From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:07:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <16APR199220011409@sigma.tamu.edu> mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>In article <14APR199216153781@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>|>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>|>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>|>|>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
|
|>|	Once again, the only four doctors who reviewed all of the
|>|	photos say that the photos in the National Archives show
|>|	what they remember seeing.
|
[Mitchell again:]
|	No, Mr  Wright. It is true, unless other members of the Parkland
|	staff have seen the *entire* body of photos since the NOVA episode.
|	If they have, I haven't heard about it. If you read _High Treason_
|	carefully, you'll notice that the doctors Jim refers to
|	generally (if not all of them)only saw two (Dulaney only saw one of
|	the autopsy photos before seeing all of them, according to Groden)
|	of the photos. The doctors who saw all of the photos claimed that the
|	photos did indeed show what they remembered at Parkland.

I do understand. I don't understand why you don't respond to Jim's article.
Let me again re-quote the relevent section:


From: armstron@cs.arizona.edu (Jim Armstrong):

There were 4 doctors who viewed the photos and x-rays on the NOVA
program: Drs. McClelland, Peters, Jenkins, and Dulany.  9 Parkland
doctors refused to participate on the program.  McClelland has since 
denounced the show, calling it a coverup (see the Afterword to _High 
Treason_).  He testified to the Warren Commission and, more recently, 
said on KRON and British TV documentaries that the rear of the head was 
blasted out and that the cerebellum fell out onto the table.  Dr. Dulany 
earlier had told the Boston Globe that the Dox drawings of the back of the 
head autopsy photo conflicted with how he remembered it.  His account may 
be uncredible because the Warren Commission reported that he only worked 
on Governor Connally.  Peters and Jenkins are also on record as stating
that the wound in the back of the head was an exit wound.  Jenkins also
saw the cerebellum through the hole in the back of the head.  Curiously,
NOVA didn't ask the doctors about entrance and exit wounds.  Certainly,
this isn't enough to regard the NOVA program as "gospel" with respect to
the head wounds in light of the other evidence and eyewitness accounts.

Now,  Jim's article said that these 4 doctors viewed the photos and x-rays on
the Nova program. Your statement:

	Once again, the only four doctors who reviewed all of the
	photos say that the photos in the National Archives show
	what they remember seeing.

Seems false, since *all* of the doctors say that the photos in National
Archives are not what they saw. Now you apparently are saying that in fact
those 4 Doctors did not see all the photos. Well, your statement is still
false, it seems, because no 4 doctors *saw* the photos.  Perhaps you can
explain who the Parkland 4 are.

However, this whole discussion seems a little silly, since it is quite obvious
that the major premise is correct, there are widely different views and hence
potential explanations from Parkland to Bethesda to the Autopsy photos.

|>Have you read High Treason, the source of Jim's source on McClelland, and the
|>KPIX broadcast?
|
|	It's KRON, not KPIX.
|
|	Actually, McClelland seems to denounce the show, if indirectly.
|	However, he doesn't seem to have taken anything he said back.

What does he need to take back? His statements are mentioned above in the
excerpt from Jim's article, and it seems at odds from what I remember of the
show. The show implied that the Doctors agreed with a version of events
supported by an HSCA interpretation of the autopsy photos. It is in this case
that the back of the head photo is crucial, and objecting to this photo as a
description of the back of the head wound is important. Who cares about the
other photos in this context?

|>I am glad you admit that the Parkland people do find problems with the photos.
|	
|	The Parkland people have problems with seeing two of the photos
|	out of the context of the entire number of photos. All of the
|	Parkland Four were originally on record (High Treason so
|	documents it) as saying the autopsy photos that they saw
|	(all one/two of them) didn't show the wounds as they recalled
|	them....at least until they saw those photos in context.

That is inconsistent with what Jim said in the excerpt, etc... Since we don't
know what the doctors saw, how can we even be talking about this?

|>|	What's wrong with the wound's location. It seems to me to be in
|>|	the "lower third of the anterior neck" in the photo.
|
|>I do not have lifton anymore, since it was recalled. You said you read it. The
|>Parkland throat wound was described as below the second trachea ring, and at
|>Bethesda it was lowerd to the third. Second, the two wounds along the trachea
|>were merged into a single wound.
|
|	Well, you said you read Lattimer, and then failed to remember 
|	Lattimer's copious use of the word "tracheostomy". It's not
|	that the word doesn't appear on page 200 in 40-point boldface!
	
I did not fail to remember Lattimer's use of the word tracheostomy. I did not
mention it because he did explain it, either in relation to the tracheotomy, or
how the operation of the tracheostomy differed from a tracheotomy. In fact, as
I long suspected, it is merely semantics. The descriptions by lifton and
Crenshaw are precisley what is technically called a tracheostomy, but is
conventionally called a tracheotomy. In fact even doctors call it a tracheotomy
when talking to lay people. The difference is that a tube, with a flange is
inserted in the wound. But that is precisely what Lifton and Crenshaw were
talking about in their descriptions of the wound. The whole issue is 
a silly excursion in semantics.

|	As to the wound...hmmmm. The throat wound starts out as being
|	"below the second ring of the trachea". Then it is "lowered" to
|	the third ring. Now, unless you are using some heretofore unkown
|	usage of the word 'lower' (those crrrrrazzzy Californians!), I
|	see no difference in the tow descriptions. Look at it carefully.	

If the wound was found at the third ring, it would have been described as such.
It was not. It was found "below the second ring", i.e., presumably above the
third and below the second. In fact, even Lattimer was "suprised" to find the
throat wound so low.

|	As for the two wounds vs one thrachea wound, I was under the
|	impression, after reading the Parkland operative reports, that
|	there was only one 'jagged hole in the trachea' mentioned. Odd
|	that.

Well, you are under the wrong impression.

|>Importantly, we get to see his [Dr Crenshaw's]
|>reactions to the photograph, as well as statements from Dr. Baxter. We also get
|>to see the size of the tracheotomy/tracheosotmy tube and flange, and see that
|>it is indeed small.
|
|	We get to see this stuff from Groden, et al, as well. Crenshaw
|	apparently hasn't yet seen all of the autopsy photos. I wonder
|	if they will have the same effect on him as they did on the
|	P4...

Again, we don't know what they saw. But judging from their reactions, at least
some of the photos were "dressed up".

|>At Parkland, everyone (except Jenkins) thought it was an
|>entrance wound. Perry, in a discussion with Hurt, said it had an abraision
|>collar.
|
|	Odd, since Lattimer states that Perry had claimed that the wound 
|	had no such marks. 

That does not seem odd to me.

|>|	Again, I ask what was exactly "reconstructed"? All the autopsists
|>|	did was keep the flap of scalp over part of the head wound.
|
|>First, it was not Humes who did this, and who knows if what as autopsist or
|>morturary specialist. The skin was tight over the skull, and that must have be
|>reconstructed. How did the bones stay together? THe morturary people said they
|>cemented in Kennedy's skull, wrapping the scalp over it... 
|
|	... The skin would fall over the wound and
|	deform little without the support of the skull underneath; the
|	roughly spherical-section shape of the head allows the cranial
|	skin to be more rigid than one would imagine. 
	
The skin was fit tight and perfectly aligned across what should have been
broken bones. There is no way that could happen without a reconstruction of the
bones, which was in fact done by the mortuarist. 

|	Further, the hand holding the flap of skin would help the 
|	flap of skin keep its shape. A rough analogy would be like
|	a rope tied to a tree. Normally, it would just lie on the
|	ground limply, but put some tension on the rope, and it'll
|	straighten out.

Only a few fingers are inside the head. Once again, who orderd this to be done?
Certainly not the person who took the pictures, who now think the photos are
faked! (See Jim's post)
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk