BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:
>>> "None of what you've posted [i.e., quotes from Vincent Bugliosi] has ANYthing to do with that [BOH wound] issue at all." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure it does. You just THINK it doesn't (for some reason).
It has relevance to this subject at hand, of course, because Vince is
saying in those several passages I quoted (quite obviously) that he
(VB) is of the belief that THERE WAS NO LARGE 'BOH' WOUND ON THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD--PERIOD! None. It wasn't there. It never existed. And
the Parkland witnesses ALL (somehow) managed to mislocate and/or
misrepresent the true location of WHERE THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WAS.
I hate LNer Jim Moore's crazy interpretation, however, which is an
interpretation that Bugliosi actually gives PARTIAL credence to in
VB's "RH" book (but, in the final analysis, Vince defers mainly to
Michael Baden's "pooling blood/gore" explanation).
And I was certainly pleased to see VB give more weight to Baden's
scenario than he did Moore's seemingly-crazy theory. Moore, in his
book, claims that ALL of the Parkland people, incredibly, actually
somehow mis-identified the physical portion of JFK's head where Moore
says the witnesses really DID think they saw the wound (even though
several of those witnesses later were photographed placing their hands
over their own FAR-RIGHT-REAR, and even CENTER-REAR, portions of their
heads to demonstrate where they still thought the wound was that they
saw), with no mention (oddly) of anyone seeing the large FRONT-RIGHT-
TOP wound that we KNOW was there, with every Parkland and Bethesda
witness, instead, claiming there was just ONE large wound (somewhere)
in JFK's head.
And that "Only One Large Wound" fact could be a key to this enduring
and never-ending mystery. Because, does anyone know of anybody at PH
or Bethesda who said this: "There was a big hole in the back of JFK's
head AND another pretty good-sized hole on the right-front portion of
his head too"?
I sure know of no such witness.
Anyway, those "Hands On Their Heads" pictures of the "BOH" witnesses
probably came out well after Mr. Moore's 1990 book was published; so
he probably was unaware of those "hands-on" demonstrations when he was
writing his very thin and non-detailed JFK book, which is a book that
is laughably subtitled "The Definitive Book On The Kennedy
Assassination".
For clarification regarding Moore's posture on this (and I'm quite certain I
understand it correctly via his book "Conspiracy Of One").....Moore
isn't saying the same thing that Baden and Bugliosi are saying is the
best explanation for the BOH wound witnesses.
That is, Mr. Moore doesn't say anything in his book about the
witnesses being confused by the "pooling" of blood and gore and brains
(etc.) which gravity was naturally forcing toward the BACK of John
Kennedy's head as he was lying in a prone position on his stretcher.
Moore, instead, is saying (and to my astonishment actually, and I
cannot believe Bugliosi could even say ONE kind word about this
nonsense in his own book) that the Parkland Hospital witnesses
really saw the large hole in JFK's head at the RIGHT-FRONTAL
area (where we know it was, per authenticated autopsy photos
and the never-wavering testimony of all three autopsy doctors;
and, IMO, Dr. Boswell's ARRB Deposition doesn't discount or erase
his and the other doctors' overall testimony, because I still claim
Boswell's ARRB comments on the matter are quite a bit ambiguous
and non-exacting in nature; ~~reaches for smelling salts to revive
John Canal, because he can't believe I just wrote the last sentence,
because he thinks I'm 100% wrong about my last remarks~~).....
....but those PH witnesses, incredibly, ALL were somehow disoriented
about JFK's head anatomy simply because he was LYING DOWN....and
therefore all the witnesses, per Jim Moore, mis-labelled the true
location of the RIGHT-FRONT wound that they REALLY were seeing,
stating that it was, instead, at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head.
Here's exactly what Mr. Moore said in this regard (in case anybody
cares):
"The explanation for this discrepancy is so simple few will subscribe
to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in only one
position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might have
been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right
side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of
the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of "Conspiracy Of
One" (c.1990)
I'm sorry Jim....but that's just crazy. I think I'll stick with the
"blood/gore pooling to the right-rear" theory.
Anyhow.....Vince Bugliosi (who studied the assassination evidence for
over 20 years before publishing his book) is obviously saying, via the
quotes I previously provided, that he is of the opinion (after studying
all of this evidence for many years) that there was NO LARGE, GAPING
WOUND AT ALL IN THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD.
And the following VB quote positively indicates that Vince is of the
very firm opinion that there was no large BOH wound at all:
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
Z328:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z328.jpg
~~~~~~
Yes, I'm a huge VB fan, and yes, I think he has written the new "JFK
Bible" in "Reclaiming History". But I don't always agree with
everything Vince says about the case (there are SBT timeline
differences and "first-shot" disagreements and some others)....but in
this "BOH" matter, I do have a hard time disagreeing with Vince,
especially after he has so obviously studied this whole assassination
case in great depth in order to publish his "Book For The Ages".
Vince wanted (quite obviously) as few mistakes as humanly possible in
such an important publication; and I know he wanted to cover as many
of the never-ending controversies as possible too. And I think he did
that. Although, as far as I can recall, VB does not get into Boswell's
ARRB testimony in his book. That could, indeed, be considered an
oversight on Vincent's part.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
But it's also possible that VB did read all of Boswell's comments to
the ARRB and was still not convinced that any type of large "BOH"
wound existed on the President's head.
But, again, I find it hard to argue with Mr. Bugliosi's final "No BOH
Hole" analysis....especially when it mirrors precisely my own thoughts
regarding this issue (which are thoughts and opinions that I have
possessed for years prior to even laying eyes on VB's book for the
first time on May 21, 2007).
I will say that Vincent's comments about the direction of any "scalp-
pulling" that some people say was done at Parkland has me a tad bit
perplexed (as it does Barb Junkkarinen too, I believe).
But...whether Vince is, himself, confused about the direction the
scalp was supposedly being pulled from (i.e., from the front vs. from
the rear), it's obvious from his comments regarding that scalp issue
that it really is a moot point altogether in VB's mind....because he
was merely describing for his readers an event that Vince believes
NEVER OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Also......
I think another important Vince-like argument could probably be
utilized in connection with this always-controversial "Back-of-the-
Head" subject.....
Mr. Bugliosi, on page #953 of his massive tome, "Reclaiming History",
said the following:
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
Now, it has occurred to me that the above wholly-reasonable argument
being made by Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned and highly-successful
former Deputy District Attorney) could almost certainly be re-worded
and could also easily apply to this sticky-wicket known as the "BOH
Wound Witnesses" snafu.
Allow me to demonstrate (with changes made to Bugliosi's original
quote appearing in all capital letters):
"With respect to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND WITNESSES, once you
establish and know that PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONLY
ONE SINGLE BULLET AND THAT ONE BULLET POSITIVELY CAME FROM BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there
is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this
conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and
questions the conspiracy theorists (AND OTHERS, INCLUDING THE PARKLAND
AND BETHESDA WITNESSES) have raised through the years about THE HEAD
WOUNDS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
"IN MORE SIMPLE TERMS, ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONE
BULLET FROM BEHIND (VIA THE INCONVERTIBLE PRESENCE OF THE *ONE* SINGLE
BULLET WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE *BACK* OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD), WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT REALLY MAKE EXACTLY *WHERE* THE OTHER (LARGER)
WOUNDS WERE LOCATED ON JFK'S HEAD?"
David Von Pein
September 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (SEPTEMBER 16, 2007)
