From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:15:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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, becuase the Parkland doctors didn't see it doesn't
>|	mean that it was there.

>Then why ask them if the photos of wounds they did not see corrospond to what
>they saw? I don't understand your attack on this simple point #1. The only
>wound that Bethesda and Parkland and the Autopsy photos saw together is the
>head wound. Thus, even if the Parkland people said "The photos are what we saw"
>that can only be relevent for comparisons of Bethesda with one single wound.

	Ah, I realize just what you are getting at. I get that point,	
	but I don't see how it necessarily follows that the Parkland 
	doctors were fibbig when they said that what the photos show
	is what they remembered at Parkland.



>|	Do you expect the Parkland doctors' statements to agree perfectly
>|	with Bethseda and the photos of the body?

>That is irrelevent. I would expect that statements at the time of their
>observations would aggree with the photos and x-rays, if they say that the
>photos corrospond to what they say. They don't.

	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. So far as I've read of McClelland's
	statements after reviewing the x-rays, he seems to only have
	problems with the x-rays, and not the photos. I've started to
	sift though the various Parkland staff member comments on
	the varios pictures and x-rays they saw, and I find that
	each member objects to one or another photo, but not the
	whole body of photos. As for McClelland, I have yet to find an
	instance where *he* denounces the NOVA program as 'a coverup'.

	One of the interesting things about the NOVA program dealt
	with the doctors' placements of the head wounds. I remember
	seeing all of them place their hands above the level of the 
	ear. This seemingly would place the vast majority of the 
	wound in the parietal, rather than the occipital, and in
	some cases, entirely outside of the occipital.



>For exact differences in the length of the wound, see my
>article to Joel or Lifton. There are also other differences, for example, the
>jaggedness of the wound, and it's location.

	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.
	


>|	Apparently, Crenshaw was a bit-player in the drama at Parkland.

>Crenshaw's statement is valuable because it corroborates eyewitness testimony
>and other statements made at Parkland. He is completely credible in my book.

	Which statements made at Parkland? The location of the head
	wound? Moot point. Entry vs. Exit wounds? On what basis does
	Crenshaw place the entry wound in the front? Is he really
	qualified to judge? Is he some sort of forensics expert?

		
>|	From Oswald's operative record, Crenshaw's responsibility was
>|	to insert IV tubes. He was a junior member of the team. In
>|	fact, several of the other doctors at Parkland don't remember
>|	Crenshaw being in the ER when JFK lay dying.

>Are you supposed to be making a point here? And what is the source of your
>information?

	Not really. It is interesting to know this, though, especially
	in light of the blurbs on his book that have "the doctor who
	fought to save the lives of JFK and LHO". The source of my
	information is the treatment reports on LHO and JFK found
	in Lattimer for Crenshaw's job at the ER; and a Dallas
	Morning News feature discussing the Dallas FBI office's
	investigation of new JFK allegations and 'evidence'. Since
	other doctors seem to have remembered Crenshaw being in
	the ER, I don't think that he's lying about being there;
	however, it is worth noting that he wasn't exactly the
	Dr Kildare that his publisher would like you to believe. 

>Mmmm. I think we are certainly talking about seperate things. The photograph
>was released to the public to convince us of a certain bullet path . The
>photograph, in that sense, is a forgery. It is a forgery in that it pretends to
>show the condition of the body as it did not exist. I repeat, there is no
>reason to reconstruct the head to show a hole in the scalp. 

	Again, I ask what was exactly "reconstructed"? All the autopsists
	did was keep the flap of scalp over part of the head wound.
	From some of the other, clandestinely acquired autopsy photos
	and the z-film, it seems that the flap of scalp normally laid
	over the rear part of the breach in the skull (for those who
	want a description of this flap of scalp, look at the autopsy
	report where Humes describes the tears in the scalp).

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\