From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Calling From Bellevue
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:26:50 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3233  (Tom Warner)

>>>	Whether you like it or not, this in fact was Warren's 
>>>	reasoning.

>>Are we channeling Warren now?
>>Did Warren make this decision?

>	As I have previously stated, Lattimer reproduces a
>	portion of a letter from Earl Warren stating:

>	a. It was my decision.
>	b. Here was why I made that decision.

I was responding to a claim about why the autopsy materials were seized
by the Secret Service the night of the autopsy. I was being satirical;
obviously Warren did not make that decision.

The other issue is: why were the autopsy photos and x-rays withheld
from the Warren report? This is a very ancillary issue to the question
of who did it and even how it was covered up, but I expect Warren withheld
them primarily for the reasons he stated.

>>>	Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances involving
>>>	the removal of the X-rays and photos.

>>I was asking for facts. Claiming you know the truth without supplying any
>>evidence does not put you in a position to make assumptions about what I
>>know or don't know. It's your thread; it's your burden of proof.
>>I want to know what you think *you* know.

>	I made the mistaken assumption that you had read the
>	autopsy report.  The removal of this material, and
>	by whom, is mentioned in the autopsy report.

Well, to be honest, I don't consider it worthwhile to commit every detail
of this case to memory. Nor do I find it particularly helpful to my self-
esteem to be able to lord things over people that have memorized less than
I have. If you want to know where I'm getting something, I'll give it to
you; if it's an unusual source or something I don't necessarily put a lot
of stock in, I give it up front.

Anyway, what was your point? I know who took the photos and x-rays. You were
I thought trying to say something about why.

>>>	Am I correct in assuming you haven't actually read Lattimer's
>>>	book?  I ask because only someone who has not read the
>>>	book would suggest that Lattimer "makes his career" 
>>>	debunking "other authors' theories."  

>>Bah. He was allowed access to the medical evidence in the early days
>>specifically because he was obviously a loyalist. He  most definitely
>>made a career attempting to debunk others' theories.
>>I've seen the book, I haven't read it all the way through. You
>>haven't yet presented anything that makes me want to.

>	Please show me the evidence you have indicating that
>	Lattimer was allowed access because he was "obviously
>	a loyalist."

I'll have to get back to you on this, but it's my understanding that
Lattimer had already published his original "jet-effect" silliness
before 1972, when he was allowed to see the x-rays.

>       Please tell me what specific authors
>	Lattimer mentions in his book (that you haven't
>	read all the way through) that he then sets up
>	as being targets for debunking.

I don't care who he mentions or doesn't mention by name.

>>>	Lattimer did not say, nor did I represent him as saying,
>>>	that Humes planned a "more extensive" report.  What 
>>>	Lattimer and Humes have both said is that they had
>>>	planned to use the X-rays and photographs to make a
>>>	more accurate report.  Lattimer undoubtedly "got the
>>>	idea" for this by noting the technical inaccuracies
>>>	of the report and comparing them to the X-rays and
>>>	photos (which he examined on three occasions) and
>>>	adding the sum two plus two.

>>I should hope Lattimer got the idea from something Humes said. Do
>>you have a citation for such a quote?

>	I don't have Hume's WC testimony or HSCA testimony
>	in front of me but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>	some mention of this matter somewhere in this testimony.
>	It is hardly surprising that pathologists would want
>	to rely upon photo and X-rays of the deceased when
>	making their final report.

>	If it is confirmation from Humes's mouth you want,
>	look at the "JAMA" article of 5/27/92.

That he intended to use the x-rays? I don't recall that ever being
an issue. Unless you have some point to make about why the the
Secret Service really had to seize the photos and x-rays and just
couldn't let those doctors have them even one more day, I think
we're beating dead horses.

>>>	I do not know that the autopsy evidence belonged by right
>>>	to the government; certainly, had the autopsy been performed
>>>	in Dallas the materials would have been government property.
>>>	At the time, assassinating a President was not a federal
>>>	crime.  It is unclear to me that "the government" had
>>>	title to this material. That the Kennedy family assumed
>>>	they owned the material and placed restrictions on their
>>>	use is a matter of record.  Prior to being delivered to
>>>	the National Archives the material was in the physical
>>>	possession of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George
>>>	Burkley.

>>It's my understanding that the materials stayed with the Secret Service
>>until 1965, when they were turned over to the Kennedy family at the National
>>Archives (the President's estate has space there). They stayed in that office
>>at the Archives until they were turned over by the Kennedys with conditions
>>attached to the Archives proper. In other words, they didn't have to leave the
>>building, ever, and there is no evidence Bobby Kennedy or any other member of
>>the Kennedy family or any employee of the family ever disturbed the foot locker
>>they were stored in until that time. It was at that time (sorry, date's not
>>handy) that all of the slides and the brain were found missing. This comes
>>from Livingstone HT2.

>	The HSCA looked into this within the context of the disposition
>	of JFK's brain.  Their research indicated that Roy Kellerman
>	initially gathered the materials.  They were placed in the
>	Protective Research Division of the Department of Justice.
>	Later, they were transfered to the White House under the
>	care of Dr. George Burkley.  In April, 1965, they were
>	transfered to the National Archives, under the care of
>	JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.  Robert Bouck, head
>	of the PRD and George Burkely collaborated in the 
>	preparation of an inventory of the material.  With 
>	certain restrictions the Kennedy family transferred
>	control of the material to the National Archives
>	in October, 1966.

>	In 1967 the Clark Panel, examining all the material,
>	found no discrepancies between the original inventory
>	and what they were given to examine, with the exception
>	of a stainless steel container presumed to contain
>	the brain.

There were also many tissue slides in the original material, all
missing in '66.

>       When the material was transferred to
>	the National Archives Drs. Humes and Boswell were
>	called upon to authenticate the material, which
>	they did.

>	This is, to the best of my knowledge, the basic 
>	history of the material.

>>>	Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
>>>	to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
>>>	"pathological"?

>>You mean to not be diagnosed as pathological? For someone who
>>was spent as much time with evidence as Lattimer, some. My point
>>is not how little he differs from the WC. My point is that he knew
>>his tests were shaky at best and outright dishonest at worst.
>>He obviously had a deep commitment to convincing Americans to
>>have faith in their government despite anything that might come
>>in his way.

>	Your comments about what Dr. Lattimer "knew" and
>	what his "deep commitment" was seem to me to
>	be based upon sheer conjecture.  If you have
>	some actual evidence (like, your channeling
>	sessions, for instance) kindly present it.

>>>	These days, the herd runs with the
>>>	pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories. Are you loyal
>>>	to the herd?

>>One, not in my field they don't, two, no and never have been, three
>>that's not the issue. The issue is, was Lattimer a dogma-first,
>>facts-second phony hiding behind an illusory mantle of pseudo-science?
>>Everything I've seen about him tells me he was.

>	Your field is at odds with public opinion, which 
>	overwhelmingly supports conspiracy views.  Your
>	sub-herd doesn't run with the Mother Herd.

No, and boy does it ever piss them off whenever that kind of thing happens.

>	As for your characterizations of Lattimer and his
>	research you have yet to present anything even
>	remotely resembling evidence to support such 
>	statements.  And you accuse Lattimer of excessive
>	a priorism?

Bruce Schuck made the point that Lattimer did a 2-dimensional trajectory
analysis, which just begs the question, why leave out the other dimension?
My favorite Lattimer-science is the jet-effect, whereby a bullet can
actually (supposedly) cause a skull to recoil toward the bullet by forcing
a greater amount of mass-energy to be expelled from the front of the
skull than the bullet impacted with, thereby throwing the head back
with the counter-force. This he hoped to demonstrate by shooting at
melons on sticks, which did sometimes fall backwards, probably when
he hit them below their center of gravity, which would cause a fall-back
for a different reason altogether.
The point is, no reputable scientist has ever done anything but laugh at
this theory, and Lattimer presumably knew melons on sticks behave very
differently from heads on necks attached to bodies. And knew he could make
a dramatic effect for TV "news" that had no relevance to human beings.

Other than that, I'll respond to what's posted.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk