after JFK was killed. And after I first heard this radio newscast several years ago, I recall thinking to myself that it seemed mighty strange for the news media—four full days after the assassination—to not have any confirmation on whether there had even been an autopsy conducted on JFK's body——even though the same media obviously knew that Kennedy's body had been taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination. (The "autopsy" excerpt is located at 4:10 in the video.) ....


I should defer to the true experts here, but, from what I have read, the Parkland ER physicians spoke openly to the media about the widely observed entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead --- and the missing right occipital-parietal skull fragment that was, obviously, an exit wound.

It was only later, under duress, that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered to, awkwardly, conform to the "lone nut" in the TSBD with the cheap Carcano government narrative.

Secondly, there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll." The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.

So, no, the Boston Globe sketch does NOT describe what was known about the assassination on 11/23. Instead, it describes a false narrative that was inconsistent with the reports from Parkland, and the witness testimony from Dealey Plaza.

Where did the Globe get their false narrative?


I would guess that the Boston Globe people pretty much tried to figure it out for themselves---armed, as they were, with the sketchy information that they had at that time, such as:

....Two known wounds in JFK's body (throat and head);

....The shooting having occurred on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza (after JFK's car had already passed the assassin's window);

....An alleged lone assassin on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building;

....And a lone suspect (Lee Harvey Oswald) in police custody who happened to work in the TSBD.

The preponderance of evidence after Day 1 (Nov. 22) indicated THREE shots, ONE assassin firing from the Depository, and only TWO known wounds in the President (head and throat), although we could now argue over the fact that the Globe article seems to totally ignore the huge EXIT wound that the Parkland doctors said was located at the BACK of JFK's head. In fact, the Globe sketch doesn't include ANY "large wound" in the President's head at all. ~shrug~

It's interesting to note, however, that the Boston Globe newspaper---on Day 1 [November 22nd PM]---came very close to pinpointing the true location of the entry hole in the back of President Kennedy's head. In fact, according to the autopsy surgeons (with whom I personally disagree on this point), the Globe nailed it just about to the inch---low on the back of the head near the EOP.

I wonder if any other media outlets got that close to the truth regarding the location of the entrance wound in JFK's cranium on Day #1?

The byline on the Boston Globe story indicates it was written by "Ian Menzies (Globe Science Editor)".


David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't public back then, as well as abundant new evidence.

I don't know why people bother arguing with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any genuine questioning and investigation. You seem to spend many hours each day at this task.

The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?



You're entitled to your opinion about the JFK assassination....and so am I. If you want to think the Warren Commission's 10-month probe was nothing but a "transparently phony" investigation, you're free to believe that if you want to. But that doesn't mean I have to swallow such a notion too---and I certainly don't. Believing that the Commission had a hidden agenda to frame Oswald as the lone killer and to cover-up any and all evidence of a conspiracy is a belief that, in my opinion, is a patently silly one.

When you've got to accuse so many people in Officialdom of lying and covering up and hiding the truth, etc., I think it's time to re-think your position. But it seems that most of the CTers I've talked to over the years don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that a whole bunch of people connected with so many different organizations (such as the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the DPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service, among others) all decided to jump on board the "Let's Frame An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald As The Sole Assassin" train. But, to me, that scenario is simply ridiculous (not to mention virtually impossible to pull off, especially considering all the evidence that exists against Oswald in this double-murder case). I'm supposed to actually believe that ALL of the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases is fake, phony, and manufactured? (Come now, my good man. Let's be sensible here.)

And, Joseph, do you truly think that a person who has been interested in President Kennedy's murder for over 35 years (like myself) couldn't possibly believe in Oswald's lone guilt without also being on the payroll of one of the alphabet agencies (or any agency)? Is that why I was treated to your closing "Who is paying you?" salvo in your last post? Even though I don't agree with any of your theories in the Kennedy/Tippit case, your Internet posts normally rise above the level of such juvenile inquiries.

David Von Pein
July 10, 2018
July 11-14, 2018