From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: How 'bout them Huskies?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:27:41 GMT

>, >>> Joel Grant
>> Me (Tom Warner)

>>>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.  

That's better.

>>>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.

Are channeling Warren now?
Did Warren make this decision?

>>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.

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.

>>>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."  

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.

>	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?

>>>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.

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.

Where'd you get the Burkley story?

>>>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"?

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.

>	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.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk