From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: How 'bout them Huskies?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:23:01 PDT


re: 3203  (Tom Warner)

>>In the interest of completeness (and anticipating cries of
>>cover up!)                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^
>Don't flatter yourself.

	I guess your mileage varies on the important
	flattery issue.

>>Lattimer's conclusion: "Humes did not know it at the time,
>>but all these photographs and X-rays were commandeered during
>>the autopsy and taken away by Treasury Department agents
>>before the pictures could be developed.

>Treasury Department agents? Not that I believe Lattimer without
>evidence, but if true. why the Treasury? Who would have gotten them into it?

	Kellerman and Greer were Secret Service agents.  The Secret
	Service is part of the Treasury Department.  

>>This was done to
>>avoid the shocking effect they would have on the public if
>>they were exploited, and particularly on members of the family if
>>they were forced to see these photographs of the bloody remains
>>of their relative's head displayed in lurid bookstore windows.

>How nice, an after the fact rationalization that gets in a jab at researchers
>with the same stroke. And an invocation of public interest as well. Brilliant!

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

>Bullshit. Did anyone actually involved in "commandeering" evidence tell this
>line to Lattimer, or did he just come up with it on his own?

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

>>While this quest for privacy was certainly understandable and 
>>legitimate, to deprive the autopsy team of the benefit of the 
>>photographs andparticularly the X-rays on which they would depend so
>>heavily made it impossible for Humes and Boswell to assemble the accurate
>>report they had planned to make.

>What an interesting story. For someone that makes his career trying to debunk
>other authors' theories, Lattimer sure has a fertile imaginationn. Where did
>he get the idea Humes and Boswell planned a more extensive report than they
>wrote?

	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."  

	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.

>>This led to an avalanche of
>>criticism [at the time, I was one of the small critical rocks -
>>jg] of the entire post-mortem examination, which was to 
>>continue for several years, until the family finally relented
>>and permitted the photographs to be developed and then to be 
>>inspected by a panel of experts."  [The Clark Panel, jg]

>Oh good, we get in the part about the family not letting government do what it
>ought to do also. Nevermind that the autopsy evidence belonged by right to the
>government and that they were just using this as an excuse.

	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.

>>In some ways, Dr. Lattimer was utterly naive...

>Worse than naive. A loyalist of pathological proportions.

	Now just how many doubts about the WC does one need
	to have in order to be diagnosed by Dr. Warner as
	"pathological"?  These days, the herd runs with the
	pro-conspiracy/2nd gunman theories.  Are you loyal
	to the herd?

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk