From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Part One, Lattimer
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:19:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
But it has been sporadic and un-systematic.  I intend, over the
next couple of weeks or so, to set forth Dr. Lattimer's principal
research results, point by point.  I don't expect the usual
pro-conspiracy suspects in here to do other than yawn.  But as
I know from my e-mail when I post in here, there are plenty
of people out there who, though pro-conspiracy, have never
been made aware of the fact that the medical and ballistics
aspects of this case have been formulated into testable hypotheses
and that those hypotheses have been tested.

Across the board, the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.

The HSCA's work was excellent in many respects.  Their medical
panel, for instance, included forensic anthropologists who
determined conclusively that the individual seen in the
autopsy x-rays and photographs was John F. Kennedy and no other
person.  The photo experts determined conclusively that none
of the material had been tampered with; the photos and x-rays
are not phonies or composites.  They are the genuine article.

But I don't have this research material at hand and cannot
quote chapter and verse.  I do have Lattimer - it is out of
print - and would like to present his analysis.  As I say, I
know that there are "read-only" folks out there whose interest
was piqued by the movie "JFK" (or perhaps some book like
"Best Evidence" or "HTII" or "Crossfire" or whatever) but who
have never really delved deeply into the case.  I myself supported
2nd gunman and pro-conspiracy views until around the time the
NRC's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics blew the HSCA's dictabelt
tape analysis out of the water in late '82.  But one finally
realizes that the 2nd gunman theories ultimately rest on the
(practically speaking) impossible happening.  One ultimately learns
that while anyone can *say* anything, there are limits to the
manipulation of physical matter.  And that one really must look
at what nature does and does not allow in order to cut through
all the crapola and get to the truth of the medical and
ballistics evidence.

Dr. Lattimer does as good a job of this as any one individual.

So let's look at Lattimer's book, _Kennedy and Lincoln, Medical
and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations_ and find out
what can be learned through the device of physically testing
hypotheses.

Lattimer's book was published in 1980, though major portions were
first printed in refereed medical journals such as "International
Surgery", "The Forensic Science Gazette" and "Surgery, Gynecology
and Obstetrics."  Lattimer has been dismissed as "only a
urologist" by people like Dr. Wecht, but this is a silly objection
to his work.  First, Lattimer's initial expertise stems from
his experiences as a WWII army surgeon treating bullet wounds
caused by German and Italian army rifles.  Second, he was able
to call upon, during the course of his 15+ years of research,
experts relating to many aspects of the case.

Like any other non-fiction writer, Lattimer is not perfect.
But I would suggest that truly disputing his findings requires
doing better tests than he did, and I have seen nothing in 
that area from any second gunman theorists.  (as we shall
see, it was Lattimer himself who did experiments to determine
what might happen to a skull if hit by a bullet fired from
the grassy knoll; where are the experiments from the grassy
knoll theorists disupting his discoveries?)

And what are his findings?

I think we should start with those areas of the Warren
Commission Report in which he had doubts.  In subsequent
days and weeks we'll look closely at how he resolved those
doubts and answered the questions that he and others had
raised about the WCR.  Some of his questions were more
amenable to testing than others and it is those questions on
which we will chiefly focus.  But in the interest of fairness
and completeness we'll look at how Dr. Lattimer approached
the following questions, which questions he poses between
pp. 179- 183 of his book: (pp. 180-181 = a diagram)

1. Why had the X-rays and photographs been taken away from
Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck prior to their final report?

2. Why wasn't this material included in the final WCR?

3. Why had Dr. Humes burned his orignal autopsy notes?

4. Did the bullet holes in JFK's clothing indicate a bullet
passed of back-to-front?

5. Why were the bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt lower
than the corresponding hole in JFK's upper back?

6. Was there definite evidence of a bullet track running
through and through JFK's body in this area?

7. If so, in what direction did the bullet travel?

8. Was the angle of the bullet track consistent with the
twenty-degree (approx) angle required by shots from the
6th floor of the TSBD?

9. How come when government ballistics experts tried to reproduce
JFK's skull wound they didn't get a closer match, if indeed the
bullet had entered in the lower right/rear portion of JFK's skull?

10. How come the official drawings of the head wound showed relatively
little skull shattering?

11. Was there any evidence of a bullet traveling through JFK's body
from any direction other than from the rear?

12. What about the state of JFK's adrenal glands?

13. Was CE399 really the same bullet that went through JFK's
neck?

14. Was this bullet in fact pristine; or, if not, in what way
was it deformed?

15. Could Kennedy have survived this first wound?

16. Why did his elbows jerk up in response to the first bullet
wound in such an odd manner?

17. Why, if his first wound was so serious, did JFK not 
crumple out of sight?

18. Why was the hole in the front of JFK's neck so small if it
was in fact an exit wound?

We shall see how Lattimer approached these (and other) questions
in subsequent postings.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)