From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:57:20 GMT

mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <schuck.702773758@sfu.ca>, Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes...
>>> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:


>>Jenkins and Clark also stated they saw cerebellum in the
>>head wound. 

>	They could have mistaken badly lacerated cerebral tissue
>	for cerebellum. Also, the photo of the brain (or at least 
>	Ida Dox's redering of it) shows that most of the right
>	side of the cerebrum was blown away.

What photo? I've never seen this picture. You haven't.
Don't you think its strange there is no known photo of the
head wound from the right side of JFK's head. There's photos
of the left side, doctored photos of the back of head.
Photos of the back of the head with *NO* entrance wound.
Drawings of the back of the head with an entrance wound.
But *NO* picture of the wound and the brain taken from the right.
Did they forget to take it? Was it ever taken?

>       Lattimer, who saw
>	the photo, estimates that 70% of the right cerebral tissue
>	was missing. All that was left of a good deal of the right
>	cerebral hemisphere looks to be a relatively thin layer
>	of the base of the hemisphere (ok, so the descrition sounds
>	wierd. sue me. think about it). It is quite possible that
>	the force of the bullet could have lifted, twisted around,
>	or otherwise re-oriented the rear of the right Cer. Hemi.
>	so that the cerebellum would be exposed.

>	In light of McClelland's statement on NOVA, along with
>	Jenkins' apparent approval of it, I don't think it's
>	a problem.   
>	

The big question is *What* photos were shown?
Nobody knows.


>>>	The wound *does* extend into the occipital (that's clear from
>>>	the body of descriptions taken from Parkland, the autopsy, and
>>>	the descriptions of the autopsy materials. As McClelland said,
>>>	the photo in question shows a flap of skin pulled out over the
>>>	wound. This apparently was done in order to clearly show the
>>>	small entry wound in the back of the head.

>>The occipital is the rear of the head.
>>How did a bullet enter in the rear and leave from the rear?

>	The wound isn't solely in the the occipital. McClelland's
>	report has the wound extending *at least* halfway into the 
>	parietal bone. The exit of the largest bullet fragment (a
>	globular lump of core) is at the forward margin of this
>	wound. 

The wound in the autopsy photo does *not* extend into the occiptial.
The Parkland Doctors saw the wound extend into the occipital.
Humes said he saw it. Why doesn't it appear in the autopsy photos?


>>>	All of the official reports I've read, from Parkland, Bethseda,
>>>	and the various committees seem to be talking about the
>>>	same wound. There are differences in the description of them
>>>	are, really, fairly minor, and resemble other instances where
>>>	different people have differed as to the fine details of an
>>>	event while agreeing on the general situation.

>>Minor?

>Minor.

>>There are major differences in description.
>>The big difference is that the Parkland Doctors, and some of the
>>SS agents saw an large exit wound in the back of the head.

>	The SS agents and the Parkland doctors saw a large wound
>	in the back of the head. Their interpetation was that the
>	wound was an exit wound. That's what Bethseda found, that's
>	what the Clark panel, the Rockafeller panel, the HSCA, et al
>	found and determined. However, closer inspection of the
>	head wound (ie, the notch/conical defect at the forward
>	margin of the head wound, along with the distribution
>	of the bullet fragments) shows that the bullet passed
>	from back to front, not from front to back.

How can anyone conclude that? The wound extended so far back
as to put it right where Humes put the entrance wound?
The trouble is, the autopsy photo (an obvious fake) tries to 
make people believe that there was only a wound in the temple area.

>>Bethesda said there was a small entrance wound in the back of the
>>head and an exit wound in the right temple.
>	
>	You might want to read the autopsy, or at least read it more
>	carefully. Where did Humes report say that the wound was in the
>	temple?

>	Humes: "...there is a large wound, cheifly in the parietal, but
>	extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal..."

>	McClelland: a wound extending from the occipital region well
>	into the parietal (He claimed that he saw the rear half of
>	the pareietal bone broken off)


The occipital bone is in the back of the head.
The WC wants people to believe that an entrance wound that
only shows up in *drawings* of the back of JFK's head
exitted from the right side of the head, except most of the Doctors
had the big hole in the head extending to where the WC
said the bullet entered.

Crenshaw says the bullet hit JFK near the right temple and basically
plowed a groove from the temple to the occipital region, exitting
from the back of JFK's head.

His explanation is the best one I've read.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk