From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: Lattimer, Question Twelve
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 14 OCT 92 17:07:15 PDT


Question 12.: "Many doctors, including myself, wanted to know the
state of President Kennedy's adrenal glands, in view of the rumors
that he had had Addison's disease.  The adrenal glands had not been
mentioned in the autopsy report, even though they had been examined."

I am going to give this one very short shrift (and add it at all
only for completeness) because, first, the recent "JAMA" article
totally clears up any remaining question, and second, because
this has really nothing to do with the assassination.

(refer to pp.  220-225)

In brief, Lattimer documents his belief that President Kennedy
did in fact suffer from Addison's disease.  He mentions the
November, 1955 article in the "Archives of Surgery" mentioned
in the 10/7/92 "JAMA" article and presents the case the the
"37 year-old man" described in this article was most likely
John F. Kennedy.  Lattimer was of course correct.  

One misconception about Lattimer's analysis here is that he
claimed he was able to see the adrenal glands on the x-rays.
Lattimer makes no such claim; in fact, as demonstrated in
"JAMA", functionally JFK had no such glands to be seen.  Only
isolated cells, visible only under the microscope, were left
of his adrenal glands.  What Lattimer says:

	It was interesting to be able to study the X-rays
	and other related materials pertaining to the rest
	of the President's body, considering the many rumors
	that swirl around such legendary figures.  I was
	particularly interested to see his adrenal-gland
	areas.  These were well visualized on the X-rays
	of the mid-portion of the body, and no abnormal 	
	calcifications could be seen to suggest tuberculosis
	or earlier hemorrhage of the adrenals.

In other words, Lattimer wasn't looking at the adrenal glands
on the x-rays; he was looking at the "*areas*" of the adrenal
glands and he was looking for evidence of calcification.  Adrenal
glands are not visible via x-ray, but calcifications are visible.
Had Dr. Lattimer observed such calcifications he would have 
considered it a virtually 100% diagnosis of a particular form
of Addison's.  But no such calcification was observed.  Dr. 
Lattimer further notes:

	Not only did I find no calcifications in the lungs
	or adrenals, but the kidneys, mesentery, spleen,
	and prostate areas were also free of any calcifications
	that might have indicated previous tuberculosis.  The
	costal cartilages, however, were calcified considerably
	more than usual.  There was an irregular, slightly 
	globular soft-tissue density, 10cm in diameter, overlying
	the left upper quadrant of the abdomen, near the midline...

And so on.  Lattimer was not looking to see normal soft tissue in
the x-rays; he was looking for evidence of calcification.  His 
words have been misconstrued on this point and I hope this sets
the record straight.

Next up is Lattimer's work on the SBT, questions 13 and 14.  I
am, however, going to defer this until I have a chance to 
correlate it with the work done by Dr. Michael West and 
Dr. Johann Rush in their presentation to the American Academy
of Forensic Sciences titled "Confirmation of the Single Bullet
Theory."  I have ordered a copy of this presentation and wish
to view it to see the extent to which this analysis supports
or contradicts Dr. Lattimer's analysis and ballistics tests
on this point.

I believe this tape should arrive within 2-3 weeks, and in the
meantime I shall be presenting Warren Commission testimony from
witnesses rarely mentioned by WC critics.

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)