From: mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:01:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
>In article <14APR199216153781@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|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, the only four doctors who reviewed all of the
>|	photos say that the photos in the National Archives show
>|	what they remember seeing.

>That is false. You continually disregard Jim's article that I attached to the
>my response. You have not responded to this, and have not responded to my
>inclusion of it in my article. You simply refuse to look at the evidence, since
>it disagrees with your position. 

	No, Mrt Wright. It is true, unless other members of the Parkland
	staff have seen the *entire* body of photos since the NOVA episode.
	If they have, I haven't heard about it. If you read _High Treason_
	carefully, you'll notice that the doctors Jim refers to
	generally (if not all of them)only saw two (Dulaney only saw one of
	the autopsy photos before seeing all of them, according to Groden)
	of the photos. The doctors who saw all of the photos claimed that the
	photos did indeed show what they remembered at Parkland.


>Have you read High Treason, the source of Jim's source on McClelland, and the
>KPIX broadcast?

	It's KRON, not KPIX.

	Actually, McClelland seems to denounce the show, if indirectly.
	However, he doesn't seem to have taken anything he said back.
	Since HT doesn't seem to want to mention NOVA, it's a bit 
	hard to find. Furthermore, It is clear that McClelland didn't
	see the enhanced x-rays. His statements make it quite clear.


>I am glad you admit that the Parkland people do find problems with the photos.
	
	The Parkland people have problems with seeing two of the photos
	out of the context of the entire number of photos. All of the
	Parkland Four were originally on record (High Treason so
	documents it) as saying the autopsy photos that they saw
	(all one/two of them) didn't show the wounds as they recalled
	them....at least until they saw those photos in context.

	Context can do some grand things.



>|	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.

>I do not have lifton anymore, since it was recalled. You said you read it. The
>Parkland throat wound was described as below the second trachea ring, and at
>Bethesda it was lowerd to the third. Second, the two wounds along the trachea
>were merged into a single wound.

	Well, you said you read Lattimer, and then failed to remember 
	Lattimer's copious use of the word "tracheostomy". It's not
	that the word doesn't appear on page 200 in 40-point boldface!
	
	As to the wound...hmmmm. The throat wound starts out as being
	"below the second ring of the trachea". Then it is "lowered" to
	the third ring. Now, unless you are using some heretofore unkown
	usage of the word 'lower' (those crrrrrazzzy Californians!), I
	see no difference in the tow descriptions. Look at it carefully.	

	As for the two wounds vs one thrachea wound, I was under the
	impression, after reading the Parkland operative reports, that
	there was only one 'jagged hole in the trachea' mentioned. Odd
	that.

>Importantly, we get to see his [Dr Crenshaw's]
>reactions to the photograph, as well as statements from Dr. Baxter. We also get
>to see the size of the tracheotomy/tracheosotmy tube and flange, and see that
>it is indeed small.

	We get to see this stuff from Groden, et al, as well. Crenshaw
	apparently hasn't yet seen all of the autopsy photos. I wonder
	if they will have the same effect on him as they did on the
	P4...


>At Parkland, everyone (except Jenkins) thought it was an
>entrance wound. Perry, in a discussion with Hurt, said it had an abraision
>collar.

	Odd, since Lattimer states that Perry had claimed that the wound 
	had no such marks. 


>|	Again, I ask what was exactly "reconstructed"? All the autopsists
>|	did was keep the flap of scalp over part of the head wound.

>First, it was not Humes who did this, and who knows if what as autopsist or
>morturary specialist. The skin was tight over the skull, and that must have be
>reconstructed. How did the bones stay together? THe morturary people said they
>cemented in Kennedy's skull, wrapping the scalp over it... 

	The skin would be tight over the skull for two reasons. First of
	all, the skin around the head is 'molded' (for want of a better
	term) to the shape of the skull. That is, the cranial skin is the same
	shape as the underlying cranium. I've observed this in
	dissections of pigs, and in cleaning, dressing and processing game 
	animals (unfortunately, neither of the autopsies I went to featured this
	sort of headcutting). The skin would fall over the wound and
	deform little without the support of the skull underneath; the
	roughly spherical-section shape of the head allows the cranial
	skin to be more rigid than one would imagine. 
	
	Further, the hand holding the flap of skin would help the 
	flap of skin keep its shape. A rough analogy would be like
	a rope tied to a tree. Normally, it would just lie on the
	ground limply, but put some tension on the rope, and it'll
	straighten out.


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

From: jeffw@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:09:23 GMT
Subject: Re: The Motorcade, the TSBD, and LHO
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID