Tag: MEDICAL EVIDENCE

  • Three Letters to Congresswoman Luna

    Three Letters to Congresswoman Luna

    Letter 1 – Doug Horne to Anna Luna – Subject: Final Determination Orders

    Dear Congresswoman Luna,

    This is Douglas Horne again, one of the witnesses who testified before your Task Force on May 20, 2025.

    As a former senior staff member who worked for the ARRB, I am vitally concerned about the issues related to the mishandling of the ARRB’s JFK assassination records by the National Archives from the time the ARRB shut down, in September 1998, until early this year.

    Attorney Andrew Iler, perhaps the foremost living expert on the JFK Records Act, has detailed this year, in two long articles published by Jim DiEugenio at his website Kennedys and King, the apparent malfeasance of the Archivist of the United States with regard to the handling (or rather, mishandling) of the Review Board’s FINAL DETERMINATION ORDERS regarding each assassination record we turned over to the Archives.

    Approximately 27,000 of these forms were created by the ARRB, containing disposition instructions pertaining to periodic review requirements, and also specific instructions on when each document should have been released.   It appears that in many, many cases the Archivist of the United States failed to perform the ministerial duties required of that incumbent with regard to mandatory periodic review and/or early release, prior to 2017. 

    Most of the 27,000 Final Determination Orders created by the ARRB cannot be located by NARA, or so they say.  Many documents that were ordered released in 2006 or 2007, for example, were not fully declassified and released by NARA, as the ARRB ordered.  Attorney Andrew Iler has documented these facts in his two long articles published this year.

    Whether this malfeasance was due to incompetence and an uncaring attitude, or whether it can be attributed to NARA being a tool of the intelligence community that was continuing to resist release of these records, we do not yet know.

    But the American people deserve to know why the Archivist of the United States failed to perform his ministerial duties over a period of approximately 16-17 years.

    I sincerely hope that the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets will hold a public hearing in which the Archives, as an institution, is “taken to task” for its failures in this regard—and in which detailed explanations are provided to the Task Force about how this came about, and why.

    Andrew Iler spent years looking into this matter, and his findings have been well-documented, in writing.  He is a man of impeccable integrity.  He has communicated his findings in detail to Jake Greenberg, the Chief Counsel for Investigations for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  As I mentioned earlier, his two long articles about these issues have been published at the Kennedys and King blogsite.

    I am sure Andrew Iler (who is “copy to” on this email above) will readily answer any questions you may have about these issues.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter, for it is well within the scope of what your Task Force has been empowered to look into, on behalf of the American people.

    Sincerely,

    Douglas Horne

    Former Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB

    Letter 2 – Doug Horne to Jake Greenberg – Subject: List of Missing Medical Evidence (for Task Force Report)

    Dear Jake,

    Jefferson Morley, who apparently is very close to Chairwoman Luna, asked me yesterday for a list of missing JFK medical evidence, and asked me if I had been in touch with her staff to “follow up.”  I responded to him by providing a summary of this information, but now, one day later, I have taken the hint he dropped on me, and have decided to provide such a list to you directlyunfiltered by anyone else.

    Since I am currently the pre-eminent living expert on JFK’s autopsy (no false modesty here), I thought you should receive such a list directly from me, without having any third party possibly filter it, misunderstand the facts here, or water it down.

    So here is my definitive list of missing JFK medical evidence:

    1.  Eight sets of autopsy photographs are known to be missing, based on credible eyewitness testimony and recollections, and were never placed into the official record; most “sets” of autopsy photos known today consist of two black and white negatives, and two-to-four color positive transparencies, 4 x 5 inches in size, of the same view.  Autopsy photographs that I am confident are missing include:

    a. an overhead, wide-shot of JFK’s body taken from a stepladder;
    b. large bruise atop the right lung, taken inside the interior of the chest, after the lungs were removed;
    c. entrance wound in the lower right of the skull, with scalp reflected, taken from the outside of the skull;
    d. entrance wound in the lower right of the skull, taken from inside the
    cranium, after the brain was removed;
    e. condition of the back of the head, after embalming and reconstruction was completed, still showing an exit defect that could not be closed; [witness Saundra Spencer recalled in sworn testimony to the ARRB that this, and similar images, were recorded on color negatives, not color positive transparencies and B&W negatives, as were the remainder of the autopsy photos in the National Archives]
    f. negatives from a B&W film pack showing metal probes in JFK’s body; [these images were developed and seen by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, but were never placed in the National Archives]
    g. B&W prints showing a large exit defect in the rear of JFK’s head; [shown to USIA White House photographer by White House photographer and Navy Chief, Robert Knudsen]
    h. B&W prints (and at least one color positive transparency) showing a small entry wound high in the forehead above the corner of JFK’s right eye. [there are five credible witnesses who have seen such images]

    2.  Two JFK skull x-rays known to have been taken—both oblique views of the exit wound in the right rear of his head—have never been placed into the official record.  [witness: Jerrol Custer, Navy x-ray technician, to the ARRB]

    3.  Furthermore, since all three extant JFK skull x-rays in the National Archives are known to be copy films, and are not originals, the three originals of those x-rays are missing as well.  [specifically, one left lateral skull film, one right lateral skull film, and one A-P, or “anterior-posterior” skull film] 

    4.  The “Harper Fragment” of cranial bone from the occipital region of JFK’s skull, found in Dealey Plaza on November 23, 1963, has been missing since December of 1963.  It was last signed for by the President’s Military Physician, Rear Admiral George Burkley.  Its dimensions were approximately 2.75 inches in width and 2.5 inches high.  Photographs exist in the public record: it was photographed by the 3 pathologists who examined it at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, and also by the FBI, after it was sent to Washington. D.C.

    5.  Missing bullet fragments retrieved from JFK’s body at Bethesda Naval Hospital prior to the commencement of the “autopsy of record” at approximately 8:15 PM on November 22, 1963 include: 

    a. one vial containing about the ten tiny fragments removed from JFK’s brain; [witness: mortician Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home, to both the HSCA and the ARRB]

    b. one bullet fragment removed from JFK’s back (from the intercostal tissue, between his ribs); [witnesses: Tom Robinson of Gawler’s to the HSCA; Navy corpsman Paul O’Connor to the HSCA; and Navy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer to the ARRB] 

    c. and finally, the four “large” bullet fragments for which Navy corpsman Dennis David typed a receipt (for a Federal Agent) the night of the autopsy.  [Witness: Navy corpsman Dennis David to the ARRB; he not only typed the receipt, but he also saw the fragments, and was also allowed by the Federal Agent to handle the fragments] 

    All of those fragments, seen by credible witnesses, remain missing today, and were never introduced into the official record.

    END OF LIST

    Jake, I would greatly appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this important summary of missing JFK medical evidence, and if you would also forward it to Chairwoman LUNA and her staff. 

    I am assuming that you may find such a list useful when the Task Force Report is written.

    Sincerely,

    Douglas P. Horne

    Former Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB

    Letter 3 – Doug Horne to Anna Luna – Subject: List of Missing Medical Evidence (for Task Force Report)

    Dear Congresswoman Luna,

    I am Douglas Horne, the ARRB medical evidence witness who testified before your Task Force on May 20, 2025.

    I wanted to take this opportunity to forward, directly to you, a comprehensive list of missing JFK autopsy medical evidence which we definitely know today once existed, but which is now missing.

    I sent this list to Jake Greenberg some time ago (back on July 18th), in the hopes that it would find its way into the report your task Force will issue on the JFK records issues, but I never received an acknowledgment from him.

    Therefore, I am forwarding it directly to you and your chief of staff, in the hopes that it will be useful to you in writing your report (and in explaining why we should have no confidence in the Warren Report’s conclusions about a lone assassin).

    If a lone nut had killed the president in 1963, and it was a “simple murder” as some have claimed, there would have been no need to destroy and/or alter so any medical records related to the autopsy, or to dispose of bullet fragments from JFK’s body and a crucial bone fragment from his skull.

    I know from the news stories I am aware of that you are very busy this year, but I hope that you will find this list of missing medical evidence useful when writing the Task Force Report.

    Sincerely,

    Douglas Horne

    Former Chief Analyst for Military Records, ARRB

  • JFK Medical Betrayal: Where The Evidence Lies by Russell Kent

    JFK Medical Betrayal: Where The Evidence Lies by Russell Kent


    Russell Kent graduated from the University of London with a degree in physiology, which means he studied how anatomy and systems of the body function. He then went to work at a hospital laboratory started publishing. He has now written a book on the medical evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It is called JFK Medical Betrayal. It approaches the subject in an unusual manner, one that ends up garnering some valuable insights into the case.

    I

    Kent begins his book by writing that the Warren Commission essentially discounted the Parkland doctors’ observations in lieu of the pathologists at Bethesda morgue, where Kennedy’s body ended up the night he was killed. There were two serious problems in doing this. First, the pathologists at Bethesda—Jim Humes, Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck—were not really qualified to be practicing forensic pathologists. And second, for whatever reason, they did not do a complete autopsy. If the law had not been broken, the autopsy would have been done in Dallas, by a respected medical examiner, Earl Rose. But as a result of these shortcomings—amazingly—no one really knows the specifics of how Kennedy was killed.

    From here, Kent focuses on what happened at Parkland after Kennedy’s body arrived. Dr. Charles Carrico directed the gurney be sent to Trauma Room One. (Kent, p. 19) There, Carrico discovered a very small wound in the anterior neck. He also observed a right posterior wound of the head, down low, “about 50-70 mm in diameter and with the skull sprung outwards.” Carrico saw both cerebrum and cerebellum. (p. 19) Malcolm Perry called for a tracheotomy tube. But by 1:00 PM, Dr. Kemp Clark, the team leader, pronounced Kennedy dead. (p. 20) Nurses Diana Bowron and Margaret Henchliffe undressed Kennedy and washed the body. Clark and Perry went on to write about this large, avulsive wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. (p. 21) In addition to Perry, Carrico also believed the anterior neck wound was one of entrance, as did Henchliffe. (p. 22)

    According to the author, since LBJ feared further attacks, the new president ordered everyone back to Washington. (pp. 24-25) This led to some rather poorly qualified doctors performing this very important autopsy. Jim Humes had taken a one week course in forensic pathology 10 years prior. (p. 26) But since 1960, Humes was essentially an administrative desk jockey. And he stayed one until his retirement. (pp. 26-27)

    Another indication of these doctors’ lack of experience is that on the autopsy face sheet, Thornton Boswell did not affix his name, or that of Kennedy as a patient. (pp. 27-28) Boswell described the back wound as measuring 7 x 4mm, but he located it in relation to two movable parts of the anatomy, the mastoid process and the right acromion. The proper manner is to measure down from the top of head and then left or right of the spine. (p. 29)

    Pierre Finck was also an administrative desk jockey who may never have performed a gunshot wound autopsy. He was not certified in forensic pathology until 1961, at which time he was not performing post-mortem examinations. The most logical time for Finck to have done a gunshot wound autopsy was when he was stationed in Frankfurt, Germany. But, at that time, he was not board certified. So its logical that he likely assisted in such exams. (p. 30) Finally, Finck got there well after the autopsy had begun.

    As many have noted, a lot of the facts in the autopsy report are not backed up by written data. Humes burned his notes and the first draft of his report. This happened around the time he heard Oswald had been killed. (p. 31). Further, the pathologists did not consult the photos in preparation of their report. According to the author, Humes did talk to Perry that night and learned of the anterior neck wound. (p. 32). And this was the basis for the idea that the back wound exited the neck wound.

    The author poses a cogent question at this time. Namely, why did Dr. George Burkley—who was Kennedy’s personal physician—not inform the pathologists about all that had happened at Parkland? After all, he was the only physician at both locations. (p. 33)

    II

    From here, Kent delves into the creation of the Single Bullet Theory. The FBI concluded that there were 3 shots, and 3 hits: one to Kennedy’s back, one to his head and one to Governor Connally’s back. They discounted the bullet strike to James Tague on Commerce Street and Kennedy’s anterior neck wound.(p. 39) J. Edgar Hoover never bought the Single Bullet Theory.

    The Warren Commission did not agree. With them, the hole in the front of Kennedy’s neck—which was smaller than the back wound—now became an exit wound. These Commissioners were supported by a team of alleged experts at Edgewood Arsenal testing grounds: including doctors Joseph Dolce, Alfred Olivier, Arthur Dziemian and Frederick Light. The Commission eventually concluded that the back wound, which was 7 x 4mm, was the entrance wound and its exit was the anterior throat wound which was about 3-5 mm wide. In other words, the exit was smaller than the entrance. (p. 45)

    As the author notes, there is no evidence that any tests were done on trajectory analysis of the bullet though the back, i.e. whether or not it would hit bones in the spinal cord. Even worse, Olivier stated that their experiments, “…disclosed that the type of head wounds that the president received could be done by this type of bullet.” (p. 51) As Kent notes, this is not accurate. Because their experiments showed that this type of skull wound would result in a blow out of the right side of the face. That is not what happened to Kennedy. Another point about these experiments: in wrist simulations, the entrance was always smaller than the exit. Yet the reverse was true about Connally’s wound. (p. 53)

    According to Kent, there was disagreement about the Magic Bullet concept. Some of it based on the fact that experimentation showed that such a projectile would not emerge so intact. But it was Arlen Specter who decided to ride out the storm. Beyond that, Light and Dolce thought Connally was hit by two bullets. (p. 55). Dr. Robert Shaw, who worked on Connally at Parkland, testified twice. He could not buy one bullet in Connally, he also was reluctant to accept CE 399, the Magic Bullet.(p. 57) Kent notes that Dolce did not testify before the Commission. One wonders if this was one of Specter’s censoring assignments, like Burkley and his death certificate and the two FBI agents at the autopsy.

    III

    By 1967, a strong undercurrent had developed opposing the Warren Commission. Several critical books and essays had gained popularity, and DA Jim Garrison had opened an inquiry in New Orleans. Therefore, the Department of Justice decided to begin a counter attack based on the medical evidence. (p. 68). They first gathered Humes, Boswell, autopsy photographer John Stringer, and radiologist John Ebersole in Washington to review the pictures and x-rays. They signed a false statement about the collection being intact, with nothing missing. (p. 69). A second review then took place by the three pathologists. They said the materials agreed with their original report. (p. 69)

    But this was just the beginning of the DOJ maneuver. Deputy Attorney General Carl Eardley now asked Thornton Boswell to write a letter sanctioning an independent panel. Eardley tried to create an illusion that this was Boswell’s idea, but the evidence indicates the letter was written by the DOJ and sent to Boswell to sign. (p. 70). This was the beginning of the creation of the Clark Panel: a panel of four men allegedly independently appointed from academia to review the autopsy at Bethesda. But as with the letter, Kent advances a case that this was not really accurate. That it was really Attorney General Ramsey Clark who appointed this panel.

    The four men chosen, likely by Ramsey Clark, were: Doctors William Carnes (pathologist), Russell Morgan (radiologist), Alan Moritz and, most importantly, Russell Fisher (the last two qualified as forensic pathologists). A high point of the book is Kent’s analysis of the backgrounds of these four men, indicating that Clark did not want an honest review, which is why he chose them. (pp. 72-76) This section seemed to me to be original and well-reasoned. For instance, Moritz taught Fisher at Harvard, Fisher was very reliant on government funding, and Fisher knew both Humes and Boswell. Also, Fisher had written a text book that was used by pathologists around the world. (To cavil on this section, I think it would have been helpful if Kent had mentioned Fisher’s role in the investigation of the alleged suicide of CIA officer John Paisley. Click here for that)

    The Clark Panel met for two days and the second day was not a whole day. (p. 77) Boswell and Humes appeared before the panel. Kent gives us a good summary of the materials they reviewed. He then mentions that the panel raised the rear skull wound upward by four inches and he supplies reasons for why they did so. Kent also adds that their report on damage to JFK’s brain differs from what the original autopsy report depicts. First, the panel reported significant damage on the left side of the brain which the original report did not, and second was that the corpus callosum was widely torn down the midline. (p. 83) As the author notes, were the pictures the Panel looking at not of Kennedy’s brain? In fact, eventually Fisher admitted that Kennedy’s brain was not sectioned, which he characterized was really a crucial step. (p. 84)

    In their description of the now infamous 6.5 mm fragment on the x-rays of the skull, there is no mention that this measurement matches the caliber of the alleged bullet fired at Kennedy. Neither do they say that the dust like particles in the front of Kennedy’s skull are above the posterior entrance wound. This would suggest an entrance wound. Further, the fact that the larger particles are located near the back of the skull would also suggest this origin, as Dr. Vincent DiMaio wrote. (p. 91)

    Another deception was that the report described “a track between two cutaneous wounds”, presumably between JFK’s back and neck. But as Kent notes this was an imputation: there was no proven track. (p. 92) The main reason being that this wound—as well as the skull wound—was not dissected.

    All four doctors signed by April 9, 1968. Yet, it was not released to the public until January 16, 1969. This was just before jury selection began in the trial of Clay Shaw. Kent’s discussion of the Clark Panel is one of the best—if not the best—I have seen in the literature.

    IV

    The next inquiry into the JFK autopsy was in 1975 under the Rockefeller Commission, headed by President Gerald Ford’s Vice-President, Nelson Rockefeller. Incredibly, Warren Commission lawyer David Belin was appointed the chief counsel to this body. He tried to neutralize the issue of bias by having Robert B. Olson run the JFK inquiry. But as Kent writes, Belin showed up during the medical review and took the testimony of two doctors.

    A large amount of evidence was made available to the doctors. It would take weeks to absorb the material. They were left alone with it for one day and then sent out to produce reports which Belin wanted in about 7-10 days. (p. 104) But Belin and Olsen also asked questions about the case that were clearly suggestive. Things like, “How many bullets struck the president?” And “From which direction did each bullet come?” Kent goes through these questions and gives us examples of what the replies were.

    For me the most revealing exchange was to a question that asked, if the sectioning of Kennedy’s brain was necessary to arrive at reliable information concerning the number of shots or angles that hit Kennedy? Anyone familiar with the process would have to reply in the affirmative. How else could one conclude how many bullets hit JFK’s head and what path they followed? Well, consider this answer:

    Although as a routine matter dissection of the brain in gunshot wounds of the head is desirable, it is not an essential element in this case. I do not believe that further examination of the brain would contribute significant additional information relating the angles from which the shots were fired. (p. 111)

    But yet Belin loaded up even more by adding questions about whether the skin tissue slides were necessary as were pictures of the chest. Of course, both were missing in the JFK case. But again, the good doctors tell us that, like the brain, they really were not necessary for additional information. Can one imagine a cross examination of that reply under oath in a courtroom? I certainly can.

    Making it worse was that one of the doctors, Richard Lindenberg, worked with Finck at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. He was also an odd choice in that most of his papers dealt with aviation accidents. Perhaps this was because he was in the medical corps for the Luftwaffe and came to the USA as part of Operation Paperclip. (p. 114) Needless to say, he later wrote a paper with Fisher. Werner Spitz was also on the panel, and he worked with Fisher for a number of years from the late fifties and during the sixties.(p. 123). Another dubious choice on the panel was Alfred G. Olivier, since he worked for the Warren Commission. As the author notes, all the doctors were from the DC/Baltimore area except for Spitz, who moved to Michigan after living in Baltimore for 13 years. (pp. 134-35)

    The Rockefeller Commission continued with the raised rear skull wound, 10 cm about the external occipital protuberance. But as Kent ably points out with photos, although one can make a (weak) case for a wound near that spot in the color photo, that case all but evaporates in the black and white shots. (pp. 120-21)

    Finally, the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented Dr. Cyril Wecht’s testimony. He was asked to testify and he did so for five hours in May of 1975. He was critical of the autopsy and the Magic Bullet. His testimony was reduced to three paragraphs in the report and one would never know how critical he was. Misrepresenting his testimony, it looked like Wecht supported the Rockefeller conclusions. This dispute reached the pages of the New York Times. Wecht asked to see his transcript. He was denied. (p. 135)

    V

    From the Rockefeller Commission, Kent quite naturally leads into the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). As the author notes, during the first phase of the HSCA, Deputy Chief Counsel Robert Tanenbaum only wanted two forensic pathologists: Cyril Wecht of Pittsburgh and Michael Baden of New York City. Attorney Tanenbaum had worked with the latter often since he was in the Manhattan DA’s office and was in charge of the Homicide division for about seven years.

    This approach was drastically altered under the second Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey. Blakey added seven doctors, and this now made for a nine person panel. Baden had just finished a book he co-wrote with Fisher and Charles Petty, who would be on the panel and was the new medical examiner in Dallas. In fact, Baden wanted Fisher on his panel, but he wisely declined the invitation. Petty had trained in Fisher’s facilities and said that Fisher was the best forensic pathologist he knew. (p. 153) Baden also chose Werner Spitz who had been on the Rockefeller Commission Panel and was a friend of Humes, and had been Fisher’s deputy in Baltimore.

    Kent, after describing briefly the other panelists—Davis, Coe, Weston, Loquvam and Rose—concludes that Wecht was the lone independent doctor. He had not published with any of the others and had no personal relationship with Fisher. Plus, he was familiar with other aspects of the JFK case.

    There was an overwhelming amount of material to learn and absorb, and again this could not be done in just the four days the panel met together. But yet, miraculously, at the end of the fourth day, “it became apparent that the members were in substantial agreement with respect to the interpretation of the evidence.” But further, for whatever reason, Wecht was in a sub group and therefore was not allowed to question two of the original autopsy doctors: Boswell and Finck. (pp. 156-57)

    Andy Purdy was the HSCA writer/researcher for the medical panel. He wrote that one of the panel’s functions was to override the idea that the original autopsy doctors’ views should be given greater weight.(p. 163) But Humes would not give in easily to the panel’s desire to raise the rear skull wound upward. In fact, this part of the HSCA discussion provoked Loquvam to say there should have been no recording made of it. The original radiologist, Ebersole, now admitted there were x-rays missing. (p. 165)

    The HSCA panel ended up supporting the Clark Panel on the elevated rear skull wound. Why? The author thinks this was for two reasons. First, in reverence to Fisher. The second was to escape any possibility of extensive damage to the cerebellum, which about seven witnesses saw at Parkland. (pp. 189-90) And Kent comments that the panel largely ignored the Parkland witnesses and their observations.

    In fact, Kent concludes that Baden misrepresented Dr. Robert Shaw’s reasons for doubting the Magic Bullet. Baden said it was because of John Connally’s testimony. But Shaw did not buy it because “he did not think the bullet was tumbling or had struck anything before hitting the governor.” (p. 191) He therefore doubted any bullet could have emerged like CE 399.

    Wecht ended up being the sole dissenter. He criticized the panel for seeming to accept the work of urologist Dr. John Lattimer and ignoring the pioneering work of pathologist Dr. John Nichols, who had testified at the Clay Shaw trial. When Wecht testified before the committee he raised some very cogent and consequential objections to the Single Bullet Theory. These were ignored by the medical panel. The committee then questioned Wecht in a hostile manner.

    The Single Bullet Theory was going to be honored again. But it would not live long as the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) did their own inquiry. Partly at the request of the final chairman of the HSCA, Louis Stokes. As Doug Horne related to this reviewer, Stokes told the ARRB that no one was satisfied with what the HSCA did with the medical evidence.

    In his chapter on the ARRB, Kent focuses on what their outside experts wrote after they were brought in to view the evidence. That is people like forensic radiologist John Fitzpatrick. He was an acquaintance of Executive Director David Marwell. But he specialized in broken bones in children, not bullet wounds. (p. 236). Forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner said the raised entrance in the skull was likely the proper head wound, but he could not match it to the x-rays. He asked to see CE 399 but was skeptical of it. He thought there should have been a large wound track and a gaping exit wound in JFK’s throat. Such was not the case. (p. 241)

    Kent concludes that a completely independent forensic pathology team should have been called in. One that was free of any establishment American influence. (p. 247) In fact he suggests a team from the United Kingdom’s Guy’s Hospital Medical School. He specifically names three men: Francis Camps, Donald Teure, and Keith Simpson. Together, they investigated many unlawful deaths in the London area. For instance, all three were involved in solving the Rillington Place murders. These men could and should have been brought in, for example, to the HSCA panel, but they were not. Whatever they would have concluded they would not have been accused—quite rightfully as was the case—of bias.

    This is an unusual book in its approach. To my knowledge, the medical evidence has never been studied in the new manner that Kent utilizes. It’s almost like a C. Wright Mills approach to the case. For just that he should be appreciated. But beyond that, he studied several medical archives to actually garner the connections between the men who were tasked with examining the forensic facts of Kennedy’s death. With a surfeit of evidence, he proves they were the wrong choices. Which is why their work has not stood the test of time.

  • The JFK Assassination Dissected by Cyril Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann

    The JFK Assassination Dissected by Cyril Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann


    Alongside Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Jim Garrison, Dr. Cyril Wecht’s face long ago made its way onto my own personal Mount Rushmore of JFK assassination experts. A world-renowned forensic pathologist, lawyer, author, and founder of the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, his credentials and intellect are not open to question. Perhaps more importantly, his courage and integrity are beyond reproach. In opposition to most of his colleagues in medicine, Dr. Wecht has never been afraid to take a stand against official pronouncements when he knows them to be wrong. As such, he has been one of the most prominent and outspoken critics of the US government’s lone nut solution to the Kennedy assassination for more than fifty years. And never being one to follow the herd, Dr. Wecht has been just as outspoken when his fellow Warren Commission critics have gone off the deep end with their pet theories.

    My own contact with Dr. Wecht has been sadly limited. However, in 2015, after ballistics expert Lucien Haag published a piece titled “Death of the Shooter on the Grassy Knoll” in the pages of the AFTE Journal, I was among a small group of assassination buffs who offered Dr. Wecht and his colleague Dr. Gary Aguilar some ideas on how to respond. In a detailed email, I shared my thoughts on what could be discerned from a comparison of JFK’s post-mortem skull X-rays and the X-ray of a test skull that had been shot with the very rifle and ammunition Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have used. A few hours later, Dr. Wecht responded, “Thank you very much for your perceptive comments and observations…I appreciate your keen analysis and incisive critique…Your points will be helpful to us as we prepare our response to these WCR sycophants.” (Private email, Aug 13, 2015) To say the least, I was humbled and delighted by his kind words. I was equally as happy to see a comparison of the same two X-rays appear in Wecht and Aguilar’s published response.

    It perhaps goes without saying, therefore, that I was excited to learn that Dr. Wecht had published―with co-author Dawna Kaufmann―his first full length book on the Kennedy case. And my enthusiasm was stoked by the title of the book, The JFK Assassination Dissected, which appeared to me to suggest that the famous pathologist would be giving readers the benefit of his professional skills by offering an in-depth analysis of the forensic evidence in the case. As it turns out, however, that is not the type of book this is.

    Written as a kind of memoir, The JFK Assassination Dissected functions largely as an overview of the last fifty-eight years from Dr. Wecht’s perspective. The first third or so of the book functions largely as an introduction to the basic facts of the case. And as I read these early chapters, it occurred to me that I have long lamented the lack of a decent introductory book on the case, one that does not offer or promote long-discredited theories or erroneous conclusions. The JFK Assassination Dissected could almost fill that void, but for a few important caveats. Firstly, the book does not cite any of its sources, a must for any scholarly work. Secondly, it contains some important errors of fact, the most baffling of which is the claim, “According to the Warren Commission, as of September 1962, [Lee Harvey] Oswald began receiving a $200 stipend as FBI informant number S172.” And finally, the authors appear to accept some important elements of the official portrait of Oswald, despite how strongly much of it has been contested.

    For example, Wecht and Kaufmann matter-of-factly repeat the Warren Commission’s claim that in the spring of 1963 Oswald attempted to assassinate retired Army Major General Edwin Walker. The authors write of how Oswald allegedly stalked the “ultra-conservative” Walker, “taking photos of the general’s residence.” Then, on April 10, 1963, “…crouched behind a fence at the rear of the house where he could see Walker sitting at his desk. Oswald then fired one shot, at a distance of less than 100 feet away. The bullet hit the wooden frame of the window, and small fragments hit the general’s arm and caused bleeding.” (p. 89)

    The above has long been a favourite story of Warren Commission loyalists, because of what it supposedly says about Oswald. For instance, lone nut zealot Mel Ayton called the Walker incident “the most compelling pre-assassination evidence for Oswald’s propensity to meticulously plan and carry out an act of political assassination, alone and unaided.” (Beyond Reasonable Doubt, p. 149) And yet there have always been profound reasons for questioning Oswald’s participation in the whole affair. To begin with, Oswald never made it onto the Dallas police department’s list of suspects during the several months it investigated the shooting. Furthermore, eyewitness evidence suggested that at least two people were involved. Walter Kirk Coleman, a neighbour of General Walker, told police that he saw two men leaving the scene in two separate cars, one of whom stopped to put something on the back floorboard of his car, while the other climbed into a green or blue Ford and “took off a hurry.” (WC Vol. 24 p. 41) Neither man, according to Coleman, resembled Oswald and, in fact, Oswald did not have a car or even held a driver’s license.

    To be fair to Wecht and Kaufmann, the authors do mention the fact that two men were seen leaving the scene. What they do not divulge, however, is that the bullet that was recovered from Walker’s home was identified at the time as being a 30.06 steel-jacketed round. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 288 and WC Vol. 24 p. 40) It was not until the Warren Commission began looking into the incident that the bullet suddenly became a 6.5 mm copper-jacket, like the ones fired by Oswald’s rifle. This magical transformation of composition and calibre was a little too rich for Walker. When the retired Army general―who had held the real bullet in his hand on the night it was dug out of his wall―saw the Commission’s bullet on television he immediately started a campaign to have the government “withdraw the substituted bullet.” (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 52) Unsurprisingly, he was ignored.

    Another basic tenet of the official Oswald legend that Wecht and Kaufmann repeat without objection is the claim that the violent-tempered ex-Marine was in the habit of beating his wife, Marina. Yet, as I have written before, there is good reason to suspect that the reality of this issue is more complex than Commission apologists would have us believe. Testimony offered to the Commission suggested that Marina had taken pleasure in tormenting and embarrassing her husband in front of friends and Lee was himself observed covered in scratches inflicted by his wife. (HSCA Vol. 12, p.129) Marina even admitted in her own testimony that she would hit and throw objects at Lee. “I’m not a quiet woman myself,” she confessed. (WC Vol. 5 p. 598) It seems to me that whilst there is little doubt the Oswald marriage was often a violent one, in all likelihood neither party was entirely blameless.

    I was initially confused as to why Wecht and Kaufmann appeared so willing to accept the mainstream view of Oswald, but the answer came in a later chapter of the book which details a lunch Dr. Wecht had with Marina in November 1992. Writing of Marina’s “bravery” and being “in awe” of her ability to “separate fact from conjecture.” (p. 266) It seemed obvious that Dr. Wecht was quite taken by Oswald’s widow as she told him many of the same tales she had been recounting for nearly three decades by that time. It is important to note at this point that claims such as those concerning Oswald’s allegedly violent temper or his attempting to kill General Walker are reliant almost entirely on Marina’s word. In fact, as Mark Lane once noted, “The [Warren Commission’s] case against Lee Harvey Oswald was comprised essentially of evidence from two sources: Dallas police officers and Marina Oswald.” (Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 307) In other words, in order to buy into the official story, it is essential to rely on Marina.

    It may well be that Dr. Wecht’s instincts are correct and he is right to believe her. On the other hand, Marina has proven, to be kind, a rather unreliable witness. In fact, over the years she has given so many conflicting stories that when the House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted its own ill-fated probe into the assassination in the late 1970s, the staff compiled a report totalling more than thirty pages titled “Marina Oswald Porter’s Statements of a Contradictory Nature.” Shortly after her husband’s own death at the hands of Jack Ruby, Marina told authorities that he had been a good husband who loved to help out with his children and she could think of no acts of violence he had committed. Later, her description changed to one of a selfish, vicious wife-beater who forced himself on her sexually and was, as she told Dr. Wecht, a “lousy father.” (p. 260)

    It might be argued that the evolution of Marina’s story was a result of her overcoming a sense of embarrassment or loyalty to her dead husband. Yet it cannot be ignored that the negative stories about Lee first began to emerge during the two-month period that Marina was held at the Inn of Six Flags in Arlington, Texas, and repeatedly interrogated by the Secret Service and FBI under threat of deportation. (WC Vol. 1 pp. 79; 410) Nor can it be ignored that, as Mark Lane pointed out, “In the course of Marina’s variegated testimony, she became richer.” (Lane, ibid) Indeed, soon after the assassination, she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in public donations and story advances, prompting her to hire a business manager. And the more the money rolled in, the more she painted herself as a helpless victim to a monstrous husband.

    These days, as Wecht and Kaufmann explain, Marina says she believes there was a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination, that Oswald was telling the truth when he labelled himself a “patsy,” and that both her and her deceased husband were lied to by the U.S. government. (p. 262) On the other hand, she continues to insist that the horrendous portrait she helped paint of Oswald is an accurate one and has not admitted to telling any lies of her own. Maybe that is because the essential facts of the story she eventually settled on are, despite numerous contradictions, sadly true. Or perhaps Marina is sticking to her guns simply because she has become accustomed to playing the victim. Either way, I do believe the authors would have been better served had they conveyed her account with a little more caution.

    Still, I cannot help but respect Dr. Wecht’s ability to state what he believes to be true regardless of what popular opinion may be. Although most students of the assassination take it as a given that Marina is not to be trusted, Dr. Wecht is, as usual, forging his own path. And it must be said, whatever his personal beliefs, Wecht usually takes care not to go beyond the bounds of the evidence. Thus, it is no surprise to me that he remains open minded on many issues, including the question of precisely what role Oswald played in the assassination.

    II

    Generally speaking, JFK assassination researchers fall into two camps: those who believe Oswald was totally innocent and played no part in the assassination and those who say he acted entirely alone. Dr. Wecht, however, appears to occupy the far less crowded middle ground. In a chapter dealing with Oswald’s arrest and the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit, he refuses to offer an opinion on Oswald’s guilt, writing that “Lee Harvey Oswald was the person arrested. I won’t argue whether he was the person who shot Officer J.D. Tippit.” (p. 53) Although Oswald’s innocence in the Tippit murder is taken for granted by a great number of assassination researchers today, Dr. Wecht’s is a wholly reasonable position. He notes that the official narrative has “many holes” that “might have been patched had Oswald been allowed to offer a defense,” (p. 53) and details several pertinent questions raised by critics. Yet, he does not say that the oft-repeated inconsistencies in the case against Oswald prove his innocence any more than the state’s evidence proves his guilt.

    Another element of the official story that Wecht and Kaufmann repeat without objection is the notion that Ruth Paine was nothing more than a friendly, do-gooding Quaker woman who took Marina in because she “wanted to improve her Russian-language skills” (p. 65) She also helped Oswald get a job at the Texas School Book Depository out of the goodness of her heart, yet such a belief is more than questionable today. In his highly regarded 2008 book JFK and the Unspeakable, author Jim Douglass detailed a number of curious connections between Ruth Paine, her husband Michael, and US intelligence agencies. For example, Michael’s stepfather was Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell Helicopter and Michael himself worked as an engineer for Bell, a job that carried a security clearance of which he claimed not to know the details. Furthermore, his mother was Ruth Forbes Paine Young who was a lifelong friend of OSS spy Mary Bancroft, the mistress of CIA director Allen Dulles. As Douglass summarized, “By heritage Michael Paine was well connected in the military-industrial complex.” (Douglass, p. 169)

    Ruth Hyde Paine’s own familial connections are equally, if not more, interesting. Douglass points out that right after Ruth helped the Warren Commission to hang the assassination solely on Oswald, her insurance executive father, William Avery Hyde, received a three-year government contract from the Agency for International Development (AID), an organisation whose field offices were, as former Ohio governor and AID director John Gilligan later admitted, “infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people.” (Ibid, 170) The end-of-tour report William Avery Hyde made of his time in Lima, Peru, may have been addressed to the State Department, but it was passed along to the CIA. As Douglass suggests, it may well be that Hyde used his insurance expertise as a “cover for gathering information on people [in Latin America] the CIA was watching carefully in the ferment of the sixties.” (Ibid)

    If her father’s CIA connections are less than certain, the same cannot be said of Ruth Paine’s younger sister Sylvia Hyde Hoke who, by 1963, was enjoying her eighth year as an employee of the Agency. Yet incredibly enough, five years later when Ruth was questioned in front of a grand jury in New Orleans, she admitted to knowing that her sister had a “government job,” but claimed not to know for which agency she worked. Nonetheless, when the same grand jury questioned Marina Oswald about why she had cut ties with Ruth shortly after the assassination, Marina explained, “I was advised by the Secret Service not to be connected with her.” Why? Because, according to Marina, the Secret Service had told her that Ruth “was sympathising with the CIA…she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out a connection between me and Ruth and CIA.” (Ibid, 173)

    Intriguingly enough, Marina received a similar admonition from her husband’s eldest brother, Robert, who had become immediately suspicious of the Paines after meeting them for the first time at Dallas police headquarters on November 22, 1963. Later that evening, Robert wrote in his diary “I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair.” (WC Vol. 1, p. 346) Shortly thereafter, as he told the Warren Commission, Robert advised Marina to “sever all connections with Mr. and Mrs. Paine…I recommended that she did not talk to Mrs. Paine at all nor answer her letters…” (Ibid, pp. 420–21)

    Robert’s instincts aside, the central question remains: did Ruth and Michael Paine’s intelligence connections have any bearing on their relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald? A definitive answer to that question remains elusive. However, a possible clue can be found in volume 19 of the Warren Commission hearings and exhibits in the form of a report written by Dallas deputy sheriff Buddy Walthers. The report in question describes numerous items that were found in the Paine garage on the day of the assassination. Among them, according to Walthers, was “a set of metal file cabinets that appeared to be the names and activities of Cuban sympathizers.” (WC Vol. 19 p. 520) The obvious question raised by Walthers’ report is just why Ruth and Michael Paine would be in possession of file cabinets filled with the “names and activities of Cuban sympathizers,” if they were not involved in some form of intelligence gathering? Can there be any other explanation? And is it really nothing more than coincidence that Oswald’s main preoccupation appears to have switched from Soviet communism to Castro’s Cuba around the same time he became acquainted with the Paines? Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it remains puzzling to me that almost none of the above appears in The JFK Assassination Dissected and that the authors unhesitatingly portray the Paine/Oswald relationship in much the same manner it was described in the Warren Report.

    On a more positive note, Dr. Wecht remains the vociferous critic of the commission’s single bullet theory that he has always been, describing it unreservedly as “a hoax.” (p. 130) The SBT is, of course, integral to the official story, for without it there simply could not have been a lone gunman. Many of the arguments Dr. Wecht makes against the theory―the impossible trajectory, the near-pristine condition of the bullet etc.―will likely be familiar to even new students of the assassination today. However, there is one point Dr. Wecht has been making for decades that, it seems to me, gets routinely overlooked.

    In October 1966, at the invitation of soon-to-be “cherished friend” Josiah Thompson, Dr. Wecht travelled to New York for his first ever viewing of the complete Zapruder film. Although, as he writes, he had already come to “seriously discount” the SBT by that time, “seeing the Zapruder film underlined its fantasy.” Not only did the film clearly show Governor John Connally react to being shot considerably later than President Kennedy, it also showed that approximately one second after a bullet had supposedly shattered his wrist and severed the radial nerve, Connally “sat there with absolutely no evidence of pain on his face and his hand firmly gripping his hat.” (p. 157) The unlikelihood of such a scenario, of Connally still holding onto his Stetson hat long after the nerves that permit such action have been severed, further underscores the impossibility of the SBT. It also lends credence to the proposition forwarded by Josiah Thompson in his most recent book, Last Second in Dallas, that Connally’s wrist was injured around five seconds after frame 230, at approximately frame 327, when it was in the ideal position to be struck by a large fragment from a bullet that exited the side of Kennedy’s head.

    This type of observation is clearly right in Dr. Wecht’s wheelhouse as a forensic scientist. As previously noted, it is this very expertise that I believe serves as the selling point for his new book. And, to be sure, there is plenty of discussion about the medical evidence to be found in the pages of The JFK Assassination Dissected. For example, the authors describe President Kennedy’s wounds as they were observed at Parkland Hospital and give a detailed account of the procedures performed there in an ill-fated effort to save his life. Later in the book, Dr. Wecht is highly critical of Kennedy’s autopsy doctors and their report. He notes that lead pathologist Dr. James J. Humes was not a board-certified forensic pathologist and “had never performed an autopsy on a gunshot victim before.” (p. 68) Furthermore, quoting the autopsy report’s conclusion that the “projectiles [that struck Kennedy] were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased,” Dr. Wecht argues that “this one sentence is a direct contradiction of the medical evidence and numerous witness statements.” (p. 125) Yet, he does not take the opportunity to expand on this point or to ensure that readers understand the contradiction.

    This highlights precisely why the book fell short of my expectations. Although the authors hint at the many mysteries and contradictions that unfortunately exist in the medical record, Dr. Wecht does not attempt to provide a detailed analysis of the materials or to fully explain what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them.

    III

    Back in 2016, in the previously mentioned article for the peer reviewed AFTE Journal, Drs. Wecht and Aguilar utilized the Zapruder film and the post-mortem X-rays of JFK’s skull to make the case for a head shot from the grassy knoll. Wecht and Aguilar noted the presence of a trail of bullet fragments in the very top of the skull, explaining that this fragment trail alone “almost completely eliminates the official theory JFK was struck from above and behind with a single bullet that entered his skull low, through the occipital bone…” They further concluded that the explosion of skull, blood, and brain seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film―and the rearward snap of his head―was most likely the result of a shot, “fired from the right front, striking tangentially near the top right portion of the President’s skull, with a portion of the bullet being deflected upward and to the left rear of the limousine…a second head shot…[fired] from behind circa Z–327 is a tantalising possibility, for it would explain why the President’s head rolled swiftly forward after that frame…”

    Sadly, nothing like the above appears in The JFK Assassination Dissected. The X-rays are not provided, let alone annotated. And the only mention I could find of the fragment trail is found in Dr. Wecht’s account of a conversation with former Justice Department attorney John Orr of which he writes, “We discussed how the snow-flaking pattern seen in the X-rays of Kennedy’s skull suggests an expanding soft or hollow-point bullet that pulverizes its target, rather than a military bullet that is what Oswald was said to have used.” (p. 282) Whilst this observation is undoubtedly correct, it is puzzling to me that this is as much as Dr. Wecht has to say on the subject. There seems to be little logical reason why the analysis and conclusions he co-authored for an obscure forensic journal is not repeated in a book he presumably hopes will reach a much broader audience.

    Furthermore, after finishing the book, I found myself less certain of Dr. Wecht’s opinions on some issues than I was before I picked it up. For example, there has been for some decades considerable debate among both amateur sleuths and genuine medical experts over the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays. Perhaps the most highly credentialed individual to offer the opinion that these materials have been altered is physicist and radiation oncologist Dr. David Mantik. In 2014, having spent considerable time studying Dr. Mantik’s work, I asked Dr. Wecht for his opinion on it. He responded by saying, “I have no basis to unequivocally contend that JFK’s autopsy photos and X-rays have been tampered with,” adding that, “…Dr. Mantik is an outstanding expert. The observations he has expressed should be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed.” (Private email, January 6, 2014) From this, I took that Dr. Wecht was not sold on the theory but was keeping an open mind. He appeared to confirm this two years later, when he utilized the X-rays for the AFTE Journal without making any suggestion whatsoever that they might be altered. And yet, a couple of passing remarks in The JFK Assassination Dissected appear to suggest that he has long felt otherwise.

    In a high point of the book, Wecht relates a visit to New York with legendary Warren Commission critic Sylvia Meagher. They had a wide-ranging discussion, in which she told Wecht that Oswald was framed and a band of Cuban exiles killed Kennedy. (p. 151) But she also offered her belief that it would not be beyond the government to fabricate autopsy photographs and X-rays to suit the lone nut scenario. “There was no way to prove it at that time because the materials had not yet been released,” Dr. Wecht notes, “but I would reflect back on her comments in years to come and appreciate how prescient they were.” (p. 152) To me at least, these comments tend to indicate a belief that Meagher has since been proven correct.

    The second such suggestion comes from his account of a visit he paid to the set of Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie, JFK. After Stone asked Dr. Wecht to take a look at the parts of the script dealing with the autopsy and medical evidence, he emphasised for the filmmakers that the Parkland doctors saw a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy’s head that does not appear in the autopsy photos. “That suggests,” he told the director, “…that the fatal blow had to come from the front and that the autopsy photos must have been tampered with.” (p. 253) If this does indeed reflect a long-held belief by Dr. Wecht, then it has not, as far as I am aware, been apparent in previous writings and comments. On the other hand, if it is something he has become more convinced of over recent years, it would have been useful to know why. Either way, I wish there had been further discussion of the issue in the book and that he had made his stance crystal clear.

    Other readers may be confused as to Dr. Wecht’s opinion on the nature of JFK’s throat wound. Since virtually the day of the assassination, there has been a common―if, in my opinion, erroneous―belief among researchers that descriptions of the wound given by the emergency room physicians who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital prove that it was one of entrance. In discussing the observations of the Parkland doctors, Dr. Wecht writes, “Usually, first impressions of eyewitnesses are the most credible.” He goes on to note that “On three separate occasions” Dr. Malcolm Perry “described the bullet wound in the throat as an ‘entrance wound.’” Furthermore, Wecht explains, Dr. Perry was contacted on the night of the assassination by Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, “who explained that the doctor had to have seen an exit wound in the throat and berated him for holding an opinion that would cause the government trouble…Soon after, he began publicly modifying his observation of the throat wound as being either an entrance or exit wound…’” (p. 127–128)

    From the above, readers might be forgiven for thinking that Dr. Wecht believes Perry’s initial assessment was correct. That, however, does not appear to be the case. Dr. Wecht writes that the doctors at Parkland “did not roll over Kennedy’s body for a full inspection, so they didn’t know about the bullet that entered the back and exited his throat.” (p. 128) And later in the book he suggests without further elaboration that “the bullet that hit Kennedy and missed Connally likely continued to crack the limo’s windshield, leaving a dent on the chrome.” (p. 282) This, it seems to me, is an area that deserved much greater attention. I believe that the majority of readers would have benefited greatly from a detailed discussion in which Dr. Wecht brought his skills to bear and explained the circumstances under which a rifle bullet might leave behind an exit wound that has all the appearances of an entrance. With his decades of experience, Dr. Wecht might finally have put this matter to rest. Or, at the very least, given those who cling to the belief that the throat wound had to have been an entrance reason to reconsider.

    This review has been critical, but I do not want to create the impression that The JFK Assassination Dissected is a poor book or that it is without redeeming qualities. On the contrary, it is an engaging read and there is more than enough information on offer to inspire the casual reader or novice researcher to dig deeper into the assassination. I very much enjoyed the fact that it was presented as something of a memoir and some of my favourite parts of the book were those in which Dr. Wecht gave his recollection of his encounters with other notable figures like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and the late Warren Commission lawyer Arlen Specter. An encounter he had with Specter after a debate with the Commission lawyer is another memorable vignette in the book. (p. 143)

    Nonetheless, for me the book could have been much more. Dr. Wecht is, as far as I’m aware, the first career forensic pathologist ever to author, or co-author, a full-length book on the JFK assassination. As such, it would have been something special had he given readers the full benefit of his knowledge and experience and dug deeper into the medical evidence. As it stands, The JFK Assassination Dissected is a mostly worthwhile first or second book for anyone developing an interest in the subject, but has little new or revelatory to offer those of us who have been around for a while.

  • “Peer Reviewed” Medical/Scientific Journalism Has Been Corrupted by Warren Commission Apologists – Part 2

    “Peer Reviewed” Medical/Scientific Journalism Has Been Corrupted by Warren Commission Apologists – Part 2


    see Part 1

    Larry Sturdivan Bamboozled Neurosurgery, a Legitimate Peer-Reviewed Journal

    In November 2003, the journal Neurosurgery published the first of what it promised would be three papers. It was entitled “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Neuroforensic Analysis—Part 1: A Neurosurgeon’s Previously Undocumented Eyewitness Account of the Events of November 22, 1963.’’ Except for the fourth of the four coauthors, Parkland witness Robert Grossman, MD, none were known to have particular knowledge of the JFK case. The paper’s stated purpose was to showcase Dr. Grossman’s “previously undocumented neurosurgeon’s eyewitness account of what occurred in Trauma Room 1 of Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963, in an attempt to shed light on the nature of President Kennedy’s wounds.”[1]

    That claim fell wide of the mark. Grossman’s recollections in Neurosurgery were not “previously undocumented.” In 1981, The Boston Globe published Grossman’s account of what he saw in Trauma Room One.[2] He had also “documented” JFK’s wounds to the Assassinations Records Review Board in 1997. In fact, in 2003 Neurosurgery published virtually the same “JFK” skull diagram that Grossman had prepared for the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) six years before.[3] (Fig. 8)

    By word and sketch, Grossman recounted that JFK had two skull wounds. The first was a round, 1 inch defect—to the right and ~1 inch above the external occipital protuberance, entirely within the occipital bone. (Fig. 6) The second was on the side of “JFK’s” skull, no larger than about 3 inches, or ~7 & 1/2 cm, and confined solely to parietal bone. Grossman saw no contiguity between the occipital defect and the defect in the right parietal bone that he depicted.

    Figure 8. Sketch diagrams of JFK’s skull injuries prepared by Robert Grossman, MD that were published the peer-reviewed journal, Neurosurgery, in the November 2003 issue (left).[4] Grossman’s labeled skull diagram published in the Assassinations Records Review Board in 1997 (right).[5]

    Neither Grossman’s description nor his images square with what are said to be the authentic photographs taken of the back of JFK’s head at autopsy. Nor are they consistent with the findings in the official autopsy report, or even the sketch diagram of Kennedy’s skull wound that was prepared on the night of the autopsy by one of the autopists. The photographs show no defect low in the back of Kennedy’s head (Fig. 9), and an image prepared on the night of JFK’s autopsy documented a much larger skull defect than 3 inches. (Fig. 10)

    Figure 9. Artist Ida Dox’s close rendition of an actual photograph of the back of Kennedy’s head taken during the autopsy. It was prepared for and published by, the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It shows no “1-inch” defect the occiput where Dr. Grossman said there was one.

    The official autopsy report specified that JFK’s skull defect measured 13 cm, fore to aft.[6] That was later corrected by autopsist, J. Thornton Boswell. He twice testified that when first examined, it actually measured 17 cm, which was the size that he documented on the “face sheet” diagram he prepared by hand during Kennedy’s autopsy. (Fig. 10)[7] After they replaced loose skull fragments into JFK’s skull wound, Boswell explained, the defect then measured 13 cm, and that was the dimension they put in the autopsy report.

    Figure 10. Dr. Boswell’s autopsy “face sheet” with the notation “17 missing”—arrows pointing fore to aft. Dr. Boswell testified that, when first examined, Kennedy’s skull defect measured 17 cm.

    Besides his claims about JFK’s skull wounds, Part 1 was also noteworthy for Grossman’s reporting that Parkland’s chief of neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD, “and I lifted (JFK’s) head to inspect the occiput,” where he saw “a laceration approximately 1 inch in diameter located close to the midline of the cranium, approximately 1 inch above the external occipital protuberance. Brain tissue, some of which I thought had the appearance of cerebellar folia, was lying in the laceration.”

    The importance of those remarks is not the nature of JFK’s injuries, which are demonstrably inaccurate, but that two neurosurgeons quite appropriately lifted JFK’s head and took a good look at Kennedy’s skull injuries. Like 7 other Parkland doctors, including Dr. Clark, Grossman said he saw a rearward wound—in the occiput. And he saw cerebellum, the small lobe of the brain at the rear-bottom of the brain case, under the occipital bone and beneath the large cerebral lobes of the brain. (That so many credible Parkland witnesses were in agreement on this is old news, but still important as the autopsy photos show there was no rearward skull wound and no cerebellar damage.[8]) Things got much more interesting in Part 2.

    In June 2004 Neurosurgery published Part II, entitled, “A Neuroforensic Analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2 – A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis and Conclusions.” The lead author was University of California Professor of Neurosurgery, Michael Levy, MD, Ph.D. As in Part I, the fourth coauthor was Robert Grossman, MD.[9]

    We were stunned by the long-discredited nonsense that was in it. As the Assassinations Archives and Research Center (AARC) was hosting a JFK conference in Washington, D.C. that fall, one of the current authors (GA) proposed inviting Professor Levy to give a presentation. He agreed and delivered a well-prepared Powerpoint talk. Author Aguilar then stood up and gave a point-by-point rebuttal. Professor Levy was dumbfounded. That evening, Levy joined authors Wecht and Aguilar, and Roger Feinman JD, for dinner. He expressed an honest shame and embarrassment that he knew nothing of the counterfactual evidence Aguilar had presented.

    As professor Levy was unknown in the JFK universe, we asked him where he got his information. He said that he based his paper and presentation on material that Dr. Grossman suggested he read. He encouraged us to submit a rejoinder to Neurosurgery to correct the factual record. We did and, apparently over the objections of Dr. Grossman, they published our 10,000 word rebuttal on September 2005.[10]

    As we worked on our reply, we noticed that the last page of Levy’s paper included a short congratulatory letter from Larry Sturdivan. “Part 2 of this article,” he wrote, “does not present important new evidence regarding the President’s wounds, as Part 1 did. [Which was false, as we’ve shown from the Boston Globe and the ARRB documents re Part 1, above.] Nevertheless, it is an important summary of the material previously reported. The report, especially the full version on the web site, not only saves the reader the time of acquiring these myriad sources, but also puts them into perspective in a way that a simple collection of documents cannot.”[11]

    Intrigued, one of us (GA) phoned the editors at Neurosurgery who were working with us on our reply. He asked them how they found the “peer” who’d reviewed Levy’s paper. They said they didn’t know who to ask. So they turned to Levy’s coauthor, Robert Grossman, the man who had driven the series of articles from the outset. He suggested they invite Larry Sturdivan to do the review.

    “Did you know that Grossman and Sturdivan have collaborated on JFK?” Aguilar asked. A quick on-line search confirmed that fact. “It’s highly irregular,” Aguilar said, “to have an author’s collaborator review his submission.” “Yes,” he replied, “it is highly irregular.”

    Following up via email, Aguilar wrote both the editors and Larry Sturdivan, and still has the emails. They openly admitted Sturdivan had “refereed” both Part I and Part II. Regarding Part II, Sturdivan emailed Aguilar and the editors of Neurosurgery the following:

    Dear Dr. Sullivan,

    As you suggested in your letter, the article was a quick read. I could find no substantive errors or typos. The following minor details should be examined before publication … . (emphasis added; copy available by request)

    No substantive errors?

    Given our rejoinder ran to roughly 10,000 words, with 94 footnotes, a comprehensive accounting of the “substantive errors” Sturdivan missed in Part II alone is well beyond the scope of this discussion. But it can be viewed on-line at Neurosurgery’s website.[12] However, a few of the errors we identified are worth touching upon.

    • Levy recycled debunked claims that the fibers in the back of JFK’s coat were bent inward and the fibers in his shirt front were bent outward, thus proving the back-to-front direction of the bullet. As we documented, it was FBI director J. Edgar Hoover who fabricated those claims and it was the FBI Lab itself that disavowed them.
    • Levy repeated one of the Warren Commission’s most discredited myths, namely, that a Warren Commission ballistics expert had successfully duplicated JFK’s injuries in simulation shooting tests with cadaver skulls. “That (test) bullet,” Levy wrote, “blew out the right side of the reconstructed cranium in a manner very similar to the head wounds of the President.” Except for the word “cranium” rather than “skull,” as was originally written, this sentence is torn verbatim from page 585 of the Warren Report, given without the appropriate quotation marks or attribution.[13] As we’ve shown here, we noted in our reply that the blasted test skull was not at all “very similar” to JFK’s. It sustained severe damage to the right forehead, the loss of the right orbit, and much of the cheek bone, injuries JFK did not sustain.
    • Dr. Levy accepted the legitimacy of Kennedy’s autopsy photos as well as Grossman’s claim that there was a one-inch hole in the occiput of JFK’s skull. He ignored the fact that the supposedly authentic autopsy photos show no occipital wound, one that was described not only by Grossman, but also by numerous Parkland physicians including the chief of neurosurgery, Kemp Clark MD. He also ignored that JFK’s autopsy surgeons all testified that photos they took on the night of the autopsy are missing.
    • Ironically, Levy never mentioned, and likely didn’t know, that the ARRB’s chief Analyst for Military Records, Douglas Horne, showed Grossman the Ida Dox sketch of the back of JFK’s head taken from the autopsy photographs (Fig. 8).[14] Grossman rejected it. Horne reported that, “Grossman immediately opined, ‘that’s completely incorrect.’ He insisted there had been a hole devoid of bone and scalp about 2 cm in diameter near the center of the occipital bone.”[15]
    • Dr. Levy cited the HSCA’s claim it had authenticated Kennedy’s autopsy photos. But he failed to notice a telling footnote in the very HSCA pages he cited in support of authentication. The HSCA wrote that, “Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs, the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry.”

      But that’s not what the Navy had said. Since Kennedy’s autopsy was performed at the Navy’s Bethesda Hospital, the Secretary of the Navy responded to the HSCA’s claim they hadn’t been given the camera that had taken JFK’s autopsy images . The Secretary huffily insisted that the Navy had definitely sent the HSCA the actual camera, the very one the HSCA’s experts had determined had not taken them.[17]

      Whereas the HSCA reported it could not completely close the loop because the camera was missing, the suppressed record suggests that 1) the loop was closed, 2) the camera was located, and 3) that the HSCA’s own authorities determined that the camera “could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures.” The HSCA staff elected to withhold this inconvenient information from the public. They also kept it from their own experts on the Forensic Pathology Panel, including the chairman, Dr. Michael Baden (personal communication), and one of the authors of this essay [CHW]. And so, as per Dr. Levy, the HSCA experts, and Neurosurgery readers were left to labor under the illusion that the images had passed authentication with flying colors.

    Thereafter, the editors worked with us and published our lengthy reply. Our evisceration of Dr. Grossman’s JFK project scuttled the rest of the planned operation. Neurosurgery never published the promised Part III of “A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy.”

    The point of this extended discussion is to note that long-debunked anticonspiracy claims of “jet effect,” “neuromuscular reaction,” Neutron Activation Analysis, the government’s skull shooting tests, JFK’s authenticated autopsy photographs, the magic bullet, etc., continue to be recycled by fact-averse, anticonspiracy evangelists. Nicholas Nalli is the new crusader. He laughably tried to rehabilitate “jet effect” and “neuromuscular reaction.” He gave Sturdivan and Haag the benefit of the doubt on their repeatedly debunked NAA fantasies. And he did it in a “peer reviewed,” “scientific” article which was clearly reviewed not by anonymous, informed scientists, as Nalli claimed, but instead by ill-informed Warren loyalists, including in all likelihood, Larry Sturdivan.

    Suspicion falls to Sturdivan because Nalli gushingly acknowledges him (“first and foremost”) for reviewing drafts of his paper and for “providing expert feedback.” Just as Sturdivan had thrown eggs on the faces of Professor Levy and the editors of Neurosurgery by “peer-approving” so much nonsense, he did so again to Nicholas Nally by likely contributing to, and possibly “peer-reviewing,” some rubbish that should embarrass Nalli, and expose Heliyon as an outlet for authors who are unwilling to run their work through a proper, expert, anonymous “peer review” gauntlet.

    Lost in the fog of his attempt to give mouth-to-mouth to the government’s gasping scenario are the multiple lines of evidence Nalli ignores that converge on the conclusion anyone seeing the Zapruder film immediately draws: the mortal head shot at frame 313 came from the right front. For that reason, that’s a good place to start.

    What Can Science Tell Us About What Happened in Dealey Plaza?

    The Zapruder film, jiggle analysis, and the death of JFK

    As mentioned, in 1976 Alvarez theorized that some of the Zapruder frames are blurred at points that appear to correspond to Mr. Zapruder jerking his camera in startle-reaction to the sound of gunfire.[18],[19] His theory was later validated by CBS after it ran its own, independent experiment.[20] The HSCA also undertook its own “jiggle analysis.” On page 20 and 24 of the HSCA’s report, two independent consultants produced graphs depicting the frames in which there was blurring.[21] For the shot that allegedly flipped Governor Connally’s lapel at Zapruder frame 224, the HSCA graphs show a corresponding “jiggling” three frames later, at 227.[22] The delay is due to the fact the sound wave reached Zapruder after the speedier bullet hit its target. There are other frames that are much more “jiggled” than frame 227 is.

    One is Zapruder 313, the head shot. As discussed, if Oswald had fired that shot, frames 316–17 would be blurred.[23] They’re not; they’re sharp. There is only one mathematical possibility for a bullet shock wave distorting the camera’s gaze at frame 313: the bullet had to have been fired much closer to Zapruder than from Oswald’s alleged perch, 270 feet away. The best scenario is that it came from where Mr. Zapruder had told a Secret Service Agent on 11/22/63 it had come from, behind him, from the grassy knoll, approximately 60 feet behind the cameraman.[24],[25]

    Let’s assume the shot was fired between frame 312 and 313. Since the shock waves from rifle muzzle blasts travel at the speed of sound, ~1125 ft/sec, the sound and shock wave from a grassy knoll shot would have hit Zapruder in less than 1/20th second, that is, within a single frame of Zapruder’s camera. A good correlation. The sound and shock wave from Oswald’s position, however, would have hit Zapruder 3 to 4 frames later, at, say, 316 or 317.

    There is also considerable blurring of frames 331 and 332.[26] This appears to match a putative shot from behind that struck JFK’s head in frames 327–328 as per Last Second in Dallas, one which drove him forward more rapidly than he moved rearward after frame 313, as we’ve discussed.

    But what about Kennedy’s rearward lunge after frame 313? If not “jet effect” or “neuromuscular reaction,” what caused it?

    Did Momentum Transfer from a Grassy Knoll Shot Drive JFK “Back and to the Left?”

    To answer this question, we return to the most analogous, and credible, experimental evidence: the government’s 1964, Biophysics Lab, skull shooting experiments. As Larry Sturdivan testified, while demonstrating with film during his HSCA testimony, “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet…”[27] (As discussed, in his book Sturdivan reported a higher, and more likely valid, velocity: “the skull…moves forward at approximately 3 feet/sec, just as it must from the momentum deposited by the bullet.”[28])

    Sturdivan thus argued, as he testified, that a shot from behind would have caused “slight movement toward the front, which would very rapidly be damped by the connection of the neck with the body.”[29] In other words, an MCC shell would have moved the skull in the direction of bullet travel. New information informs two key issues here.

    Mr. Sturdivan’s conclusion that momentum transfer could not explain JFK’s skull motion was based on experiments using modestly powered Mannlicher Carcano rounds weighing 162 grains (0.023 lbs) that struck their targets from a distance of 90 yards.[30] And he assumed the fatal bullet was jacketed, and so deposited only half of its momentum when it struck Kennedy’s 15-pound skull.[31] These assumptions are unjustifiable and unfairly bias his conclusions toward the lone gunman. (For example, there is no reason to assume a grassy knoll gunman would have used a Mannlicher Carcano and, in fact, the x-ray evidence suggests it wasn’t a Mannlicher Carcano. See below.)

    In his book, Hear No Evil, Don Thomas, Ph.D. scrutinized Mr. Sturdivan’s analysis in considerable detail. With permission, we quote Dr. Thomas.

    Sturdivan’s calculation, Thomas writes, was:

    derived indirectly from his tests shooting human skulls with a Mannlicher-Carcano. The bullet’s velocity at a distance of 90 yards was 1600 feet-per-second according to Sturdivan (in fact, the Army’s data indicated a value closer to 1800 fps) [sic]. Sturdivan then divided this number in half on the supposition (unstated) [sic] that the bullet would deposit only half of its momentum. This supposition was apparently based on his observation that a velocity of something like ‘one-foot-per-second’ was imparted to test skulls when shot with the Carcano.[32] Somehow, Mr. Sturdivan managed to miss the point that the rearward movement might have involved a shot origination from the grassy knoll only 30 yards in front of the target, with consequently less loss of velocity from air resistance, than from a position 90 yards behind the President. It also seemed not to have occurred to Sturdivan that the President might have been shot from the grassy knoll with a different rifle than the modestly powered Mannlicher-Carcano…[33]

    “For the purposes of this discussion,” Thomas continues,

    let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle…(which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200ft/sec) very close to that of the Carcano and fires a 170-grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards, the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps…the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the x-ray evidence) [sic] which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec. It is important to realize that, at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (as Sturdivan admits[34]). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize the damping effect (that so troubled Mr. Sturdivan) from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second…[35] [The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.[36]]

    From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.

    Thomas concludes, “Even given the uncertainty about the exact weight of the President’s head and the residual velocity of the bullet, the observed movement of the President’s head is well within the range, if anything less, than expected from the momentum imparted by the impact of a rifle bullet.”[37]

    In sum, if one corrects for Sturdivan’s faulty assumptions, yet uses his sound logic, the case for momentum transfer becomes compelling. Thus, if Sturdivan is right, as per Aberdeen Proving Grounds, that jacketed, Western Cartridge Company (WCC) shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/sec, or even 1.2ft/sec, imagine how swiftly one would move if struck with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullet fired from a much closer location; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back and to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his probably paralyzed upper body in the direction of his head.

    As Thomas hinted, Kennedy’s x-rays suggest just such a scenario.

    X-Ray Evidence for a Shot from the Grassy Knoll

    While it is evident that a soft-nosed bullet fired from the right front could have delivered sufficient momentum to drive his head back and to the left, during HSCA testimony it was claimed that JFK’s x-rays prove that he was not hit by a soft-nosed round; that the fatal bullet was jacketed, like Oswald’s. This conclusion is false. It rests on a misreading and misunderstanding of the x-rays. Properly read and understood, Kennedy’s x-rays give evidence for a non-jacketed bullet. The confusion began during late 1970s. That is when the HSCA put an altered version of JFK’s lateral x-ray into evidence and had a non-radiologist, non-physician interpret the altered x-ray—the omnipresent “neuromuscular reaction” “authority,” the Neutron Activation Analysis “expert,” and now the radiology specialist, Larry Sturdivan.

    The untrained Sturdivan displayed an “enhanced” version of JFK’s lateral x-ray to the HSCA members (Fig. 10). It was not the original film. The process of enhancement greatly increases the contrast of the x-ray, making the skull bones look much brighter and denser than they appear in the originals. But the process also blots out some of the clinically significant, fine details, including the presence of any miniscule, “dust-like” bullet fragments. Sturdivan testified that the enhanced x-ray ruled out the possibility of a non-jacketed round because, he said, if it had been a non-jacketed shell there would have been many tiny bullet fragments visible on the x-ray.

    But, in fact, there are many, tiny fragments on JFK’s skull x-ray. They’re not visible because they’ve been blotted out from view on the enhanced film he presented to the HSCA. The following exchange under oath captured his error.

    The Select Committee asked, “Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F–53, which is an x-ray of President Kennedy’s skull,[38] can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?”

    “Well,” he replied, “this adds considerable amount of evidence to the pictures which were not conclusive. In this enhanced x-ray of the skull, the scattering of the fragments throughout the wound tract are characteristic of a deforming bullet. This bullet could either be a jacketed bullet that had deformed on impact or a soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet that was fully jacketed and therefore not losing all of its mass. It is not characteristic of an exploding bullet or frangible bullet, because in either of those cases the fragments would have been much more numerous and much smaller. A very small fragment has very high drag in tissue and, consequently, none of those would have penetrated very far. In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. So this case is typical of a deforming jacketed bullet leaving fragments along its path as it goes.” (emphasis added throughout)[39]

    To demonstrate his point in his 2005 book, Sturdivan reproduced on the same page both Kennedy’s enhanced lateral skull x-ray and the unenhanced lateral x-ray of a skull shot with a Carcano round in the Biophysics Lab’s tests in 1964.[40] The pattern of bullet fragmentation was very similar, he said, and he was right. (Figs. 9 and 10)

    Re JFK’s enhanced x-ray, he wrote: “…Lead fragments are scattered within the skull, reaching the frontal bone, not clustered at the entry point. Frangible bullets would disintegrate very quickly, producing a dense cloud of fragments at the entry site…the extent of fragmentation of the bullet is characteristic of that of a fully jacketed military bullet that deformed and broke apart upon impact with the skull…It is not that of a frangible, soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet.”[41] (emphasis added)

    The unenhanced x-ray of the Biophysics test skull (Fig. 12) shows much the same thing as Kennedy’s enhanced x-ray (Fig. 11), a scattering of small, but not “dust like,” radiolucencies—bullet fragments—across the lower portion of the skull. Neither JFK’s enhanced x-ray nor the unenhanced film of the test skull shot with a Carcano round show the miniscule, more numerous fragments that Sturdivan correctly said would have been present had either been struck with a non-jacketed round.

    But Kennedy’s original, unenhanced skull x-rays at the National Archives actually do show a cloud of myriad, tiny radiolucencies. Those tiny fragments, and their location, collapse the case for a lone gunman for the good reasons Sturdivan gave: a non-jacketed bullet leaves numerous, tiny fragments near their point of striking—just like those that are clearly visible in Kennedy’s original, unenhanced x-rays. Jacketed bullets like Oswald’s don’t do that.

    Figure 11. Enhanced lateral x-ray taken of JFK during the autopsy. (HSCA Exhibit F 53; 1HSCA240) Note that there is a trail of fragments that runs very close to the top of JFK’s skull, and that no “dust like” fragments are visible. Instead, most of the fragments are small, similar to the Carcano fragments in the Biophysics’ unenhanced x-ray of a test skull shot with a MCC round. (Fig. 12) JFK’s original, unenhanced x-rays do show myriad, miniscule fragments that are not visible in this enhanced image. The run along the top of the x-ray, decidedly above the low entrance wound specified in the original autopsy report, and even above the higher entrance wound later accepted by the Clark Panel and the HSCA.
    Figure 12. Unenhanced, lateral x-ray of a test skull shot with a Mannlicher Carcano by the Biophysics Lab.[42] The bullet entered low, through the occipital bone, and so the fragment trail is low, as the bullet traversed the lower portion of the skull. As with JFK’s enhanced x-ray, there is a scattering of small fragments. Note the absence of the myriad, tiny fragments that were described as present in JFK’s unenhanced x-rays.

    Both authors Wecht and Aguilar have examined the still-secret, original, unenhanced x-rays at the National Archives and have seen that “dust like” fragments are present in the right front quadrant of Kennedy’s skull x-rays. We are not the only ones who’ve noticed them. They were reported by Kennedy’s chief pathologist, Dr. James Humes, by a Secret Service agent, as well as other government consulting, expert radiologists. The presence of miniscule fragments essentially rules out that Oswald’s single, jacketed round hit Kennedy at frame 313.

    Why?

    For the good reasons Sturdivan gave: tiny fragments don’t travel far in tissue, because of their low mass relative to their large surface area, their “high drag” in tissue. Tiny bullet fragments are quickly stopped in tissue. In contrast, larger fragments have proportionately less surface area compared with their mass than small fragments do, and so drive further through tissue before being stopped.

    Besides their presence, a telling detail is the location of the tiny fragments. They sit in the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull, which, to borrow from Sturdivan, is likely “very near the entrance wound.” This evidence has largely lain unrecognized and unappreciated in the record since 1964.

    • During his Warren Commission testimony in 1964, Dr. Humes said: “(JFK’s x-rays) had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material…These tiny fragments that were seen dispersed through the substance of the brain in between were, in fact, just that extremely minute, less than 1 mm in size for the most part.” A few moments later, Dr. Humes was asked, “Approximately how many fragments were observed, Dr. Humes, on the x-ray?” “I would have to refer to them again (the x-rays),” he answered, “but I would say between 30 or 40 tiny dust-like particle fragments of radio opaque material, with the exception of this one I previously mentioned, which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit.”[43]
    • Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, an autopsy witness, testified that the fragments in JFK’s skull x-ray, “looked like a little mass of stars; there must have been 30, 40 lights where these pieces were so minute that they couldn’t be reached.”[44]
    • Russell Morgan, MD, the chairman of the department of radiology at Johns Hopkins University, was the Clark Panel’s radiologist. “Distributed through the right cerebral hemisphere are numerous, small irregular metallic fragments,” the Panel reported, “most of which are less than 1 mm in maximum dimension. The majority of these fragments lie anteriorly and superiorly. None can be visualized on the left side of the brain and none below a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull.”[45] (emphasis added)
    • Cook County Hospital Forensic Radiologist, John Fitzpatrick, MD, examined JFK’s x-rays in consultation for the ARRB and agreed, writing: “There is a ‘snow trail’ of metallic fragments in the lateral skull X-Rays which probably corresponds to a bullet track through the head, but the direction of the bullet (whether back-to-front or front-to-back) [sic] cannot be determined by anything about the snow trail itself.”[46]

    Authors Wecht and Aguilar concur: there are myriad “dust like” fragments visible on JFK’s lateral x-ray, a “snow trail,” if you will. The vast majority are confined to the right front quadrant of Kennedy’s skull, which is where, as per Sturdivan, a non-jacketed bullet struck.

    Practicing radiologist Michael Chesser, MD examined the original, unenhanced JFK x-rays and came to the same conclusion. “This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound,” he wrote. “One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. Tiny fragments are seen on the inner side of this right frontal skull defect, and the largest fragments were noted in the back of the skull.”[47]

    Forensic pathologist Vincent DiMaio, MD elaborated upon the meaning of a “snow trail,” or “snow storm”: “[T]he snowstorm appearance of an x-ray almost always indicates that the individual was shot with a centerfire hunting ammunition…”[48]* That is, a non-jacketed round. And as per Sturdivan, the right-forward location of the tiny fragments is a clear indication of what is visible in Zapruder film: an entrance wound in the right front quadrant of Kennedy’s head for a bullet that left a tell-tail cloud of “dust like” fragments in that area. For, although he thought that the shot at Zapruder frame 313 went from back to front, Sturdivan admitted what is well understood in the “ballistics/forensics” community: “A similar explosion would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction.”[49] In fact, Fig. 2 in Part I of this essay demonstrates this very principle: the human skulls shot in the government’s tests show about as much cranial contents egressing out of the entrance point at the rear of the test skull as out of the front.

    (*In a later edition of DiMaio’s book, he allowed that the breach of the shell’s jacket after Oswald’s bullet went through Kennedy’s skull might have released the tiny lead fragments seen in the x-rays. However, he offered no evidence for this claim and the Biophysics skull shooting tests did not show this phenomenon. DiMaio’s is thus an assertion made without evidence and, therefore, will be dismissed in view of the counterevidence from the Biophysics tests.)

    Sturdivan finally saw the original, unenhanced images in 2004 at the National Archives. He was emphatic under oath to the HSCA that the absence of tiny fragments in the enhanced x-ray proved that a jacketed bullet, not a hunting round, had struck JFK. But when he wrote his book in 2005, and when he reported on his examination of the originals that dramatically do show the telltale tiny fragments in the right front quadrant of JFK’s skull, he said nothing about them. He either didn’t notice them, or elected not to say he had.[50] “Scientists” like him don’t see what they don’t want to see. The HSCA’s x-ray “expert,” Sturdivan, didn’t see what other, vastly better credentialed, true experts did see.

    The trail of small, but not miniscule, fragments that are visible runs along the top of JFK’s skull in both the enhanced and nonenhanced lateral x-rays. It does not align with the supposed low entrance wound specified by the autopsy surgeons in occipital bone, although the autopsy surgeons said it did. Nor does it line up with the higher entrance wound the Clark Panel identified, although the Clark Panel said it did.[51] In fact, as anyone can see the fragment trail in JFK’s lateral x-ray is about 5 cm above where both the Clark Panel and the HSCA said it was. (Fig. 11) That high fragment trail offers evidence there was a second head shot, from behind, with a jacketed round, a possibility that is also suggested by the “jiggle” evidence in the Zapruder film, by Professor Barger’s acoustics analysis, and by JFK’s rapidly forward moving skull after frame 328, as explored by Thompson in Last Second in Dallas.

    To recap, there is a cloud of tiny fragments on JFK’s x-ray, which is typical of a hunting round, but not Oswald’s jacketed bullet. That cloud is located in the right front portion of his skull, where they would have been quickly stopped by “tissue drag.” This physical evidence independently buttresses the “jiggle evidence” in the Zapruder film that the shot at 313 came from a location close to the camera, the grassy knoll, precisely where the acoustics evidence said it originated, and not from Oswald’s spot, 270 feet away. It is consistent with evidence that JFK’s split-second lunge “back and to the left” was due to the large momentum that was transferred to Kennedy’s cranium by a non-jacketed bullet that mushroomed on impact, and not due to “jet effect” and/or “neuromuscular reaction.”

    These multiple, mutually corroborating lines of evidence point in a direction that seemed obvious to the eye of anyone who watched the Zapruder film on the Geraldo Rivera’s Good Night America show in 1975. It is also what seemed evident 28 years ago to Mr. Masaad Ayoob, a respected gun expert and the former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL):[52]

    The explosion of the President’s head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale…An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet’s passing and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two—perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above…the area of the grassy knoll.[53]

    Mr. Ayoob speaks from experience. He notes that the closest commonly used cartridge to a Carcano

    …in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308″ diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263″ diameter. Ask any homicide detective if he’s ever seen a .30/30 round blow a man’s head up at 55 to 60 yards, exploding the calvarium up and away from the body proper. Ask any hunter of deer-size game if he’s ever seen the same thing at that distance. It happens only at very close range with that ballistic technology. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film—and see the results of most clearly in frame 337—is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.[54] [Note that the head of the goat shot in the government’s tests does not explode as JFK’s did. (Fig. 5)]

    Mr. Ayoob does not completely discount the possibility of Oswald’s culpability, but only if the shell “for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability as most of us would perceive that to be.”[55]

    That takes us back to what author Wecht suspected during his tenure on the Forensics Panel of the House Select Committee: JFK’s “…backward head motion might be explained by a soft-nosed bullet that struck the right side of the President’s head.” Wecht presciently surmised that before these multiple lines of independent, converging evidence had been assembled that confirm what seemed so obvious to him, to Masaad Ayoob, and to anyone viewing the Zapruder film.

    In Last Second in Dallas, Thompson quoted Don DeLillo: “[D]id the shot simply come from the front, as every cell in your body tells you it did?” “Don DeLillo is right,” Thompson answered, “When you look at the Zapruder film, every cell in your body tells you the shot at frame 313 came from the right front.”[56] We now know that it’s not only your every cell, but it’s also the science that tells you that. It’s the “Occam’s Razor” solution: the simplest, most complete and compelling explanation of the shot that killed John Kennedy. It’s one that requires no suspension of disbelief; no invocation of tortured, disanalogous neurophysiological phenomena; no misreading of Kennedy’s original autopsy x-rays; and it’s one that honors the many witnesses in Dealey Plaza who said that a shot came from the grassy knoll, not least being the 21 cops who “heard a grassy knoll shot.”[57]

    [see also: Milicent Cranor’s Forensics Journal Unintentionally Proves Conspiracy in Cover-Up of JFK Assassination and John Lattimer Never Quit: The Thorburn Business]


    [1] Daniel Sullivan, M.Div., Rodrick Faccio, B.S., Michael L. Levy, M.D., Ph.D., Robert G. Grossman, M.D., Neurosurgery, Vol. 53, No. 5, November 2003, p. 1020. Available here.

    [2] Ben Bradlee. “Dispute on JFK Assassination.” Boston Globe, 6/21/81, p. A–23. Available here.

    [3] ARRB MD file # 185. Available here. (see pp. 4 and 5)

    [4] Sullivan, Dan. “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Neuroforensic Analysis—Part 1:

    A Neurosurgeon’s Previously Undocumented Eyewitness Account of the Events of November 22, 1963,” Neurosurgery, Vol. 53, No. 5, November 2003, p. 1024. Available here.

    [5] MD 185 – ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 3/21/97 In-Person Interview of Dr. Robert Grossman. Available here.

    [6] Warren Commission JFK autopsy report, p. 3. Available here.

    [7] ARRB testimony of J. Thornton Boswell, pp. 71–72. Available here.

    HSCA testimony of J. Thornton Boswell. HSCA Vol.7, p. 253. Available here.

    [8] See Aguilar G, Cunningham K. “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong, Part V. The ‘Last’ Investigation—The House Select Committee on Assassinations.” Available here.

    [9] Levy M, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman R. “A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis, and Conclusions,” Neurosurgery. Vol. 54, No. 6, June 2004, E1–E23. Available here.

    [10] Aguilar G, Wecht C, Bradford R. Neurosurgery. Vol. 57, No. 3, September 2005.

    [11] Levy M, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman R. “A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis, and Conclusions,” Neurosurgery. Vol. 54, No. 6, June 2004, E23. Available here.

    [12] Aguilar G, Wecht HC, Bradford R. Reply to: “A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis, and Conclusions,” Neurosurgery. Available here.

    [13] Warren Report, p. 585. Available here. See also Warren Commission testimony of Alfred Olivier, DVM, 5H, p. 89. Available here.

    [14] See JFK Exhibit F-48. In HSCA, Vol. 1, p. 234. Available here.

    [15] Horne, Douglas, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board Volume 2, p. 656.

    [16] HSCA Vol. 6, p. 226. Available here.

    [17] See Memorandum for File on 8/27/1998 by the ARRB’s Douglas Horne, entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy. Available here.

    [18] Alvarez, L. A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film. Am J. Physics, 1976; 44 (9):813 ff. Available here.

    [19] Olson D, Turner RF, “Photographic evidence and the assassination of president John F. Kennedy,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1971; Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 399–419. Available here.

    [20] Ken Scearce & Brian Roselle. “Secrets of the Zapruder Film.” Available here.

    [21] HSCA Vol. 6, p. 26. Available here.

    [22] Zapruder frames 224 and 227. Available here and here.

    [23] Zapruder frames 117 and 316. Available here and here.

    [24] Thomas, D B. Hear No Evil, Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, p. 202-215. Available here.

    [25] Secret Service Agent Max Phillips interviewed Zapruder on 11.22.63. His memo appears nowhere in the Warren Commission documents or volumes. It was discovered at the National Archives by Mr. Harold Weisberg. Agent Phillips reported that “According to Mr. Zapruder the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.” Weisberg H. Whitewash III: The Photographic Whitewash of the JFK Assassination, New York, Skyhorse Publishing, 1967. See text under “Section I – The New Math and the New Morality.” Available here.

    [26] Zapruder frame 331. Available here.

    [27] House Select Committee on Assassinations testimony of Larry Sturdivan, September 8, 1978, 1H, p. 404. Available here.

    [28] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 164.

    [29] HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan, September 8, 1978, 1H, pp. 413–414. Available here.

    [30] HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan, September 8, 1978, 1H, p. 404. Available here.

    [31] HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan, September 8, 1978, 1H, pp. 413–414. Available here.

    [32] HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan, September 8, 1978, 1H, p. 404. Available here.

    [33] Thomas, Donald B. Hear No Evil, Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 344–345.

    [34] Larry Sturdivan apparently agrees. He wrote: “Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Carey thinks that (JFK) may be falling (by Zapruder frame 312) as a result of temporary paralysis from the spinal damage associated with the neck wound.” Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 209, note 96.

    [35] Thomas, Donald B. Hear No Evil, Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 345–346.

    [36] “How Much Does the Human Head Actually Weigh?” Available here.

    [37] Thomas, Donald B. Hear No Evil, Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 345–346.

    [38] HSCA Exhibit F-53, enhanced lateral skull x-ray, HSCA Vol. 1, p. 240. Available here.

    [39] HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan. Vol.1:401. Available here.

    [40] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, Fig. 38, p. 173.

    [41] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 177.

    [42] Source: Sturdivan, LM, Review of JFK Photographs and X-Rays at the National Archives, September 23, 2004. Available here.

    [43] Warren Commission testimony of James H. Humes, MD, Vol. 2:353. Available here.

    [44] Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman. Vol. 2, p. 100. Available here.

    [45] Clark Panel Report, pp. 10–11. Available here.

    [46] “Inside the ARRB: Appendices – Current Section: Appendix 44: ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, after viewing the JFK autopsy photos and x-rays,” p. 2. Available here.

    [47] Chesser, M. A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs. Available here.

    [48] DiMaio, VJM. Gunshot wounds – Practical Aspects of Firearms, Forensics, and Ballistics Techniques, Third Edition, p. 166. Available here.

    [49] Sturdivan, LM, The JFK Myths, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 171.

    [50] Sturdivan, L. “Review of JFK Photographs and X-Rays at the National Archives, September 23, 2004.” Available here.

    [51] Clark Panel Report. Available here.

    [52] Available here.

    [53] Ayoob, M. “The JFK Assassination: A Shooter’s Eye View,” American Handgunner, March/April, 1993, p. 98.

    [54] IBID, p. 105.

    [55] IBID, p. 106.

    [56] LSID, pp. 353–4.

    [57] Jeff Morley. “21 JFK Cops Who Heard a Grassy Knoll Shot.” Available here.

  • “Peer Reviewed” Medical/Scientific Journalism Has Been Corrupted by Warren Commission Apologists – Part 1

    “Peer Reviewed” Medical/Scientific Journalism Has Been Corrupted by Warren Commission Apologists – Part 1


    Introduction

    In his new book, Last Second in Dallas, Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. (philosophy) reported that Nobel Laureate, Luis Alvarez, committed scientific fraud involving the JFK assassination in a peer-reviewed journal, The American Journal of Physics (AJP). It was an extraordinary charge. But as physicians who have reported on the shoddy, biased work of numerous official, credentialed government-funded JFK assassination investigators,[1] we weren’t particularly surprised. We had long ago grasped that pro-Warren Commission journal articles generally fell into the category of junk science. But it was only from Thompson that we learned that the junkification of science traces all the way back to a Nobel Prize winner writing in 1976.

    The AJP may have been the first respected science outlet to publish nonsense related to JFK’s death. It wouldn’t be the last. In the years since, many respected “peer reviewed” outlets have published rubbish churned out by a small band of anti-conspiracy activists. Among the most active during the past 20 years are some of the darlings of the mainstream media and the rapidly dwindling band of Warren Commission loyalists: Mr. Larry Sturdivan, Mr. Lucien Haag, Mr. Michael Haag (father and son), and Ken Rahn, Ph.D. In the past three years, a new star has soared into the JFK-junk science heavens, Nicholas Nalli, Ph.D.

    An atmospheric chemist with no prior credentials in the JFK case, Nalli published two allegedly “peer reviewed” papers resuscitating the original, moribund theory that Alvarez had introduced in the AJP.[2] Namely, that it was a “jet effect” from Lee Oswald’s bullet that drove JFK “back and to the left.” He failed in spectacular fashion, not only because he placed his faith in Alvarez’s junk science, but also because he concocted a bit of junk science of his own. Predictably, Nalli’s paper was widely heralded. WhoWhatWhy’s Milicent Cranor, a serious student of the Kennedy case, noted that “It has been promoted in Daily Mail, Newsweek, history.com, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and several other places.”[3]

    His efforts were not without value, however, for they served as reminders of the consistency with which Commission loyalists corrupt the peer review process in support of the government. And they demonstrated, yet again, that the Warren Commission’s theory of the assassination is a flop, including the “jet effect.”

    THE “Jet Effect” and JFK:

    Nobel Laureate Luis Alavarez and Jet Effect

    America first saw the Zapruder film on March 6, 1975, when ABC broadcast Geraldo Rivera’s program, Good Night America.[4] Seeing Kennedy being blown back and to the left following the fatal shot at the infamous Zapruder frame 313 had an enormous impact on the public. To the eye, it sure looked like JFK had been struck from the right front. So how could Oswald’s shot from behind have driven JFK’s head back toward the assassin? The “scientific” answer came the following year.

    In the September 1976 issue of the AJP, Alvarez announced that, “the answer turned out to be simpler than I had expected. I solved the problem (to my own satisfaction, and in a one-dimensional fashion) (sic) on the back of an envelope.” Although JFK’s head was struck from behind, he claimed it was the jettisoning of cranial contents out of the right front side of his skull that drove it back and to the left. The ejecta, he wrote, carried “forward more momentum than was brought in by the (impact of the) bullet…as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected.”[5]

    To satisfy skeptics, including Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson who he named in the AJP, Alvarez ran experiments, and took a turn into the dark side: he shot at light weight, soft-skinned melons, not at all like bony human skulls, and he used the wrong kind of gun and the wrong kind of ammo. He declared:

    It is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a priori best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test…If we had used the ‘Edison Test,’ and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in (Zapruder) 313 came from behind the car.[6]

    Alvarez’s inventive hypothesis was subsequently buttressed by more analogous tests. This time shooting a Mannlicher Carcano, urologist John Lattimer, MD demonstrated the “jet effect” phenomenon. In 1995, in the “peer reviewed” Wound Ballistics Review, Lattimer reported that he shot both at melons as well as the backsides of filled human cadaver skulls that he perched atop ladders. Both melons and skulls recoiled back toward the shooter.[7]

    Among Warren loyalists, those unexpected results are foundational. Skeptics remain dubious. But in 2018, Alvarez and Lattimer got new, theoretical support in a paper Nalli published in the supposedly “peer-reviewed” scientific journal, Heliyon. Reaffirming “jet effect” via a withering array of complex calculations, Nalli concluded:

    It is therefore found that the observed motions of President Kennedy in the film are physically consistent with a high-speed projectile impact from the rear of the motorcade, these resulting from an instantaneous forward impulse force, followed by delayed rearward recoil and neuromuscular forces.[8]

    Unfortunately, all of this lofty “peer reviewed” research is bunkum. It, and the JFK “jet effect” theory, are not only junk science, much of it is borderline fraud.

    First, is it remotely credible that, as Alvarez claimed, a soft-shelled melon, even a tape-wrapped one, is the “best mock-up” of a bony human skull? A melon weighs about half what a human head does. A bullet would cut through it like a knife through butter. Second, it was no less than Warren loyalist John Lattimer, MD who revealed a key element of Alvarez’s work that the Nobel Laureate never mentioned in his paper. Apparently unable to get the results he wanted firing “slow,” ~2000 ft/second, jacketed Mannlicher Carcano bullets, Alvarez instead shot non-jacketed, soft-nosed .30-06 rounds, but not just any old .30-06 rounds, with their ~2800 ft/second muzzle velocity. Instead, he “hot-loaded” his cartridges to 3000 ft/sec. Only then did his melons exhibit his famous recoil “jet effect.”[9],[10],[11] Worse, Professor Alvarez also withheld other relevant information about his tests.

    A few years ago, Josiah Thompson was given access to the photo file of the original shooting tests by one of Alvarez’s former graduate students, Paul Hoch, Ph.D. (physics).[12] As Thompson reported in LSID, Alvarez had, in fact, “shot at a large collection of objects”—coconuts, pineapples, water-filled jugs, etc. The only objects that demonstrated recoil were his “a priori best mock-up of a head,” the dis-analogous melons that were struck not by Oswald’s slower, jacketed bullets, but rather by supercharged, soft-pointed rounds. (Fig. 1)

    Figure 1. Images taken from Luis Alvarez’s shooting tests. In photo at left, a rubber ball lies awaiting a bullet strike through the paper target at right. In photo at right, the rubber ball has been hit and driven in the direction of the bullet’s path, away from the shooter.

    An honest scientific report would have meticulously recounted the specifics of the testing and all of the experimental results, whether confirming or denying the author’s hypothesis. Readers are invited to scour Dr. Alvarez’s paper, which we’ve linked to, for his mentioning anywhere these other, inconvenient results. He buried them. He then devised a second test using only melons rigged from the outset to produce the “politically acceptable” result he wanted: recoil toward the rifle. (We won’t insult the intelligence of readers by recounting what happened when Alvarez’s team shot targets that were more analogous to skulls: coconuts.)

    In his recent review of Thompson’s book, Nicholas Nalli hilariously agreed with the Nobel Laureate and his student Paul Hoch, that a melon is a “reasonable facsimile” of a human head: “Hoch noted that the melons consistently exhibited a ‘retrograde motion’ toward the shooter,” he wrote, “and Alvarez thus was able to demonstrate that a recoil effect is indeed possible.” Possible, indeed, if one shoots the wrong kind of target with the wrong kind of rifle and the wrong kind of ammunition; niggling details Nalli didn’t think worth mentioning.

    Nalli also didn’t mention the significant fact that Alvarez had failed to disclose: the professor’s melons exhibited retrograde recoil only when struck by supercharged, soft-pointed hunting rounds, not by Oswald’s slower, jacketed rounds. Nor did he mention that the current authors exposed Alvarez’s chicanery in the AFTE Journal in 2016, noting that, except for the melons, everything he shot at flew away from the rifle, not toward it.[13]

    Rather than objecting to Alvarez’s unscientific, selective reporting, Nalli sneered at “CTs (who) had gotten comfortable in rejecting Alvarez as some sort of one-off ‘government shill.’”[14] And he took after Thompson for his “not-so-subtle insinuation that Alvarez had ‘cherry-picked’ his data, a decidedly unethical and unprofessional practice in science. I was dumbfounded when I read this,” Nalli added, “and I can only empathize with how Alvarez might not have taken too kindly to the gall in the accusation.”[15]

    Nalli is more upset that Thompson accurately outed Alvarez for cherry-picking than he is that Alvarez had unethically and unprofessionally cherry-picked in the first place. Although Nalli did admit that Alvarez had shot at “different targets,” he forgot to mention what Alvarez also forgot to mention: all targets but the melons fell away from the shooter. Nor does Nalli acknowledge what else Thompson discovered: this wasn’t the only time Alvarez had bent science to the political winds; or, to borrow Dr. Don Thomas’ useful euphemism, in a “socially constructive” direction.[16]

    Luis Alvarez – Some Kind of Patriot?

    LSID details that Alvarez once claimed that he had “proved” what the U.S. and Israeli government falsely claimed was true: that there had been no South African/Israeli nuclear test in the Indian Ocean—the politically sensitive, so-called “Vela Incident.”[17] But there had been one, a fact Alvarez tried to bury. The Nobel Laureate’s claim was subsequently shredded by private, government, and even military investigators,[18] a fact we also pointed out in the AFTE. So, Alvarez wasn’t a “one off government shill,” he was at least a “two-off government shill.” Predictably, Nalli says nothing about Thompson’s explosive discovery.

    Furthermore, Alvarez gave a preposterous, if politically useful, explanation for why Zapruder frame 313 was blurred. He wrote:

    [I]n the light of this background material we see that the obvious shot in frame 313 is accompanied immediately by an angular acceleration of the camera, in the proper sense of rotation to have been caused directly by shock-wave pressure on the camera body.[19]

    As is well known, “shock waves” from bullet blasts travel at the speed of sound, about 1,100 ft/sec. They expand as a cone behind the nose of the bullet as it slices through air.[20],[21] As discussed below, had Oswald’s bullet struck at 313, the expanding shock wave from that missile would not have reached Zapruder in time to blur 313. (Only a shock wave from a “grassy knoll” shot—~60 feet from Zapruder—would have been close enough to nudge the camera and blur frame 313. See below.) It’s as difficult to believe Alvarez didn’t know that as it is to credit the sincerity of Nalli’s umbrage over Thompson’s critique of Alvarez’s selectively-reported shooting results, his, ahem, cherry-picking.

    That comes as no surprise for it turns out that Nalli is himself no slouch when it comes to cherry-picking. One of his cherries of choice is the person who next picked up the “jet effect” baton after Alvarez. The aforementioned, pro-Warren urologist, John Lattimer, MD.

    Dr. John Lattimer and Jet Effect

    This time, conducting more analogous trials, John Lattimer shot human skulls to test for “jet effect.” Using a Mannlicher Carcano, he fired downward from the rear at filled human skulls that were perched atop ladders. The target skulls recoiled, but apparently not due to any “jet effect.” In his book, Hear No Evil, Donald Thomas, Ph.D. explained the obvious:

    Lattimer’s diagrams reveal that the incoming angle of the bullet trajectory sloped downwards relative to the top of the ladder, with the justification that the assassin was shooting from an elevated position…But the downward angle would have had the effect of driving the skulls against the top of the ladder with a predictable result—a rebound.”[22] (A video clip of Dr. Lattimer’s shooting tests shows the ladder rocking forward as the skull is driven against the top of the ladder.[23])

    Lattimer’s downward-shooting technique was precisely what longtime Warren loyalist Paul Hoch, Ph.D (physics) had warned against. The target should be fired upon along a horizontal trajectory, Hoch said, not at a downward angle. And the target should either be dangling from a wire or laying on a flat surface. Lattimer’s technique imparted downward and forward momentum to the skulls. That force was transmitted through to the ladder, causing it to move forward while the skull bounced backward. Unlike Dr. Lattimer’s skulls, the base of JFK’s skull and his jaw bone were not resting on a hard, flat surface. (It is also worth mention that the “wounds” sustained by the blasted skulls were not, as Dr. Lattimer reported, “very similar to those of the President.” While Nalli cites Thomas’s “Hear No Evil,” he omits any mention of Thomas’s devastating evisceration of Lattimer.)

    But there is more reason than his tendentious skull shooting technique to distrust Lattimer. In a paper published in the medical/scientific literature, he said that he had also shot melons using MCC ammo. “No melon or skull or combination,” he reported, “ever fell away from the shooter in these multiple experiments,”[24] a finding that deserves an honorable place in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.[25] By contrast, Warren loyalist Lucien Haag reported what happened when he fired Carcano bullets at melons: “…the melons (which were free to move) remained in place, and the entry and exits holes were small.”[26] Douglas Desalles, MD and Stanford Linear Accelerator physicist, Arthur Snyder, Ph.D. shot melons with MCC ammo and found the same thing: little movement in the targets, though some did roll slowly away. (Lucien Haag, however, did finally get melons to recoil. But only when he fired after clipping the tips off Carcano rounds to expose the soft lead cores, justifying doing so by arguing that the tip of Oswald’s jacketed bullet would have been breached when it struck JFK’s skull.[27] However, when the U.S. government shot human skulls, no such phenomenon was observed—see below.)

    There is a glaring omission that mars all the “peer reviewed” JFK papers by Alvarez, Lattimer, and Nalli. It is requisite, standard practice in medical/scientific publishing to acknowledge and integrate prior published research findings that are relevant to an author’s report. Writers elaborating on newly discovered aspects of the Theory of Gravity, for example, would likely give a tip of the hat to Issac Newton and Albert Einstein. Alvarez, Lattimer, and Nalli have observed this time-honored practice in the breach.

    Testing for Jet Effect

    For example, the results of Alvarez’s and Lattimer’s tests are in sharp contrast to similar, shooting tests conducted by University of Kansas’s pathology professor, Dr. John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., F.A.C.P.—as well as those performed by the U.S. government. Rather than shooting downward at skulls perched atop a flat surface, Nichols shot MCC ammo at both melons and cadaver material that were suspended by a wire. (As Warren Commission aficionado Paul Hoch, Ph.D. had recommended.) Professor Nichols’ finding? “This study did not demonstrate the jet effect and would lead us to reject the jet effect as the basis for President Kennedy’s backward head movement.”[28]

    Nalli and Lattimer have never acknowledged Professor Nichols’ studies. Nor have Alvarez, Nalli, and Lattimer ever acknowledged even the fact that truly analogous skull-shooting experiments were actually conducted for the Warren Commission in 1964 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds by the Biophysics Lab. Larry Sturdivan, an ardent anti-conspiracist, had intimate familiarity with those studies. He described them in testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Dried human skulls filled with gelatin were used. Goat skin was placed over the backs of the skulls to simulate Kennedy’s scalp and hair. While testifying, he projected movies of the actual tests, high speed films shot at 2200 frames/second. (Fig. 2)

    Figure 2. High speed film images from Biophysics Lab skull shooting tests conducted for the Warren Commission in 1964. Note that while the bullet entered the back of the skull, the initial egress of material is thrown rearward from the point of entrance in the occiput, and that as much material appears to fly backward from the entry point as from the area of exit in the front. As the skull ruptures, the skull moves rapidly away from the shooter.

    Sturdivan swore:

    As you can see, each of the two skulls that we have observed so far have moved in the direction of the bullet. In other words, both of them have been given some momentum in the direction that the bullet was going. This third one also shows momentum in the direction that the bullet was going, showing that the head of the President would probably go with the bullet…In fact, all 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity…[29]

    In his book, JFK Facts, Sturdivan reported a substantially higher velocity: “the (test) skull…moves forward at approximately 3 feet/sec, just as it must from the momentum deposited by the bullet.”[30] This higher figure is likely the more accurate, as it was not given off the cuff during testimony, but was written by Sturdivan while he was preparing his manuscript.

    While neither Alvarez, Lattimer, nor Nalli mention those results, Sturdivan did, and dismissed their telling significance. His novel explanation was that the government’s shooting tests failed to show recoil from a “jet effect,” because the Biophysics Lab had filled their target skulls with “stiff gelatin,” a claim he made without evidence, and may therefore be dismissed without evidence.[31]

    Ironically, although Sturdivan endorses the “jet effect” theory these days, he didn’t always. Sturdivan wrote in 2005:

    The question is: Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.[32]

    Throwing JFK’s “body backward into the limousine” is code for the other factor besides “jet effect” that supposedly contributed to Kennedy’s rearward lurch: “neuromuscular reaction.” The current pro-government theory, which Nalli endorses, is that “jet effect” nudged JFK’s head backward a bit initially. Then a “neuromuscular reaction” took over, throwing his “body backward into the limousine.”

    Neuromuscular Reaction and JFK

    That some sort of a neuromuscular phenomenon drove Kennedy’s body backward after the “jet effect” knocked his head back has long been a staple of pro-Warren mythology. As Nalli recently put it, “The Zapruder Film…corroborates that another delayed (5–6 frame) forcing mechanism was at play (in addition to the projectile collision impulse and head cavity recoil – i.e. “jet effect”), and a neuromuscular spasm is the only physically plausible mechanism known to this author.”[33] (emphasis added)

    Larry Sturdivan and Neuromuscular Reaction

    If “Neuromuscular spasm” is the only physically plausible mechanism that Nalli knows of, it’s likely because he’s “cherry picked” the “expertise” of untrained, inexpert anti-conspiracy crusaders such as Mr. Larry Sturdivan, Mr. Lucien Haag, and Mr. Gerald Posner. Were Nalli the least bit serious, or curious, he’d have scoured and cited the work of proper authorities (e.g neurophysiologists, neurologists, perhaps even trauma surgeons). But he doesn’t. His principal “neuromuscular” sources are Sturdivan and Luke Haag who, circularly, sources Sturdivan.

    Sturdivan’s “expertise” consists of a B.S. in physics from Oklahoma State University and an M.S. in statistics from the University of Delaware.[34] His lack of training and credentials in neurophysiology, medicine, or even human biology, is evident in the shoddiness of his explications. His shamelessness is evident in his putting himself forward as an authority on a neurophysiological phenomenon he lacks the credentials to discuss.

    For example, Sturdivan has variously described Kennedy’s backward lunge as either a “decorticate”[35] or a “decerebrate” type of neuromuscular reaction, as if they were interchangeable. They’re not.[36] Nor are JFK’s motions either, as we will show, and as anyone who google-searches can discover for themselves in mere moments. In fact, we submit, JFK doesn’t exhibit any kind of “neuromuscular reaction.” But whether “neuromuscular,” “decorticate,” or “decerebrate,” some species of neurospasm has been proposed to explain Kennedy’s seemingly paradoxical rearward lunge since at least 1975.

    Neuromuscular Reaction and the Rockefeller Commission

    That year, former Warren Commissioner President Gerald Ford impaneled the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States. It is commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Commission, since Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was named chair.[37] Its creation was sparked by Seymour Hersh’s explosive revelations in the New York Times that the CIA had engaged in wildly illegal domestic operations against antiwar activists and dissidents during the Nixon years.[38] Its investigation extended into the question of whether there was evidence that JFK was “struck in the head by a bullet fired from the right front.”[39]

    Although promoted as an independent probe, there were major conflicts of interest from the beginning, not least being that a former Warren Commissioner had established it;[40] that Nelson Rockefeller was himself deeply involved in some of the CIA’s unsavory history;[41] and that former Warren Commission counsel, and anti-conspiracy activist, David Belin, JD, was named executive director. Belin vowed to absent himself from any JFK-related issues. However, he made an exception. He sat in during the discussions of Rockefeller’s medical consultants, all of whom had similar potential conflicts of interests of their own.[42] The fix was in. Out plopped a flawed study that warmed the heart of the Warren Commissioner in the White House, as well as Commission loyalists.

    Rockefeller’s experts made an astonishing number of factual errors (documented elsewhere).[43] Although error tends to be random, predictably the Rockefeller Commission’s all went in a single direction: to conclude that JFK’s backward jolt was not caused by the impact of a bullet coming from the front or right front. Drs. Spitz, Lindenberg, and Hodges said that Kennedy’s motion was caused by a violent straightening and stiffening of the entire body as a result of a seizure-like neuromuscular reaction due to major damage inflicted to nerve centers in the brain (Urologist John Lattimer picked up this theory and put it into the medical literature the following year, in 1976.[44]) Dr. Alfred Olivier, the pro-Warren consultant and Rockefeller expert, concurred. He reported that goat shooting experiments he had performed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds had demonstrated just such spasms, and that “jet effect” had also played a role in the Kennedy case.[45]

    Neuromuscular Reaction and the House Select Committee on Assassinations

    In 1979, a second group of experts, the Forensics Panel of the HSCA, also endorsed “neuromuscular reaction.” They, too, had significant conflicts of interest and they also made numerous, obvious pro-government errors (detailed elsewhere).[46] They wrote, “The (forensic) panel suggests that the lacerations of a specific portion of the brain—the cerebral peduncles as described in the autopsy report—could be a cause of decerebrate rigidity, which could contribute to the President’s backward motion.”

    However, in the next sentence, the Panel added an important caveat that would be familiar to physicians who’ve had experience with head trauma patients (including author Aguilar, who was once the admitting general surgery resident in the emergency room of a major trauma center, UCLA/Harbor General Hospital): “Such decerebrate rigidity as Sherrington described,” the Forensic Panel correctly noted, “usually does not commence for several minutes after separation of the upper brain centers from the brainstem and spinal cord.” (emphasis added)

     The panel also reported that “One panel member, Dr. Wecht, suspects that the backward head motion might be explained by a soft-nosed bullet that struck the right side of the President’s head simultaneously with a shot from the rear and disintegrated on impact without exiting the skull on the other side.” But, it added, “The remaining panel members take exception to such speculation…”[47]

    The first point worth noting is that, though properly credentialed pathologists, none of the Rockefeller or HSCA experts were neurophysiologists, or neurologists, or neurosurgeons, or even trauma surgeons familiar with what actually happens to living humans who suffer brain trauma. They were forensic pathologists whose work was supplemented by consulting radiologists. They worked on dead people, using X-rays, microscopes and lab data. In other words, when opining on the somewhat obscure neurophysiologic phenomena in the JFK case, they weren’t speaking on the basis of any professional expertise; they were like orthopedists offering their “expert” opinions on a pediatric problem.

    The Science of Neuromuscular Reactions

    That is made plain by the fact that JFK’s recoil differs from any kind of recognized “neuromuscular” etiology the pathologists had specified, both in timing and manifestation, whether decorticate or decerebrate. Rather, there are multiple, independent avenues of evidence that converge in support of author Wecht’s minority ‘suspicion’ that it was a non-jacketed, soft-pointed shell that struck JFK from the right front, driving him back and to the left.

    Decorticate posturing has been well described. The back arches rearwards, the legs extend and the arms flex inward. In decerebrate posturing the back arches and the legs extend, as they do in decorticate posturing. But the arms extend downward, parallel to the body.

    If one compares his posture at Zapruder frame 230, or in any frame after the back shot but before the head shot, Kennedy is reacting to the first shot. His elbows are raised and abducted away from his body, and his arms and hands are flexed inward toward his neck.[48] (Fig. 3)

    Figure 3. Zapruder frame 230, Kennedy is reacting to the first shot. His elbows are raised and abducted away from his body. His wrists are flexed inward across his mouth and neck.

    In the frames following the head shot, there is no “violent straightening and stiffening of Kennedy’s entire body,” as Rockefeller’s experts claimed. JFK’s head moves backward, but his back does not arch, nor do his upper arms move toward his body (adduct), but instead fall limply toward his side. And although not visible in the film, there’s no jerking motion of his body to suggest that his legs extend. Nor do his arms flex inward or extend inferiorly. They instead fall limply toward his lap. His upper body, likely paralyzed from the spinal injury caused by the first shot, passively follows his blasted cranium “back and to the left.”[49]

    From the web, below are images depicting and contrasting decerebrate and decorticate posturing. JFK assumed neither posture in reaction to the head shot. (Fig. 4)

    Figure 4. Decorticate vs. Decerebrate Postures

    Decorticate posture results from damage to one or both corticospinal tracks. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms flexed, with the wrists and fingers flexed on the chest. The legs are stiffly extended and internally rotated with planter flexion of the feet.

    Decerebrate posture results from damage to the upper brain stem. The upper arms are adducted and the forearms arms are extended, with the wrists pronated and the fingers flexed. The legs are stiffly extended, with plantar flexion of the feet.

    But while it is known that decerebrate and decorticate postures do not manifest in split seconds, as Kennedy’s reactions did, there is another, more instantaneous “neurospasm” that has been demonstrated experimentally. Sturdivan described and demonstrated a split-second, neurospastic reaction that he likened to the President’s.[50] His evidence was an Edgewood Arsenal movie that he presented to the HSCA that showed a living goat being shot through the head with a .30 caliber bullet.

    As the high-speed film rolled, he described the action: “…the back legs go out under the influence of the powerful muscles of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward, that back (sic) arches, as the powerful back muscles overcome the those of the abdomen. That’s it.”[51]

    Edgewood Arsenal’s chief investigator, veterinarian Alfred Olivier, DVM echoed Sturdivan, with whom he had worked at Edgewood. The goats, he said, “evidenced just such a violent neuromuscular reaction. There was a convulsive stiffening and extension of their legs to front and rear commencing forty milliseconds (1/25 of a second) (sic) after the bullet entered the brain.”[52] (Except for telling it what it wanted to hear, we can think of no reason why Sturdivan, a man with no training, background, or experience, would be the expert chosen by the HSCA to explain that Dealey Plaza offered an example of this complex neurophysiological phenomenon.)

    In his book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan reproduced a series of still photographs of the goat-shooting experiment that he said demonstrated the goat’s evanescent, “JFK-like” reaction to being shot in the head. Sturdivan writes, “His (the goat’s) back arches, his head is thrown up and back, and his legs straighten and stiffen for an instant before he collapses back into his previous flaccid state.”[53] (Fig. 5)

    Figure 5. Images of a goat being shot in the head, per Larry Sturdivan. At left, image of a goat taken before being shot in the head. At right, the goat’s immediate reaction to being shot. His back arches, his upper and lower limbs splay outward and backward. Unlike JFK’s, the goat’s head does not explode.

    Elaborating to the HSCA, Sturdivan drew the Dealey Plaza parallel:

    …since all (of JFK’s) motor nerves were stimulated at the same time, then every muscle in the body would be activated at the same time. Now, in an arm, for instance, this would have activated the biceps muscle but it would have also activated the triceps muscle, which being more powerful, would have straightened the arm out. With leg muscles, the large muscles in the back of the leg, are more powerful than those in the front and, therefore, the leg would move backward. The muscles in the back of the trunk are much stronger than the abdominals and, therefore, the body would arch backward.[54]

    In essence, the goat-like posture he described as JFK’s was a brief “decerebrate” posture—back arched, arms and legs extended. In a filmed interview, Sturdivan confidently demonstrated the neurological phenomenon, arching his upper body and arms upward and backward.[55] (Fig. 6) Sturdivan’s is a specific posture that JFK never remotely manifested. (Fig. 7) Not only was Sturdivan’s a specific posture one that JFK never remotely manifested, Sturdivan’s arms aren’t ‘straightened out’ as he testified they should have been. (Fig. 6) The “neuromuscular reaction” expert’s dis-analogous posture brought to mind a particularly apt Charles Darwin quip: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

    Figure 6. Larry Sturdivan demonstrating JFK’s “neuromuscular reaction” to the fatal head shot at Zapruder. frame 313. His back is arched; his head is bent backward, and his arms are raised. Sturdivan’s posture is unlike JFK’s in frames that follow 313.
    Figure 7. Image left, 1/18th second before his head explodes: JFK’s head is tilted forward and slightly to the left. Image right, ½ second after he’s hit, it is JFK’s head that has moved backward, not his back. Unlike “Decorticate” or “Decerebrate” neuromuscular reactions, JFK’s back does not arch; his legs do not extend, his upper arms do not adduct. Rather, his back follows his head passively. His right arm neither flexes nor extends, but instead falls limply to his side.

    Furthermore, were Kennedy’s posture truly a decorticate or decerebrate reaction of some sort, it’s likely he’d have maintained that backward-arched posture. He doesn’t.

    In the Zapruder frames following frame 321, 4/9th seconds after the head shot, JFK bounces off the back seat of the limo and starts moving forward. His back then curls forward following his head, though at a slower speed than his head does. After frame 327, the advancing velocity of Kennedy’s head doubles from what it had been between frames 321 and 327, moving ahead at a faster clip than his head had rocketed rearward after the strike at 313. His back follows. Thus, Kennedy’s head and upper back not only “flexed” forward, when they should have been arching backward in decorticate or decerebrate spasm, his head also sped up, perhaps due to what Thompson has recently proposed: an acoustics matching, X-ray matching, second head shot striking JFK from behind at frame 327-8.[56] (see below)

    While there is much more that could be said, the point here is that Nalli had no reason but the obvious one to trust Sturdivan, Haag, and Posner on this. None have the requisite training or background. Nor do they grasp the neurophysiological phenomena they’ve invoked to defend the government’s preferred scenario. Moreover, they have no answer to the science-based debunkings that have previously been published. But what they do have is an allegiance to the government’s preferences.

    These are things Nalli would have known about “neuromuscular reaction” had he but followed standard scientific protocol and done a proper literature review prior to writing. If he had, he’d have addressed the AFTE piece Wecht and I wrote, the very one he cited in his own footnotes. That piece explored “neurospasm” in detail, with hot-linked footnotes to credible sources.[57] Instead, he ignored the science to stand with his cherry-picked, anti-conspiracy nonexperts. And not only on Kennedy’s reaction to the head shot. He also did so in another scientific area of the Kennedy case: Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), a sophisticated technology once said to be able to match recovered bullet fragments to the bullets they came from.

    Neutron Activation Analysis and JFK

    On this issue, Nalli turned yet again to his Zelig—“neurospasm expert” Larry Sturdivan—who was now masquerading as an authority in another area of science in which, at best, he holds the rank of discredited amateur.

    In a junky, “peer reviewed” paper published in 2004, Sturdivan touted NAA as the Rosetta Stone: proof that all the bullets and fragments recovered from the assassination traced to but two rounds that had been firearms-matched to Oswald’s rifle.[58] Ergo, no one but Oswald could possibly have done it. That extraordinary, and seemingly dispositive, claim was first made to the House Select Committee on 8 September 1978 by NAA authority, Vincent Guinn, Ph.D.[59]

    In his review of Last Second in Dallas, Nalli touts Guinn. He writes:

    …that it was ‘highly probable’ that the fragments in Gov. Connally’s wrist were from the ‘stretcher bullet’ (CE399) found at Parkland Hospital and that the fragments from President Kennedy’s head were from the same bullet as the fragments found in the limousine, thereby providing strong evidence that only two bullets caused all the wounds.[60]

    Besides Guinn’s testimony and Sturdivan’s paper, there is other “peer reviewed” literature that backs Nalli up on NAA, including a paper written by Kenneth Rahn with Larry Sturdivan as coauthor,[61] as well as “peer reviewed” papers written by Lucien Haag touting NAA and published in the AFTE Journal.[62]

    (Nalli ignores that the government’s own evidence, and that of an FBI Agent, Bardwell Odum, have shown that the so-called “stretcher bullet” now in evidence—Warren Commission Exhibit #399—is not the same bullet that was found on a Parkland stretcher on 11/22/63. See “The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?” by Aguilar and Thompson.[63])

    But Nalli did allow that, “There has apparently been some degree of legitimate dispute about the NAA findings of Guinn. However, counterarguments have since been advanced from forensic experts such as Larry Sturdivan (cf. The JFK Myths) (sic) and Luke Haag. Lacking personal expertise, I shall remain, for the time being, agnostic on Guinn’s findings. Sturdivan and Haag are not to be easily dismissed…”

    Nalli neither mentions nor alludes to what the “legitimate dispute” is all about, nor even who has disputed Guinn, Sturdivan, and Haag. He has a good, if ‘socially constructive,’ reason not to. It would be difficult to explain why untrained, uncredentialed, anti-conspiracy evangelistic “forensic experts,” Sturdivan and Haag, would also happen to have expertise on NAA that’s on par with their detractors who have, in fact, quite ‘easily dismissed’ Sturdivan and Haag (as well as Kenneth Rahn, Ph.D., Sturdivan’s coauthor).

    The ‘legitimate disputants’ Nalli didn’t think worth mentioning include the FBI’s National Laboratory, which abandoned the use of NAA to match bullets and fragments in 2005 because of its serious deficiencies;[64] two “conspiracy agnostic,” nationally recognized NAA authorities from Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Eric Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D, who debunked Guinn’s JFK claims in the prestigious Journal of Forensic Sciences[65] (Grant had studied for his Ph.D. under Guinn, among others, at UC Irvine, and bore him no malice.[66]), a distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University, Clifford Spiegelman, Ph.D. and his coauthor, FBI chief lab examiner William Tobin, who, among other things, eviscerated the flawed statistical analysis the non-statistician, Sturdivan, had published supporting NAA,[67] and others.[68]

    Furthermore, Nalli had every good reason to know of these inconvenient “alternative” facts. They’ve attracted considerable interest among assassination students, and they are easily found by a google search.[69] Moreover, they were explored in extenso in a piece I wrote with coauthor Wecht that Nalli cites in his footnote #58. That article included a detailed discussion of the collapse of NAA in bullet matching studies, both in the Kennedy case and elsewhere. It also provided the citations found here, with hotlinks to the peer reviewed papers and the source documents themselves.[70]

    Moreover, Nalli fails to mention that neither Sturdivan nor Haag have any primary expertise in NAA. They have no applicable training or background, and no credible NAA research, apart from Sturdivan’s debunked statistical analysis that was demolished, without refutation, by the statistics professor at Texas A&M, by the NAA authorities at Lawrence Livermore Lab,[71] and by Stanford Linear Accelerator physicist, Arthur Snyder, Ph.D.[72]

    For Nalli to put lightweights Sturdivan and Haag on one side of the NAA scale, and these heavy-weight ‘legitimate disputants’ on the other, and say he sees an even balance is exactly the kind of anti-science, cherry picking that skeptics have learned to expect from pro-Warren “experts.” But the irony doesn’t end there.

    Referring to Thompson’s showcasing the work of the internationally recognized acoustics authority, James Barger, Nalli sniffed that “Thompson has no problem ‘appealing to authority’ when it suits him.” Barger, of course, is an actual internationally renowned authority to whom one may perfectly appropriately “appeal.” Nalli’s sources, not so much. He knowingly ignored credentialed, legitimate, published authorities, but had ‘no problem appealing to the authority’ of anti-conspiracy nonexperts who have fed him the discredited “science” he wants. Would that be the worst of Nalli’s problems. It’s not. His preposterous presuppositions are far worse.

    Nicholas Nalli’s Calculations Prove JFK Had an Extraordinary Brain

    One of Nalli’s sillier affronts to science has to do with the core of his anti-conspiracy case: how he explains physics of Kennedy’s jet recoil. After autopsy, JFK’s brain weighed 1500 grams. (Oddly the brain was not weighed during autopsy.) Nalli calculated that it must have weighed much more when he was struck, 2100 grams in fact. Why? Because his “physics based,” jet effect computations proved that a forward-jetting mass of 600 grams was physically required to give the propulsion necessary to drive Kennedy’s head rearward as fast as we see in the Zapruder film. Pure codswollop.

    What Nalli could have easily discovered in a 30-second google search, and what any legitimate “peer reviewer” would have told him, is that human brains simply don’t weigh anywhere near that much. Rather, it’s an unusual complete and undamaged brain at autopsy that even weighs as much as 1500 grams. The average weight being between 1250 grams and 1400 grams.[73] Nalli’s 2,100 gm brain “has been the cause of much merriment among the knowledgeable.” WhoWhatWhy researcher Milicent Cranor quipped, “It’s what publishers call a ‘howler.’”[74] Researcher David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. (physics) emphasized this as but one of Nalli’s myriad “Omissions and Miscalculations.”[75]

    Six months after Nalli’s paper came out, he put out a correction. “[I]t has also come to the author’s attention,” he wrote, “that the estimate used for President Kennedy’s ‘intact’ brain mass (2100 g) … was most likely too large, falling well outside of the normal range (probably more than 3σ) for human males; this is not an error per se, but rather simply an oversight.”[76] (our emphasis) “Most likely too large?” Ok. Not an error, “simply an oversight?” Ok again. But it wasn’t only Nalli’s “oversight,” it was also his “peer reviewers’” too. Did no one bother to google for even 30 seconds to check if one of Nalli’s core suppositions—JFK’s premortem brain weight—had any basis in reality?

    Unfazed, he reran calculations based on three new, hypothetical premortem brain weights: 1800 gm, 1650 gm, and 1500 gm. To get the requisite rearward thrust with these lower brain weights, Nalli simply upped the exit speeds at which he presumed the escaping brain mass must have jetted. The idea being that if a lower mass escaped at a higher velocity, it’d produce the same “jet effect” as a larger mass exiting at a lower speed. “These corrections,” he wrote, “do not affect any of the conclusions presented in the paper.” Jaw dropping.

    First, as previously noted, although not as extreme as 2100 grams, both 1800 grams and 1650 grams are also well beyond the range of a normal, complete adult human brain, both in the medical literature, as well as in the personal experience of coauthor Wecht, a forensic pathologist with over 40,000 autopsies under his belt. They might remotely be possible, but only if Kennedy had a very large cranium. As David Mantik pointed out, JFK’s head wasn’t particularly large; his hat size was average (7 3/8).[77]

    So then, how about Nalli’s third supposition, that Kennedy’s premortem brain might have weighed as little as 1500 grams? It was as preposterous as it was unsurprising that Nalli seriously proposed that Kennedy’s brain could still have weighed what it did before it was blasted, before much of it was blown all over the limousine, its occupants, the Secret Service agents, the motorcycle cops to JFK’s left and rear, all over Dealey Plaza, and even after Jackie had handed “a big chunk of the President’s brain” to Parkland’s treating anesthesiologist, Professor Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins, MD.[78] We struggle to think of a clearer example of a “scientist” forcing evidence to fit his pet theory. Science is supposed to work by finding a theory that explains the evidence.

    (Outside the scope of this essay is the important question of how Kennedy’s severely blasted brain could turn up at autopsy weighing 1500 grams, which is more than an average, complete human brain. ARRB investigator Douglas Horne has suggested that two different “JFK” brains were examined during two different “supplemental” exams that were done at different times after the original autopsy. Some readers will shy from such a daring, “conspiratorial” assertion. However, can there be any doubt but that what remained of Kennedy’s actual brain didn’t weigh 1500 gms when it was pulled from his cranium? This important and fascinating issue is explored elsewhere.[79],[80])

    How Peer Reviewed Medical/Scientific Journalism is Corrupted in the Kennedy Case

    That so much pro-government nonsense got through peer review and into a scientific journal will come as no surprise to most Warren skeptics. It’s happened often. The mechanics of how this likely happened in Nalli’s case is an important and fascinating story, one that has clear traces to Nalli’s major source and most lauded collaborator, Larry Sturdivan.

    After reading Nalli’s paper in Heliyon, it occurred to us that we might try to publish one in that journal ourselves. We wrote one and put our submission through Heliyon’s required on-line portal, a now-standard process among scientific journals. After uploading it to the site, one of us (GA) followed Heliyon’s prompts to complete the process. Immediately the following asks from Heliyon popped up. GA stared at them in amazement and delight—Heliyon isn’t a real peer reviewed, scientific journal; it’s a pay-to-publish vanity journal!

    Prompt #1: Please suggest potential reviewers for this submission and provide specific reasons for your suggestion in the comments box for each person. Please note that the editorial office may not use your suggestions, but your help is appreciated and may speed up the selection of appropriate reviewers. Fill in as much contact information, ideally including a link to their Google Scholar, Scopus or institutional webpage to allow us identify the person correctly. Please avoid suggestions who have a conflict of interest, such as colleagues, collaborators, co-authors (shared publications in the last three years) or people with whom you share funding.

    “Current Suggested Reviewers List” Add Suggested Reviewer

    Prompt #2: Please identify anyone you would prefer not to review this submission. Fill in as much contact information to allow us to identify the person in our records, and provide specific reasons why each person should not review your submission in their comments box. Please note that we may need to use a reviewer you identify here, but will try to accommodate author’s wishes when we can. If you have additional concerns about this issue please indicate them in your cover letter.

    “Currently Opposed Reviewers List”

    Prompt #3: Article Publishing Charge. Heliyon is a fully Open Access journal. The journal’s costs are covered solely by author publication charges. There are no subscription fees for our readers, or page and figure charges for our authors. Accordingly, all authors of accepted articles will receive an invoice charging the article publication fee of $1,750 USD (plus VAT and local taxes where applicable).

    The journal explained its financial demand: “Heliyon has a small budget for reducing Open Access charges for authors in developing countries and others in genuine financial hardship…”

    Since Nalli doesn’t live in a developing country, nor is it likely he faces “genuine financial hardship,” it’s a safe bet that Nalli paid to have his work published, or that someone else paid for him. Given his whopping errors, it’s likely that Heliyon didn’t send it to knowledgeable, independent experts, but that Nalli picked them. And it was probably Nalli who specified whom he didn’t want reviewing it. Heliyon’s requirements prompted us to check Nalli’s acknowledgements.

    “First and foremost,” he wrote, “I am grateful to Larry M. Sturdivan (wound ballistics expert for the HSCA) (sic) for very helpful discussions pertaining to his previous work as well as for reviewing my initial drafts and providing expert feedback…I am also grateful for the critical reading and constructive professional feedback of the three anonymous peer-reviewers.” (our emphasis)

    “Anonymous peer-reviewers”? Not likely, given that Heliyon explicitly asks authors to suggest the reviewers they want. Nalli’s published rubbish proves precisely why peer review by knowledgeable, independent, anonymous reviewers is so important. Nalli’s reviewers were almost certainly uninformed, incurious, anti-conspiracy advocates. As one of us (GA) pondered this discovery, he had a déjà vu moment.

    Nalli’s charade bears a striking resemblance to an analogous episode in 2003 and 2004, in which Sturdivan had played a similar, behind-the-scenes role. In that case, Sturdivan hornswoggled a respected, legitimate “peer review” journal, Neurosurgery, into letting him collaborate with, and “peer review,” error-ridden, pro-Warren Commission work that the hapless journal editors published. It’s a fascinating tale, one that embarrassed both the journal and a respected University of California, San Diego neurosurgery professor who was left holding the bag. It also hints at a pattern: anti-conspiracists publishing under the respected mantle of “peer reviewed” scientific journalism, while violating the principles that have earned the “peer review” process deserved admiration.

    see Part 2


    [1] Aguilar G. Cunningham, K. “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong.” May, 2003. Available here.

    Cyril Wecht, MD, JD. New York Times, 6/12/1975. “Doctor Says Rockefeller Panel Distorted His View on Kennedy.” Available here.

    [2] Alvarez L, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 44, No. 9, September, 1976. Available here.

    [3] Cranor, M. “Scientist’s Trick ‘Explains’ JFK Backward Movement When Shot.” Available here.

    [4] “When was the Zapruder film first shown to the American people?” Available here.

    [5] Alvarez L, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 44, No. 9, p. 819, September, 1976. Available here.

    [6] Alvarez L, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 44, No. 9, September, 1976. Available here.

    [7] Lattimer JK, Lattimer JK, et al. “Differences in the Wounding Behavior of the Two Bullets that Struck President Kennedy; An Experimental Study,” Wound Ballistics Review, V2(2)361995. Available here.

    [8] Nalli, Nicholas. Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy assassination. Heliyon. Vol. 4, No. 4, e00603, April 01, 2018. Available here.

    [9] Lattimer JK, Lattimer J, Lattimer G. “An Experimental Study of the Backward Movement of President Kennedy’s Head,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. February, 1976, Vol. 142, pp. 246–254. Available here.

    [10] Lattimer, J. Kennedy and Lincoln. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980, p. 250.

    [11] Lattimer JK, Lattimer J, Lattimer G. “An Experimental Study of the Backward Movement of President Kennedy’s Head,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. February, 1976, Vol. 142, pp. 246–254. Available here.

    [12] Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. gave a public lecture in October, 2013 and projected images from Alvarez’s shooting tests. Wecht Center Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President Kennedy Available here.

    [13] Aguilar G. Wecht CH. AFTE Journal, Vol. 48, No 2, Spring 2016, p. 712. Available here.

    [14] Nalli, N. “The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman and the Futile Search for Signal in Noise,” a review of J. Thompson’s book, “Last Second in Dallas,” 6.3.21. Available here.

    [15] Nalli, N R. “The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman and the Futile Search for Signal in Noise,” a review of J. Thompson’s book “Last Second in Dallas” published on 6/3/21. Available here.

    [16] Donald Byron Thomas, Hear No Evil – Social Constructivism & Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Ipswich, MA. Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010

    [17] Thompson, Josiah, Last Second in Dallas. Lawrence, Kansas. University Press of Kansas, 2021, pp. 281–284.

    [18] * The Vela Incident – Nuclear Test or Meteoroid? National Security Archive. Available here.

    * A good summary of government evidence proving a nuclear blast in the Vela Incident is available in: Report on the 1979 Vela Incident. Available here. [“(Investigative journalist Seymour) Hersh reports interviewing several members of the Nuclear Intelligence Panel (NIP), which had conducted their own investigation of the event. Those interviewed included its leader Donald M. Kerr, Jr. and eminent nuclear weapons program veteran Harold M. Agnew. The NIP members concluded unanimously that it was a definite nuclear test. Another member—Louis H. Roddis, Jr.—concluded that ‘the South African-Israeli test had taken place on a barge, or on one of the islands in the South Indian Ocean archipelago.’” [Hersh 1991; pg. 280-281. Available here.] He also cited internal CIA estimates made in 1979 and 1980 which concluded that it had been a nuclear test.

    “The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory conducted a comprehensive analysis, including the hydroacoustic data, and issued a 300-page report concluding that there had been a nuclear event near Prince Edward Island or Antarctica [Albright 1994b].”

    [19] Alvarez L, “A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film, American Journal of Physics Vol. 44, No. 9, p. 817. September, 1976. Available here.

    [20] The speed of sound, known as Mach 1, varies depending on the medium through which a sound wave propagates. In dry, sea level air that is around 25 degrees Celsius, Mach 1 is equal to 340.29 meters per second, or 1,122.96 feet per second.” Available here.

    [21] Robert C. Maher. “Summary of Gun Shot Acoustics,” Montana State University 4 April 2006. “A supersonic bullet causes a characteristic shock wave pattern as it moves through the air. The shock wave expands as a cone behind the bullet, with the wave front propagating outward at the speed of sound.” Available here.

    [22] Don Thomas. Hear No Evil. Ipswich, MA. Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 362–363.

    [23] Dr. John Lattimer fired at human skulls from above and behind with a rifle and ammunition identical to those Oswald used. Clicking on the image at right will download a video clip of one of Lattimer’s shooting experiments. Note that the ladder rocks forward after bullet impact, reflecting the forward momentum transfer.

    [24] Lattimer JK, Lattimer J, Lattimer G. “An Experimental Study of the Backward Movement of President Kennedy’s Head,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. February, 1976, Vol. 142, pp. 246–254. Available here.

    [25] The Journal of Irreproducible Results 1980-2003. Available here.

    [26] Haag, L. “President Kennedy’s Fatal Head Wound and his Rearward Head ‘Snap,’” AFTE Journal, Vol. 46, No. 4, Fall 2014, p. 283; see Figure 8

    [27] Haag, L. President Kennedy’s Fatal Gunshot Wound and the Seemingly Anomalous Behavior of the Fatal Bullet. AFTE Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, Summer 2014, p. 218ff.

    [28] John Nichols, MD shooting experiments, accessed at Baylor University. Available here.

    [29] Sturdivan LM. HSCA testimony, Vol.1:404. Available here.

    [30] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 164.

    [31] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 164.

    [32] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 162.

    [33] Nalli, Nicholas. Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy assassination. Heliyon. Vol. 4, No. 4, e00603, April 01, 2018. Available here.

    [34] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. xxiii.

    [35] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 170.

    [36] Sturdivan, L. Letter to the editor. AFTE Journal. 2015 Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 143.

    [37] “Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States,” June, 1975. Available here.

    [38] Hersh S M, “Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years,” New York Times, 12.22.74. Available here.

    [39] Rockefeller Commission Report, Chapter 19, p. 257 ff. Available here.

    [40] George Washington University’s National Security Archive documented that the Rockefeller Commission “ceded its independence to White House political operatives.” Available here.

    [41] “Gerald Ford White House Altered Rockefeller Commission Report in 1975; Removed Section on CIA Assassination Plots,” National Security Archive. Available here.

    [42] See: Aguilar G, Cunningham K. A detailed discussion and source documents are available on line at: “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” Part IV. The Rockefeller Commission. Available here.

    [43] Aguilar G, Cunningham K. “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” Part IV. The Rockefeller Commission, 2003. Available here.

    [44] Lattimer JK, Lattimer J, Lattimer G. “An experimental Study of the backward Movement of President Kennedy’s Head,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstretics, Vol. 142, pp. 246–254. Feb, 1976. Available here.

    [45] Rockefeller Commission Report chapter 19, p. 261–263. Available here.

    [46] Aguilar G, Cunningham K. “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” Part V. The ‘Last’ Investigation – The House Select Committee on Assassinations, 2003. Available here.

    [47] HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 174. Available here.

    [48] Zapruder frame 230. Available here.

    [49] Zapruder frame 320. Available here.

    [50] Sturdivan LM. The JFK Myths. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2005, p. 170.

    [51] Sturdivan L. HSCA testimony, p. 417. Available here.

    [52] Rockefeller Commission Report, p. 262. Available here.

    [53] Sturdivan, L M., “The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination,” Paragon House, St. Paul, MD (2005), pp. 164, 166.

    [54] Sturdivan L. HSCA testimony. Vol. 1, p. 415. Available here. [Full quote: “Now, the extreme radial velocity imported to the matter in the President’s head, the brain tissue, caused mechanical movement of essentially everything inside the skull, including where the cord went through the foramen magnum, that is, the hole that leads out of the skull down the spinal cord. Motion there, I believe, caused mechanical stimulation of the motor nerves of the President, and since all motor nerves were stimulated at the same time, then every muscle in the body would be activated at the same time. Now, in an arm, for instance, this would have activated the biceps muscle but it would have also activated the triceps muscle, which being more powerful, would have straightened the arm out. With leg muscles, the large muscles in the back of the leg, are more powerful than those in the front and, therefore, the leg would move backward. The muscles in the back of the trunk are much stronger than the abdominals and, therefore, the body would arch backward.”]

    [55] “Larry Sturdivan Arched Dramatically Backwards.” Available here.

    [56] Thompson J. Last Second in Dallas. Op. Cit.

    [57] Nalli, Nicholas. Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy assassination. Heliyon. V.4(4), e00603, April 01, 2018. Available here. See footnote #58 citing letter by G Aguilar, MD and C. Wecht, MD, JD. The actual letter, as published by the AFTE Journal. Available here.

    [58] Sturdivan L, Rahn K. “Neutron Activation and the Kennedy Assassination – Part II, Extended Benefits.” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004), p. 221.

    [59] Testimony of Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, Sept. 8, 1978, I HSCA-JFK hearings, 491ff. Available here.

    [60] Nalli, N R. “The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman,” a review of J. Thompson’s book “Last Second in Dallas” published on-line, 6/3/21. Available here.

    [61] * Rahn K, Studivan L. “Neutron activation and the JFK assassination Part I. Data and interpretation.” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004), pp. 205, 213.

    * Sturdivan L, Rahn K. “Neutron Activation and the Kennedy Assassination – Part II, Extended Benefits.” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004), p. 221.

    [62] *Haag L. “Tracking the ‘Magic’ Bullet in the JFK Assassination,” AFTE Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2, Spring 2014.

    * Authors Aguilar and Wecht published a rebuttal to Haag’s defense of NAA in the AFTE Journal. Haag doubled down on his defense of NAA in a letter published by the AFTE Journal: Haag. L. “Author’s response to Doctors Aguilar and Wecht.” AFTE Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3 (Summer 2015), p. 139.

    [63] Available here.

    [64] “FBI Laboratory Announces Discontinuation of Bullet Lead Examinations,” September 1, 2005. FBI National

    Press Office. Available here.

    Possley, M., “Study shoots holes in bullet analyses by FBI,” Chicago Tribune, 2.11.2004

    [65] * Erik Randich Ph.D., Patrick M. Grant Ph.D., Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Journal of Forensic Sciences, V.51(4)717 ff.July 2006. Available here.

    * Erik Randich 1 , Wayne Duerfeldt, Wade McLendon, William Tobin. A metallurgical review of the interpretation of bullet lead compositional analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2002 Jul 17; 127(3), pp. 174–91.

    [66] Pat Grant, Ph.D. “Commentary on Dr. Ken Rahn’s Work on the JFK Assassination Investigation.” Available here.

    [67] Cliff Spiegelman, William A. Tobin, William D. James, Simon J. Sheather, Stuart Wexler and D. Max Roundhill. CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE?

    The Annals of Applied Statistics 2007, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 287–301. Available here.

    [68] * Giannelli, Paul, “Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Retrospective,” Case Western Reserve, Sept., 2001. Available here.

    * William Tobin. “Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Case Study in Flawed Forensics,” www.nacdl.org The Champion. Available here.

    * Charles Pillar. “Report Finds Flaws in FBI Bullet Analysis.” Los Angeles Times, 2/4/2004. Available here.

    [69] Cliff Spiegelman, Ph.D. “What new forensic science reveals about JFK assassination.” Salon.com, 12/12/2017. Available here.

    See also: Pat Grant, Ph.D. (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory). Commentary on Dr. Ken Rahn’s (NAA) Work on the JFK Assassination Investigation. Available here.

    [70] Available here.

    [71] See Pat Grant’s evisceration of NAA defender, Ken Rahn. “Commentary on Dr. Ken Rahn’s Work on the JFK Assassination Investigation.” Available here.

    [72] Arthur Snyder, Ph.D. Comments on the Statistical Analysis in Ken Rahn’s Essay: “Neutron-Activation Analysis and the John F. Kennedy Assassination.” Available here.

    [73] Brain Facts and Figures. Available here.

    [74] Cranor, Milicent. Scientist’s Trick ‘Explains’ JFK Backward Movement When Shot, 05/31/18. Available here.

    [75] Mantik, D. The Omissions and Miscalculations of Nicholas Nalli. Available here.

    [76] Nalli, N. Corrigendum to “Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy assassination” [Heliyon 4 (2018) e00603], 10/1/2018. Available here.

    [77] Op cit. Available here.

    [78] “JFK in Trauma Room One: The Missing Piece: Last Moments Before Death.” A YouTube video of Parkland Professor Marion T. Jenkins, MD discussing the assassination. This quote can be heard at and after the 5 minute, 25 second mark. Available here.

    [79] Assassinations Records Review Board investigator, Doug Horne. “The Two Brain Memorandum.” Available here.

    [80] See Doug Horne, “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy.” ARRB Memorandum for file, 8/28/1996, revised 6.2.1998. Available here.

  • The Mysteries Around Ida Dox

    The Mysteries Around Ida Dox


    This is chapter four of a book I’ve written concerning the 52 witnesses that appeared and gave public testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Ida Dox gave her very brief testimony, only 11 questions, on September 7, 1978, in the Rayburn House Office Building, though the majority of testimony was given in the Cannon House Office Building.

    I tried to do with Ms. Dox, as I did with all of the witnesses, and that was lift out the salient points and update the evidence when necessary.

    The name of my book is Hidden In Plain Sight. It is an attempt to demonstrate that a large amount of evidence was obvious early in the investigation of the case. In other words, it was there all the time, but we didn’t see it, sometimes because we weren’t looking for it.

    Ultimately, it is a guide that will tour you through the labyrinth of testimony and evidence of the case in 1978 and then updated as the years have gone by.

    Chief Counsel Robert Blakey told me in an interview in the late 90’s that these witnesses were a way for the HSCA to present their evidence to the American public.

    Ida Dox, September 7, 1978

    On September 7, 1978, 9:09 a.m. session, EDT—Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., the House Select Committee on Assassinations took testimony from Ms. Ida Dox.

    Ida Dox was born on July 8, 1927 in Honduras, Central America and came to the United States in 1947. She received her Bachelor of Fine Arts from Newcomb College of Tulane University in New Orleans in 1950. She obtained her Master of Science degree from Johns Hopkins University in 1954 and her Doctorate of Philosophy from the University Maryland in 1990.

    She was a medical illustrator at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington D.C. from1954–1969. She was chosen to be the medical illustrator for the Select Commission on Assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Junior of the United States House of Representatives in Washington D.C. from 1978–1979. She has been a medical illustrator and author, in Bethesda, Maryland, since 1969.

    At the time of the public hearings, she was a medical illustrator for the Department of Medical-Dental Communication at the Georgetown University Schools of Medicine and Dentistry. She was also an author of many textbooks on illustrated medical dictionaries, one of which I purchased off of Amazon.

    She died on October 18, 2013, at the age of 86. Dox was her maiden name, but her married name was Ida Melloni, as she married John Melloni in 1954.

    The HarperCollin’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary

    The House Committee on Assassinations contacted the Georgetown Medical School, which in turn recommended Ida Dox as a medical illustrator. She appeared before the Committee to testify in public session. She had been working with the medical panel for some time and was asked to explain her role, working with the autopsy photographs and x-rays, which would demonstrate the location and severity of the bullet wounds.

    Before her appearance, Robert Blakey read a list of rumors that had circulated regarding the location and nature of those wounds, specifically to JFK. Amazingly, what he stated was a lot closer to reality than the Humes, Boswell, and Finck autopsy findings.

    Blakey then commented on past presidential assassinations, as they related to the specific autopsies. He marginalized the credibility of the Parkland doctors by comparing the comments of Dr. McClelland, “a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple,” (an obvious misspeak and red herring by Blakey, when he understandably meant right temple) to the wholly different description of neuro-surgeon Kemp Clark, who “observed a large gaping hole in the rear of the President’s head.” Blakey further weakened the import of their testimony by stating that they only worked on the President for a short time and they were trying to save him, which was not a possibility either way.” (I HSCA 142)

    If Ida Dox was to malign the rumor department, it would have been binding upon her to testify that she enhanced the wounds in the drawings that she made, especially Fox-3. More about that in due course.

    Andrew Purdy, who handled much of the medical aspect of the questioning, was called upon to question Ms. Dox. He began by asking her to expand on how it was determined what to illustrate for the Select Committee. A seemingly fair question. She said, “the committee, the medical panel, and myself…decided that the photographs taken at autopsy should be copied to illustrate the position of the wounds. The photographs that were selected were the ones that best showed the injuries.” (I HSCA 146) Why would a medical illustrator be involved in that decision-making process? She’s an artist, not a doctor. She sketches and traces; she does not slice and cut.

    “The photographs taken at autopsy should be copied to illustrate the position of the wounds.” (I HSCA 146) Wouldn’t the photographs illustrate that? This seems to be a wasted step. This has the appearance of an imitation of the Warren Commission, where Commander Humes told medical illustrator Harold Rydberg lies, but Rydberg followed orders, which he argued both strenuously and vociferously against years later. Dox would never argue in that same vein, unfortunately.

    The Warren Commission’s excuse was that to introduce the photos into evidence would mean publishing them; did the House Select Committee on Assassinations believe that by using drawings that they could keep the nature of the injuries from becoming public? The Dox drawings are some of the least graphic of the autopsy photos that we know about, but even still, they don’t hide what little graphic nature there is in those prints. The Warren Commission could get away with it, because nobody was going to see the photographs and that was a censuring that remained in place years later, when the HSCA chose drawings, identical to a couple of the autopsy photos, instead of the photos, for their study. Nothing had changed fourteen years after the Warren Commission, as neither the Commission nor the House Committee on Assassinations, and much to their shame, put the autopsy photographs into evidence.

    In her testimony of how she made the illustrations, at no time did she give any indication that the results used by the committee were in any way different from the actual photographs themselves. I am sure at some point, someone told Ida Dox exactly what to do with the red spot on Fox-3, the back of the head autopsy photograph. In fact, some of the records obtained from the National Archives do everything, except come right out and say just that. Does this make Ida culpable? Probably. I am sure she was just doing what she was told and may have been told it would illustrate what the medical panel was trying to explain. She is less culpable than Baden, to be sure.

    They would never publish the photos and the drawings by Ms. Dox in the same volumes, as it would easily demonstrate the differences between the two. The differences would have been recognized immediately, particularly with reference to the wound in the cowlick, not discernable in the photograph, but manifestly obvious in the drawing.

    Mr. Purdy: Ms. Dox, prior to today, did you have the opportunity to review the enlargements of your drawings to ensure that they are accurate?

    Ms. Dox: Yes, I did. I looked at them very, very carefully and they are my drawings except that they are photographically enhanced. [my emphasis] (I HSCA 148)

    The witness was asked if the drawings are accurate? Her answer was that she compared them to make sure that they were, in fact, her drawings and they had not been rehabilitated in any way. She had to know this wasn’t true, as the documents I received from the National Archives indicate in this chapter.

    In two investigations into the murder of the President of the United States, when it comes to medical evidence, the most crucial evidence of all, the deception seems to explode all over the place.

    This is a sleight of hand worthy of the Warren Commission, suggesting that the House Select Committee at least had a tutorial in coverups; they agreed for the sake of the Kennedy family’s privacy not to use the actual photos, but to use identical sketches made by a medical illustrator.

    I am not sure how that would have put anyone at ease in the Kennedy family. The President’s image was displayed, in death, and on television. Whether it was a photograph or a true rendering by a medical illustrator, it is truly much ado about nothing. The American public had already seen the graphicness of the Zapruder film on national television in March of 1975.

    But make no mistake, the autopsy photo that Dox copied of the back of the head and the resulting sketch she made are ages apart. Ida Dox deceptively depicted the rear head entrance wound, exposed as such when the inquiring public was finally allowed to see the actual wounds fifteen years after the event. Who knows what she was thinking, as she did what Dr. Baden told her.

    The decision not to use the original photographs was probably made by the Committee members. An arrangement was reached that they would publish the drawings, but only those deemed essential. The Dox drawing of the head wound was withheld from publication and it was not in the hundreds of pages of her file I received from the National Archives.

    She also responded to Purdy’s question by stating that “the photographs that were selected were the ones that best showed the injuries.” (I HSCA 146) Ms. Dox said she copied four photographs: the back of the head (Fox-3), the upper back (Fox-5), the side of the head (Fox-4) [not shown during public testimony], and the front of the neck (Fox-1 & 2). Key photos were clearly withheld, some say on grounds of taste. They were examined by the forensics panel and other experts, but not displayed or published. The top of the head photo (Fox-6 & 7) was not chosen. As stated, the side of the head photo drawn by Ms. Dox was not shown during public testimony either. She was asked to draw the head wound photo, but when they saw it, they decided not to publish it. I am not sure what they thought they would see before they looked at it, as they had seen the autopsy photograph on which it was based.

    The back of the head photo (Fox-3) was shown during the public testimony of Ms. Dox. The only problem is that the alleged entrance wound in the cowlick area is much more visible in her drawing, than on the original Fox-3 photograph. Conversely, her drawing of the back wound (Fox-5) omits the possibility of an entrance wound that has been alleged by some critics and his back was cleaned up quite a bit. Whether there are other possibilities concerning Fox-5, it should have at least been drawn. It also places the back wound much too high. The autopsy face sheet, as did his suit coat and shirt, as did Dr. Humes, places the back wound in the upper right posterior thorax at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra, which would be approximately five and three-eighths inches below the top of the collar. The Dox wound appears much too high.

    When Mr. Purdy asks how she copied the photographs, Ms. Dox stated that she did it by “placing a piece of tracing paper directly on the photograph, then all the details were very carefully traced…so that no detail could be overlooked or omitted or altered in any way.” (I HSCA 147) As noted, the upper entry head wound was altered. Period. Perjury, most likely, but I really believe it is more of being afraid to disagree with Dr. Baden, when he had told her what he wanted. Hard to tell. Things were omitted, especially on the back wound (Fox-5), where obvious detail is missing, and also on the back of the head wound (Fox-3), where the alleged cowlick area wound is much clearer and pronounced in her drawings than in the autopsy photographs themselves, as I stated earlier. Isn’t this really much ado about nothing? Couldn’t all of this have been avoided knowing that the drawings are no substitute for the photos? The original photos should have been available to researchers at least as soon as the Warren Commission closed up shop, but legally they haven’t been released to this day.

    Purdy goes on to say that Ms. Dox made other drawings to illustrate the conclusions of the forensic pathology panel. We are not exactly sure what these other drawings are, only to assume they are in the Committee’s files. The release of the Assassination Records Review Board medical materials did not tell us any more on this subject. I don’t recall this issue even being addressed. The truth is, in relationship to Ms. Dox, the ARRB made no difference at all. I’m frankly amazed that nobody at the ARRB asked the obvious question: Why are the Dox drawings and the photographs from which they are exactly made, so different? Sadly, Ms. Dox was not questioned by the ARRB and she could have been, since she didn’t pass away until 2013, but this was never addressed.

    In her next to the last question, Ms. Dox says that a frame of “film taken during the motorcade was photographed and the outline of the President’s head was used, so that the…head of the President…in the position that the medical panel decided was necessary.” (I HSCA 147-148) They were probably doing what they thought was adequate, but left themselves open to immense criticism, just as the Warren Commission did.

    Ms. Dox worked for the Committee, under the direction of Professor Blakey. In that capacity, she was assigned to assist the Committee by preparing drawings from the autopsy photos for possible publication. She was working under Blakey’s direction and Dr. Baden, or perhaps Andrew Purdy’s, since he guided most of the medical aspects of the case. Ultimately, Dr. Baden made the call on what Ms. Dox drew and, in some cases, how to draw it. As you listen and read the testimony of Ida Dox, you can only reflect about what should have been asked.

    I contacted Ms. Dox in October of 1999. I had two conversations with her on the telephone. It all started with a question I had regarding HSCA Exhibit F-302, which was a drawing of President Kennedy’s brain, that was put into evidence during the testimony of Dr. Humes. What followed was both puzzling and frustrating. I will go into detail about what Ms. Dox said about that sketching of JFK’s brain, parts of her testimony that she now denies ever saying, enhancement of the wounds that she drew for the Committee (which has to do with some correspondence between her and Dr. Baden that I requested and received from The National Archives and publish in this chapter), and other sundry matters.

    I prepared for my conversations with Ms. Dox by reading documents I received from the National Archives concerning her. There was a sense of discovery, but more so of clarification. I’m not one who looks for a demon under every shingle, nor is it my purpose to attempt to discredit someone who appears on the surface to be a nice lady who was just following orders and instructions. There were some things that did seem a bit odd and other things that I still don’t understand as I write this. The following information is based on those two telephone conversations I had with Ms. Dox.

    In the first conversation I had with here on October 14, 1999, I asked her the following questions:

    Question #1: How many photographs were you shown?

    When I asked Mrs. Dox this question on the phone, she quickly replied, “I can’t remember.” This is intriguing. If she had been shown 75 photos, okay, she can’t recall, but she testified before the HSCA that it was four, at least that is how many she drew. She doesn’t seem to be guessing before the HSCA during her public testimony. I don’t care how many zillion wounds she has illustrated, as one of the first humans on the planet to see those autopsy photos of JFK, you would think she could remember the number. Maybe not perfectly, but certainly not, “I don’t remember.” Even an estimate would have been nice.

    Question #2: Were you ever shown a photograph of the brain?

    She emphatically stated, “No!” This first surfaced for me when I noticed HSCA exhibit F-302 in David Lifton’s book, Best Evidence. During Dr. Humes’ testimony, exhibit F-302 is introduced, with no data whatsoever. It is said, then, to be a drawing of the brain. There are two kinds of representations in Lifton’s book. In the cases of the actual line drawings, they are represented in full, the throat wound, cropped so as not to show the face. The brain drawing, however, is in mid-text, so that may be why it is different from the others. It also has no signature on it. The other Dox drawings are reproduced in full and have a signature in the lower corner. It may have been a simple matter of a tracing of a tracing, or some sort, so it could be reproduced in text, without going to the photo section, which is different paper.

    The only available rendering of the brain, however, absent the photographs, is the drawing/tracing created by Ida Dox and I have already noted my criticisms of her efforts. In her brain illustration, the left cerebral hemisphere is intact, while the right cerebral hemisphere resembles a swirling pattern.

    The two lobes of the cerebellum are intact and unremarkable. That flies in the face of the doctors from Parkland, who testified to seeing cerebellum extruding from the large wound in the back of the head and here we are presented with no cerebellum damage and no large wound in the back of the head.

    Question #3: Were the wounds enhanced for the sake of clarity?

    Her response, “No, of course not.” This is interesting. At Wecht 2003, I asked Dr. Baden about this and was told that Dox was given other gunshot wounds to draw in order to enhance the visibility. You have to look for something even resembling a wound in the Fox-3 photograph. It looks more like a blood droplet, but not a bullet wound.

    He told me that Dox had been given other photos (see later in the text for the documents), of other individuals with wounds, in order that she would be able to highlight JFK’s wound, so people wouldn’t miss where the actual head wound was. Other researchers have talked with Dr. Baden about this and received similar responses.

    What follows after this paragraph is a copy of the Dox drawing of Fox-3 and the actual Fox-3 autopsy photo and then a few pages of documents I received from the National Archives, both of which were sent to Ida Dox by the HSCA, including “you can do much better, Ida,” from Michael Baden. How can you do “much better” than the autopsy photos you are directly looking at and tracing. Or, is “much better” referring to placing a bullet wound where there isn’t one in the cowlick area? Ida Dox lied to me on the phone, when she said she wasn’t given any pictures to use to enhance what wasn’t there. Here are some of the documents I got from the Archives, after I requested every document they had concerning Ida Dox. Unlike the Ida Dox drawing, the actual wound is not visible in Fox-3 and no other photographs show it either.

    Dox drawing of Fox-3
    Fox-3
    Ida—“You can do much better”—Michael Baden
    Bullet wound to the head from the pathology book written by Baden, et. al.

    The Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee was so thoroughly caught up in their findings, that the upper artifact, the red spot, and what they said was the actual entry wound, that they failed to realize how badly they had been duped.

    This is critical to the ongoing investigation and needs to be considered again. Originally, the HSCA worked from medical illustrations, done by medical illustrator Ida Dox. Unfortunately, Ms. Dox, who was allowed to commit perjury before the House Select Committee, altered the wound that some have identified as simply a red spot or droplet.

    Fox-3 (Color)
    Fox-3 Comparison with Dox Drawing
    Purdy Asking for Photos of Typical Bullet Wounds
    (Keep in mind, this is in the Dox materials sent to me from the National Archives)
    Flanagan to Baden, Asking for Photos of Typical In-Shoot Wounds

    Any assessment of the photographs show nothing even slightly comparable to what Dox drew. I often show the autopsy photos to friends or at talks I give at local libraries and they always produce the same shocked reaction. I show them the Fox photo of the back of the head and ask, “Do you see the entrance wound?”

    Nobody can ever see the entry. Then I show them the Dox drawing of the back of the head and ask if the wound is visible and unanimously and they say it is. Then I put them side-by-side and there is usually some kind of verbal gasp, as if they were watching the Zapruder film for the first time.

    Now they can see up close and personal that something sinister was going on with the medical evidence. The alteration becomes obvious.

    Ida Dox was given the autopsy photographs and requested to make sketches for the HSCA, a procedure that, in itself, calls into question the sanity of the people doing it, as a drawing of gore is almost as unpleasant as a photo of gore.

    The reader is invited, even strongly urged, to view the photographs in question and then view the same cowlick area in the Dox (Fox-3) drawings. You will be surprised, if you have never done this before.

    What is cited as an artifact and is not by any means proof of an entry wound in the photograph, becomes a glaring bullet hole thanks to Ida Dox, who was given additional photos as stated, showing bullet wounds of other people and not of John Kennedy, so that she could highlight and forge the JFK sketches. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason for moving the back of the head wound four inches higher is to explain the massive wound in JFK’s right temporal area of his skull. If you move the wound, then you have a perfect inshoot-outshoot scenario. If not, you have to explain how a bullet traveling downward from sixty feet in the air and behind can emerge on the upper right side of Kennedy’s temporal bone.

    The explanation I can assert is what I have already said in chapter one concerning Governor Connally, that a second head shot at c. Z-327, 7/10ths of a second after Z-313, explains this precisely and, if so, then there was no need to invent a head wound in the cowlick area, as Z-327 explains it perfectly. What is disheartening is that chapter one on Governor Connelly documents that the HSCA was suggesting a shot c. Z-327, but then the Committee wasn’t (as it was a Select, not a Standing committee) renewed and the data became inactive.

    That alone brings into question the honesty of the entire HSCA investigation and the charge against Dox is not a pointless one. The question then becomes two-fold:

    1. Why, (excepting the necessity to maintain the lone-assassin fiction) was the wound altered in order to make it obvious to any John Q citizen viewing the Dox drawing, when trained pathologists could not and did not identify it from the photograph which Dox claimed she copied exactly?
    2. Whose decision was it to alter the wound and whose decision was it not to make the obvious comparison between the actual photo and the altered drawing during the HSCA hearings? Baden seems to be candidate number 1.

    A little background on Baden and the Clark Panel is probably appropriate at this point. In the late 1960’s, the public was screaming for a reinvestigation. David Slawson at the Department of Justice wrote a memo to Ramsey Clark explaining that if they don’t do something the conspiracy fringe will get Congress to reopen the whole thing. It also is happening at the same time as the Garrison investigation, which scared the intelligence community, so they needed to calm the storms in Louisiana. Slawson suggests an investigation limited to the medical evidence and so the Clark panel is born. The Clark Panel relocates all the wounds, four inches higher on the head and four inches lower on the back. Why? If left where they were in the autopsy report, then Oswald didn’t do it. The plan succeeds and the public is quieted. Meanwhile, the prominent pathologists, having been thrown together to make up the Clark Panel, decide together to write a book on pathology. Ramsey Clark writes its forward. A young, inexperienced pathologist named Michael Baden is asked to contribute to the book. It’s not much, but associating his name with theirs launches his career.

    Ten years later, Baden is asked to head the HSCA’s medical panel. He insists he not serve on it alone, so that there is no question of impropriety, so he fills it up with friends, save a lone critic named Dr. Cyril Wecht. Before they would ever meet, Baden went in to examine the autopsy materials. He then sat down and wrote a memo which echoes every point made in the Clark Panel report. He moved the wounds and to the exact same points they had chosen.

    At the first meeting of the medical panel (Baden is the only panelist to have seen the materials at this point, though Wecht had gotten permission to see them in the early seventies), he presents them with his findings and calls for a vote to see if another meeting of the panel is necessary. Wecht says yes. The record does not reflect how the others voted, but plans for the other panelists to see the materials were not initiated for several weeks.

    This brings us back to Dox and Baden. Dox is permitted to see the photos and to make a set of drawings, which she denied to me on the telephone (though this is exactly what she stated in her public testimony in September of 1978). She then leaves them for Baden to approve. Baden sees the drawings and calls Purdy, who writes a memo to himself that says, “get a photo of a typical wound of entry.” (In another memo dated 4/24/78, Purdy states that he needs to remind Baden to get wound comparison photos and X-rays.) The next document in the record is a photocopy of a page out of the pathology book Baden and the Clark Panelists wrote. At the top of the photo of a tiny bullet wound to the head, Baden wrote, “Ida you can do much better.” Again, and as I stated earlier, I am not sure how you outdo the original autopsy photos. So better, in what sense? Location? The wound itself? Quite baffling, if not disturbing.

    On October 28, 1999, I called Ida Dox for the second time. She hung up on me at the end our first conversation. This time the conversation lasted a bit longer and was much more detailed. The following questions were asked Ida Dox at this time:

    Question #1: Did you see color or black and white photographs?

    She quickly said, “Color.” The color photos certainly show the wounds better, but still not as good as the Dox tracing. You would also think that black and white would be better to trace from. The fact that a lay observer can tell in a second that the tracings are accurate, except for the wounds, should raise questions immediately. The aforementioned data, along with the Baden and Purdy memos speak volumes to this point.

    Question #2: I asked her again about how many photographs she saw?

    This time she got defensive. I simply reminded her that my previous notes stated that she could not recall, but that she had stated in her testimony that she had drawn four. I was seeking clarification and thought, perhaps, there was a possibility she had been shown others. I was very polite and was genuinely not trying to trick her or confront her in any way. She was silent and so I proceeded.

    Question #3: I asked her if security was tight while viewing the autopsy photographs in the National Archives?

    She indicated that security was very tight. I was reminded that RFK was in a panic that such stuff would go public. It was difficult enough that the Dox drawings went public, but something had to. Her public testimony suggests she had worked from some kind of originals while being watched at the Archives. This led me to the next obvious question.

    Question #4: Did she have a set of autopsy photographs made, so as not to take up the Archives’ employees’ time?

    At this point she got very defensive, especially when I read her public testimony where she says this is exactly what had transpired. I was lucky the conversation went any further at all, as she was not happy. I was not accusing her of anything, still only seeking clarification. Her testimony, again, indicates she was given knock off copies to use outside the Archives, as she added detail like Humes’ gloves, so as not to keep the Archives busy.

    Question #5: I then asked her again if she had drawn F-302, which is JFK’s brain?

    She simply said, “I can’t remember.” I don’t care if it has been twenty years plus, you can’t tell me that you wouldn’t remember drawing a picture of the brain, which just happens to be of the President of the United States! The absurdity of this is beyond belief. Exhibit F-302 does come up during Dr. Baden’s testimony. He uses the drawing of the brain, which he says that Ida Dox drew, to show the intact nature of the cerebellum, thus attempting to prove that Dr. Humes et. al. could not possibly be correct in locating the entrance wound to the rear of JFK’s head in the area of the external occipital protuberance. It wasn’t until Dr. Humes’ testimony that F-302 was formally entered into evidence.

    During the session at the end of each testimony, when everyone is given five minutes to ask questions if they want to, Mr. Fithian asks about the possibility of metal fragments being in the brain. In Baden’s testimony, he displayed F-302 and says that in the right, front area side of the brain there was an oblong, blue discoloration, but that it was not a metal object. He stated that the Forensic Pathology Panel determined that it was blood vessels that had been sheered away. Baden went on to explain that there were many pictures taken of the brain and that some had toothpicks in the damaged part for identification purposes by the doctors at the autopsy.

    It still, however, doesn’t explain why Ms. Dox told me that she never saw any photographs of JFK’s brain, let alone drew them for the committee. Dr. Baden said there were several pictures of the brain and that Ms. Dox drew from them for the committee to illustrate for the Forensic Pathology Panel, that the cerebellum was not injured because of the rear entrance head shot to President Kennedy (I HSCA 304).

    Question #6: Did the photographs of JFK’s neck wound show the face as well?

    She told me that the pictures did show his face and that there had been some talk of blurring the face. The tracings, however, do not show the face of the President. That was all she addressed with this question.

    Question #7: I again asked her if she was shown other photographs of wounds in order to enhance the ones on her tracings/drawings?

    She got very defensive and refused to talk any further. In fact, she said, “I don’t think I want to talk about this any further.” I again tried to assure her that I was not attempting to confront her, only clarify what I had discovered from other researchers and documents from the National Archives. This didn’t seem to quell her anger, but she suggested I contact Professor Blakey, which I did. The data from the first conversation has already dealt with this question in full, but nonetheless, I thought I would give her another chance to verify what I had documentation for from the National Archives. I still refuse to believe you would forget doing something like this, especially in reference to the President of the United States. I don’t care how much time has passed, certain events in our lives are indelibly engrained in our psyche. This event would have to at least be up for a possible nomination.

    Question #8: I asked if there were any other medical illustrators besides her?

    She told me that she was the only one. In fact, she also worked for the Committee on the tracings/drawings concerning Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She received $16,000, not counting $125 per day, plus expenses for services rendered. This also included appearing as an expert during the public hearings. She was not required to write any reports, only that her medical illustrations would appear in the Committee’s final report. She spent 125 and one-half days consulting and providing services. The final tally, financially speaking, would be: $31,625, plus expenses. That’s not bad money for 125 days’ worth of work, especially in 1978.

    Question #9: I asked her how long it took to make the illustrations?

    She was kind enough to explain that it took a long time, months as far as the entire process, and that it is very tedious work.

    There were some things that were missed in her public testimony, that was gone over with her in her practice questions beforehand, which I still have copies from the National Archives. She was supposed to mention that she was to duplicate the autopsy photographs which show the key wound areas, reconstructions of wound areas with internal structures, and illustrate what happens to soft tissue and bones when they are struck by bullets. Most of these can be seen in Volume I of the HSCA Hearings when Dr. Baden is testifying.

    She also stated in her practice questions that blood on the skin and blood on the gloved hands were removed, as well as background details. She stated in her public testimony that she worked very closely with the medical panel, especially Dr. Michael Baden. Based on the previously mentioned discoveries from the Archives, her statement was only the tip of the iceberg.

    All in all, I found Ida Dox to be somewhat reticent to talk about the issues that I brought up to her. She was kind and cordial, but obviously on edge during the two conversations. I was never aggressive or combative, only attempting to clarify what I had discovered. I was told by one researcher, in reference to my questioning her about whether she drew the brain, that it is hard to believe that something called the Dox drawing and entered into evidence (or at least referred to constantly) during the hearings, that were nationally televised, could now be credibly disclaimed as not being her work. He told me to think about what I was suggesting here. I never suggested she didn’t draw F-302 (the brain), only wondered why she didn’t sign off on it, when she did on every other illustration. I also was puzzled as to why she would deny something like this; I wasn’t implying something sinister.

    I was also told that I was probably running into a simple failure of memory, after two decades. I was cautioned not to go down this path and get involved in a hypothesis alleging major forgery of evidence, when all I had was a simple error of memory.

    I really did appreciate the words of caution and took them seriously. I generally respect my colleagues in this field and take their words thoughtfully. I wasn’t implying forgery of evidence or even questioning whether she had drawn the illustration of F-302, again, only seeking clarification of the data I had before me. It made me question the integrity of Dr. Baden more than that of Ida Dox. She was merely following orders and protocol; the others, well, I’ll leave that up to each individual researcher to decide.

    A Final Comment: The fourteen questions they asked Ms. Dox is nothing but procedural, chain of evidence testimony and makes no statement about that which was under scrutiny, except that it is frightfully dishonest, and certainly Ida Dox had to know it when she was testifying.

    The first question that needed to be asked was, Why were so-called exact drawings or tracings necessary to be used in place of the actual photographs?

    There is absolutely no rational answer to this question. It does not seem like it was done out of respect for the President or the President’s family, because the drawings are just as graphic as the original photographs in some areas.

    Certain background material had been removed from the tracings. In the drawing which shows the circular bone extending from the right-front scalp, the inference from the drawing would be that the photo would have been taken with the President’s body posed, sitting up.

    In actuality, the body was laying on its left side. In the photo, one of the pathologists looms up from Kennedy’s side as the pathologist is standing and Kennedy is on his side on the examining table.

    If there can be one reason attributed to the use of drawings, it was to certify that which the House Select Medical Panel wanted. I have written elsewhere that a number of researchers have noted the difference between the photographs, particularly the back of the head photo, with its absence of any visible wound, and the Dox drawing, which clearly showed an obvious entry wound in the cowlick.

    The difference has to be placed in time perspective. As Dox noted in her testimony, she was under observation all the time while she was working at the National Archives with the originals of the photos. Yet she could have access to copies of those photos, to complete the tracings of the doctors’ hands, or rulers, in HSCA rooms.

    In 1978, those photographs had never been seen by the general public and an individual could only get into the National Archives to view them if they were a medical doctor.

    Thus, the first time the wounds were truly seen in some manner other than the Zapruder film or the absurd Rydberg drawings, contrived for the Warren Commission, were the Dox drawings.

    And therein lies the reason for the drawings. With the Fox photographs in my possession, and other researches too for some time and prints available in quantity, it was clear that the back of the head photo and the back of the head drawing were very different.

    From here, it was now a matter of forcing Commander Humes to change his testimony to reflect that the cowlick entry was the correct site and not the original autopsy finding, located four inches lower. Humes refused to change his findings when testifying before the Medical Panel, but he sold out altogether when he was on television in front of the HSCA itself.

    He moved both wounds—the head and the back—approximately four inches. Disgraceful.

  • Last Second in Dallas, part 2

    Last Second in Dallas, part 2


    Another dispute Thompson had with Vince Salandria was the author’s theory about the small hole in JFK’s throat. On the day of the assassination, Dr. Malcolm Perry said to the public that this appeared to be an entrance wound. Thompson’s idea is that it was a piece of either brain or metal ejected from Kennedy’s skull. And he includes a diagram of this on page 98. The trajectory of this projectile is hard to fathom, especially since it would be traveling through soft tissue. But also, once it went into the throat area, it would be entering into all kinds of small bones and thicker cartilage. So in addition to the trajectory, it found an exit path through that maze?

    Thompson takes Howard Brennan at his word. (pp. 98-99) Which he also did in his previous JFK book. I am not going to go into the myriad problems with Brennan as a witness. That would be redundant of too many good writers. Let me say this: today, the best one can say about Brennan is that he was looking at the wrong building. The worst one could say is that he was rehearsed and suborned. As Vince Palamara wrote in Honest Answers, Brennan refused to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Beyond that, he would not answer written questions. When they said they would have to subpoena him, he replied he would fight the subpoena. Does this sound like a straightforward, credible witness? (Palamara, pp. 186-89)

    To supplement the dubious Brennan, the author uses the testimony of the three workers underneath the sixth floor. Vincent Bugliosi used one of them in a mock trial of Lee Oswald in England in 1986. I addressed the serious problem with using these men––in Bugliosi’s case it was Harold Norman––in my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. (pp. 54-55) To make a long story short, after they were interviewed by the FBI, their stories were altered by the Secret Service. At that mock trial, Norman could have been taken apart and spat out if defense lawyer Gerry Spence had been prepared––which he was not. (For a long version of how and why this happened, see Secret Service Report 491)

    Let me add one key point about this. One of the Secret Service agents involved in this mutation was Elmer Moore, a man who––since the declassifications of the ARRB––has become infamous in the literature. There is little doubt today, in the wake of the declassified files, that Moore was an important part of the coverup. (DiEugenio, pp. 166-69) Therefore, in my view, Thompson missed another pattern––one which could have been indicated to him by Gary Aguilar or Pat Speer, in addition to myself.

    The middle part of the book narrates much of the case history from the early to late seventies. For Thompson, this means the first showings of the Zapruder film by Bob Groden at conferences, then the big national showing on ABC in 1975. This was one of the factors that spurred the creation of the HSCA in 1976. Thompson says that he was invited to the so called HSCA “critics conference.” He says this was where he first heard of the dictabelt tape of a motorcycle recording of the assassination. He takes the opportunity to tell us how the HSCA actually recovered the tape. He also explains how it worked and some of the technology behind it. (pp. 147-51) Keeping with his personal journey aspect, in this part of the book he also tells us how he decided to give up his professorship at Haverford and become a private investigator.

    From 1979 until 2006 the author tells us he was very little involved with the case. (pp. 182-83) This is kind of surprising when one thinks about it. Thompson all but leaves out the yearlong furor that took place over the release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. Which is odd, since that was the largest period of focused attention the case got since 1975. All he says is that he was called to testify by the Assassination Records Review Board about their purchase of the Zapruder film. And he testified, properly I think, that once the Secret Service knew about the film it should have gone to Abraham Zapruder’s home and taken possession of it right there as a piece of evidence in a homicide case. (pp. 189-90) About any of the rather startling disclosures of the ARRB, I could detect little or nothing.

    He spends several pages on a conference organized by Gary Aguilar in San Francisco which featured Eric Randich and Pat Grant. It was these two men who broke open the whole mythology of Vincent Guinn’s Neutron Activation Analysis, today called Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis. I was at that conference and Thompson does a good enough job summing up their scientific findings. (pp. 190-96). As the author notes, this “junk science” had been important to the HSCA in its findings that somehow Oswald alone did the shooting, and the acoustical second shot from the front missed.


    II

    In the second half of the book Thompson more or less forsakes the personal journey motif. He concentrates on what he sees as three important pieces of evidence, which he figures are crucial to the case. I will deal with each of these as candidly and completely as I can.

    Thompson devotes Chapter 16, well over twenty pages, to the medical evidence in the JFK case. He begins this part of his book by declaring that the JFK autopsy was “botched,” in other words, whatever shortcomings there were in that procedure, they were not by design. I was rather surprised by this supposition, for the simple reason that Dr. Pierre Finck said under oath at the trial of Clay Shaw that the reason the back wound was not dissected is because the military brass in the room stopped them from doing so. He also said that James Humes, the chief pathologist, was not running the proceedings. They were being so obstructed that Humes literally had to shout out, “Who’s in charge here?” Finck testified that an Army general replied, “I am.” Finck summed up the situation like this:

    You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to coordinate the operations according to directions. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 300, italics added)

    The Department of Justice––among other groups––was monitoring the Clay Shaw trial in close to real time. When Carl Eardley, the Justice Department specialist on the JFK case, heard this, he almost had a hernia. He called up another of the pathologists, Thornton Boswell, and sent him to New Orleans, since they now had to discredit Finck for revealing what had happened. Eardley later thought better of this, probably because by any standard measure, Finck had better qualifications as a forensic pathologist then Boswell did. (ibid, p. 304)

    One cannot overrate the importance of this testimony. To give just one indication of its importance: I did a pre-interview with Dr. Henry Lee for Oliver Stone’s new documentary on the JFK case. I asked him this specific question, directly related to Finck’s testimony: Can you figure out a firing trajectory without a tracking of the wound? He said that under those circumstances, it was very difficult to do. Here is a man who has worked about 8000 cases all over the world and is recognized as one of the best criminalists alive.

    The same situation applies to the skull wound, except in this case, the situation is more complex. If one talks to Lee or Cyril Wecht they will tell you there is no evidence of a brain sectioning. But the Review Board did an inquiry into this subject, and Jeremy Gunn and Doug Horne came up with some evidence that such an examination may have been done. Under the scope of this particular review, this is not the place to do an expansive analysis of their evidence. Suffice it to say I found Thompson’s excuse for this lack rather strained: the doctors did not have the time to do so such a thing. (Thompson, p. 259) Yet in the Commission’s volumes there is a brain examination, dated 12/6/63. (CE 391) And there is no mention of sectioning; two weeks was not long enough? Yet without sectioning, how can one determine the bullets’ paths? On this matter, Lee was quite animated. He put his right hand up in front of his face and said words to the effect: You have this bullet coming in at a right to left angle: it then reverses itself and goes left to right? The lack of dissection in this instance is even more perplexing because the head wounding was how Kennedy was killed. And this is why Lee’s hand was piercing the air in bewilderment.


    III

    Thompson wrote something later that stunned me. On page 258 he says that the first time the autopsy doctors learned of a tracheostomy over the anterior neck wound was when they read about it in the next day’s newspapers. That passage is undermined by Nurse Audrey Bell’s 1997 testimony to the Review Board. Bell told them that Dr. Malcolm Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23rd) that he had been virtually sleepless, “because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance.” (See DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68; also this discussion)

    In a very late discovery by writer Rob Couteau, Bell’s testimony was both certified and expanded. In the days following the assassination, many reporters were milling around Dallas, and some found their way to Malcolm Perry’s home, for the reason that he and Dr. Kemp Clark had held a press conference on the day of the assassination where Clark said there was a large, gaping wound in the back of Kennedy’s skull, and Perry said the anterior neck wound appeared to be one of entrance. One of the reporters who migrated to Perry’s home was from the New York Herald Tribune and his name was Martin Steadman. He asked Perry about this issue and Perry was frank. He affirmed that it was an entrance wound. But beyond that he said he was getting calls through the night from Bethesda. They wanted him to change his story. He said that the autopsy doctors questioned his judgment about this and they also threatened to call him before a medical board to take away his license. (See further “The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry”) To put It mildly, I disagree with Thompson’s next day thesis on this point.

    Another surprising aspect of this chapter is that Thompson agrees with the Ramsey Clark Panel. That panel’s findings were released on the eve of the Clay Shaw trial. They upheld the original autopsy’s conclusions about two shots from behind; but they made about four major changes that were rather bracing. One of them was that they raised the entrance wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull 10 mm upward, into the cowlick area. (Thompson, p. 248)

    The way Thompson mentions this in passing was, again, jarring to the reviewer, one reason being that, in all likelihood, it was Six Seconds in Dallas which caused both the Clark Panel to be formed and the rear skull wound to be raised to the cowlick area. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, p. 150). As Russell Fisher, the panel’s chief pathologist later said, Attorney General Ramsey Clark got hold of an advance copy of Six Seconds in Dallas. On page 111 of that book, Thompson shows that Kennedy’s head––as depicted in the Warren Commission to illustrate the fatal wound––is not in the correct posture as shown in Zapruder frame 312. The Commission had the film; therefore, all the indications are that they fibbed about this key point.

    How did the Clark panel elevate that wound into the cowlick area? Since Thompson does not show the anterior/posterior X-ray, the reader is in the dark about this point. The answer is they largely based it on a disk-shaped white object in the rear of the skull that stands out plain as day on the X-ray. The problem with this piece of evidence is that none of the autopsy doctors, or the two FBI agents in attendance, saw it on the X-rays in the morgue the night of the autopsy; and it is not in the 1963 autopsy report. All of which is incredible, for two reasons. First, it is by far the largest fragment visible; and second, its dimensions of 6.5 mm precisely fit the caliber of ammunition Oswald was allegedly firing. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, pp. 153-54)

    I could go on from there, but I won’t. As the reader can see, I did not find this chapter at all satisfactory.


    IV

    One of the key points Thompson wants to make in this book is something he has been talking about for a rather long time. It is the work of Dave Wimp on what the author calls “the blur illusion.” In fact, Thompson calls Chapter 14, “Breaking the Impasse: The Blur Illusion.” Since I took Thompson at his word about this, several years ago, at a JFK Lancer conference, I mentioned Wimp and his work. I said the forward bob by Kennedy preceding the rearward head snap did not really exist. Almost immediately after I finished my address, first Art Snyder and then John Costella disagreed with me. Snyder disagreed with me on the mathematical analysis Wimp had done. Costella disagreed on whether or not this was really an illusion. In other words: did Kennedy’s head really bob forward before jetting backward? The two disagreements gave me pause. Why? Because both men are physicists.

    Back in the sixties, Thompson first learned of this forward bob between Zapruder frames 312-313 from one of the earliest students of the film, Ray Marcus. (See page 112 of Six Seconds in Dallas, footnote 2) The author and Vince Salandria then studied this in combination with the more dramatic and lengthier rearward slam at the Archives. (Six Seconds, pp. 86-87) The issue is one of the most interesting aspects of Thompson’s first book. He goes through a few explanations of how this could have occurred. He then decides on a term that became rather famous in the critical community––the “double hit” or “double impact.” (pp. 94-95) In other words, two projectiles hit Kennedy’s skull almost instantaneously: one from behind and one from the front. The first moved him forward, the second rocked him backward. He then adds that S. M. Holland had told him the third and fourth shots sounded like they were fired almost simultaneously. He backs this up with other witnesses who heard the same thing. Thus the double impact was credible.

    Why did Thompson change his tune on this point? There seem to be three reasons for this. The first is that he felt his first thesis allowed for too precise a synchronization of the shots. No firing team could be that well trained. The second and third are complementary: Dave Wimp’s work coincided with his gravitation towards the acoustics evidence.

    Since Thompson decided to go with the acoustics, he had to dump the “double hit” he wrote about in his earlier book, because the acoustics evidence allows for only one shot from the front at Zapruder frame 312. The following shot comes from behind at Zapruder frame 328. Dave Wimp aided this new scenario by somehow making the forward bob disappear, being dismissed as an illusion.

    But if such was the case, then why did the two physicists disagree with my statement about the Wimp thesis? Snyder objected to it on mathematical grounds. He did not think that Wimp’s work had absolutely proved his thesis. He told me that there was about a 20% chance Wimp was wrong. Snyder turned out to be correct, because in a reply to Nick Nalli’s review of Last Second in Dallas, Wimp admitted his calculations were not correct. He wrote:

    That I have a blur illusion hypothesis is the result mostly of people failing to distinguish between what people are saying and what people are saying people are saying, which seems to be a pervasive problem. The issue is not about illusions but rather about bad methodology.

    Today, Wimp now seems to admit that Kennedy’s head did go forward by about an inch. Evidently, Thompson oversold this idea to at least one person: me. And since he still insists on it in his book, perhaps others.

    Costella explained why Wimp made an error in a more practical, applicable sense:

    Wimp has always made a valid observation about trying to measure the position of a single (rising or falling) edge, in the presence of blur. That is fraught, especially in the presence of unavoidable nonlinearities. What he never seems to have considered, as far as I can tell, is that if you have two opposite edges (rising then falling, or vice versa) of an object, then it is quite simple to align the center of mass of the object between any two frames, even if the edges are blurred. You can do this even if the two frames are blurred differently––that’s effectively what all stabilized versions of the film do (including his own!). It’s even simpler if you either deblur the blurred 313 to match 312 (like I did back in the day, per my animation on my website), or else blur 312 to match 313 …. What I never did is put an exact number of inches on the forward head movement. I have no idea if his smaller number is accurate or not, because I didn’t quantify. What is certain, just from the visuals, is that the head moves forward in the extant Z film. (Email of 6/15/21)

    How proficient is Costella in his study of the film? After he approached me at JFK Lancer, he took out his cell phone and showed me how he had deblurred Zapruder and the forward head bob was still there. Yes, John is a man who carries his work with him.

    G. Paul Chambers, another physicist, probably has the most sensible explanation for this aspect of the case. He has told Gary Aguilar that what likely happened is that the first shot through Kennedy’s back likely paralyzed him. When the car began to brake, his limp body then went forward. (Phone call with Gary Aguilar, 7/18/21)


    V

    “Jim, there is no motorcycle where the HSCA says there is.”

    The above quotation is taken from a phone conversation in 1994 between this reviewer and the late Dick Sprague. I chose to lead this part of my review with it because, as with the head bob, I once believed in the acoustics evidence. So when the famous photo analyst Dick Sprague said the above to me, I was surprised.

    Let me explain why I had that reaction. When I visited the now deceased HSCA attorney Al Lewis at his office in Lancaster Pennsylvania, he told me about something his former boss had done in the early days of that congressional committee. Chief Counsel Richard A. Sprague had arranged a day-long study of the photographic evidence in the JFK case. There were three presenters on hand: Bob Cutler, Robert Groden, and Dick Sprague. They went in that order. Before Cutler began, the chief counsel turned to those in attendance and said, “I don’t want anyone to leave unless I leave, and I don’t plan on leaving.” As Lewis related to me, Cutler’s presentation was about 35 minutes. Groden’s was over 90 minutes, close to two hours. Dick Sprague’s went on for four hours. By the end of Sprague’s demonstration, 12 of the 13 staff lawyers believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy. (James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations, p. 57)

    Such was the photographic mastery of Dick Sprague. At that time, no one had a more expansive collection of films and photos than he did. In that phone call, he told me that Robert Blakey, the second chief counsel, only called him once. It was to ask him if there was a motorcycle where the acoustics experts said there had to be one. Dick spent a lot of time going through his massive collection. He eventually replied that no, there was not. It was Groden who said that there was.

    To this day this issue has not been settled to any adequate degree. And there is simply no papering it over. Because the motorcycle has to be at a precise point near the intersection of Houston and Elm for the acoustics evidence to be genuine. Modern experts on the motorcade, like Mark Tyler, insist that Sprague was correct. And Mark argues that point effectively at the Education Forum. (See his post of June 9th) What I found severely disappointing about Thompson’s book is this: he barely deals with the issue at all. This is what he says about the highly controversial but crucial point: he writes that he and author Don Thomas found the correct motorcycle in the films of Gary Mack. Afterwards, they had a few beers and called it a night. (p. 304)

    I could hardly believe what I was reading. I actually wrote “WTF” in the margin of my notes. Somehow, this trio, not experts on the photo evidence, easily accomplished something that Dick Sprague––who was the leading authority in the field––could not do? The cavalier way Thompson deals with this important point––throwing in the phrase “having a few beers and calling it a night”––underscores just how unconvincing his treatment of it is. If it was this easy to locate and demonstrate, then why is there no picture of the proper motorcycle in proper context to accompany the “few beers and calling it a night”––straight out of Sam and Diane at Cheers––motif? I was so puzzled by this carelessness, leaning toward avoidance, that I went back and read up on the acoustics evidence.

    These sound recordings first entered the legal case during the days of the HSCA. They were offered up by Texas researchers Gary Mack and Mary Ferrell. Thompson does a good job in explaining the rather primitive technology which the Dallas police used in these recordings. There were two channels being recorded that day, simply labeled Channel 1 and Channel 2. The latter used a Gray Audograph powered by a worm gear which drives a needle into a vinyl disk. (Thompson, pp. 304-06). Channel 1 “was done by a Dictaphone that used a stylus inscribing a groove onto a blue plastic belt called a Dictabelt mounted on a rotating cylinder.” (Thompson, p. 148). Channel 1 was used for basic police operations. Channel 2 was for special events, like Kennedy’s motorcade. Back at headquarters, the dispatcher would announce each minute that passed, and each time the dispatcher spoke to a unit he would announce the time. (p. 149)

    The HSCA did two tests of the acoustics. The first was by a company called Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. The main scientist on this was James Barger, who supervised a reconstruction test in Dealey Plaza. After doing this, Barger said that there was about a 50% chance of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. The HSCA then gave those results to another team of acoustic experts: Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy . After examining this data they decided there was a much higher probability, 95%. The HSCA announced this in their final days.

    Because he is wedded to this evidence for the finale of his book, Thompson has nothing but scorn for what is today called the Ramsey Panel. The Department of Justice asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the work of the HSCA. They set up a committee named after Harvard physicist Norman Ramsey. Alvarez ended up serving on this committee. Alvarez told Barger that no matter what he said he would vote against him. (Thompson, p. 287) The panel was biased from the start and the author does a good job proving that point. For Thompson, this is why they ended up rejecting the HSCA result.

    But I want to note two things about the closing 80 or so pages of Last Second in Dallas and how an author making himself a character in his book is a double-edged sword. Thompson mentions a 2013 debate he did for CNN moderated by Erin Burnett; his opponent was Nick Ragone. (p. 276) If one can comprehend it, Ragone brought up Gerald Posner’s discredited book Case Closed. Thompson says he did not do well since he did not have any new evidence to reply with. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but if I had been there, I would have had a lot of new evidence to throw back. This is how I would have replied:

    Nick, that book came out in 1993. Which was one year before the ARRB was set up. They declassified 2 million pages of documents. Have you read them? I read a lot of them, and here is what they said.

    When asked the old chestnut, “Well why didn’t someone squeal?”, Thompson could have mentioned Larry Hancock’s book Someone Would Have Talked. He then could have said: “Larry shows that two people did talk, Richard Case Nagell and John Martino. If you don’t know about them, that is a failure of the MSM.” As a point of comparison, when Oliver Stone and I did an interview this past June with Fox, I brought about eight of these new ARRB documents with me. Fox filmed me showing them while I described what they said. They then had me send them in email form. Whether or not they will exhibit them on the show, I don’t know. But I had enough rocks in hand to play David with his slingshot.


    VI

    But the reason I think Thompson plays up the CNN experience is that he wants to show that if the acoustics evidence had been reexamined, he could have mentioned that. As noted, Thompson harshly critiques the Ramsey Panel, and much of this is warranted. But he only briefly mentions how the Weiss/Aschkenasy ––hereafter called WA––verdict was rather hastily granted a stamp of approval by the HSCA.

    What makes this kind of odd is that the author mentions Michael O’Dell more than once in the book. But he does not go into O’Dell’s rather bracing criticism of WA. O’Dell is a computer scientist and systems analyst. O’Dell wrote that the WA conclusion was based upon a motorcycle rider having his Channel 1 microphone button stuck open for a continuous five minute period. This was thought to be H. B. McLain, who first said it was and then said it was not him. What O’Dell was trying to do was to replicate what WA had done, except with much more powerful computer tools, not available back then. He wrote a report called “Replication of the HSCA Weiss and Aschkenasy Acoustic Analysis.” In his report, he found that:

    Numerous errors have been found with the data provided in the report, including basic errors involved in the measurement of delay times, waveform peaks and object position. Some of the errors are necessary to the finding of an echo correlation to the suspect Dictabelt pattern. The Weiss and Aschkenasy report does not stand up to even limited scrutiny, and the results it contains cannot be reproduced. (p. 2)

    O’Dell revealed that WA had relied on a millimeter ruler and string to map out their bullet paths on a map of Dealey Plaza. O’Dell used Adobe Photoshop to scan the same map as WA and transferred the measurements into pixels after lining them up in Excel. He found multiple critical errors in WA’s work, including those of distance measurement of buildings from other objects like the stockade fence. (See p. 3) O’Dell wrote that the microphone was positioned in the wrong place by WA. (p. 9) There were errors in the original paperwork independent of a transfer to a virtual model. For the buildings list in Dealey Plaza, items 16 and 20 were described as the same object. (p. 4) He also found out that one of the bullet paths was supposed to rebound off of object 23, yet there were only 22 structures WA had listed. (p. 5). There were objects listed in the WA table that O’Dell could not find on the map. (p. 8) But perhaps the most bracing criticism O’Dell made was that

    … the values presented in Table 4 for the Dictabelt pattern do not appear to be valid measurements of the peaks in the recording. A test that supposedly identifies a gunshot on the Dictabelt recording must, at a minimum, correctly measure the sound being tested on the Dictabelt. (p. 11)

    I could go on. But before anyone comes back at me by saying, “Why would you use something like this after what Dale Myers did with his phony cartoon based on the Zapruder film?” After all, Jim, Myers went on ABC TV and said the single bullet theory was really the single bullet fact. All I can do is reply with the following. I used O’Dell because Thompson used him. In communicating with the man I found out that Thompson had signed him to a non-disclosure agreement about his book. It ended when the work was published.

    Another series of problems with this evidence was written about by Charles Olsen and Lee Ann Maryeski in June of 2014 for Sonalysts, Inc. out of Waterford, Connecticut. They stated that although McLain had claimed he had opened up his cycle to a continuous high speed after the shooting, that is not what they determined by placing the sound on a graph: “What Figure 1 shows is a motorcycle that variously speeds up and slows down and idles during this latter period.” (6/6/2014, Olsen and Maryeski, pp. 3-4)

    Let me add one other comment. As both O’Dell, and especially Dave Mantik have pointed out, one of the virtues attributed to this evidence is the so called “order in the data.” Or as Don Thomas puts it in his book, the best test matches correspond to a topographic order in Dealey Plaza and with the dictabelt. (Hear No Evil, p. 583) But as Mantik informed me, if one looks at Thompson’s own table, if the HSCA had chosen the bullet sound at the 144.90 point in the tape, they would have had two matches to the School Book Depository that very closely matched the one to the knoll area. (Thompson, p. 155) The same thing occurred at 137.70; the TSBD could have been chosen over the knoll. (interview with Mantik, 6/26/21)

    In addition to all the above, Thompson essentially brushes over the issue of heterodyne tones. (p. 296) This is an important point that the Sonalyst report examined. It’s important because it can result in words being scrambled in pronunciation as one listens to them. Meaning that they can sound like one phrase to one person and another phrase to someone else. And this has happened. (Olsen and Maryeski, p. 9)

    Even his heralded discovery, that voices saying “Hold everything” and “I’ll check it,” occur around the assassination is odd. First, the object is to show whether or not the bullet echo correlation is real, not the voices. Also, to get a more distinct peak for “I’ll check it,” Richard Mullen, Barger’s protégé, used a narrower sampling PCC (Pattern cross correlation) window of 64. Therefore Thompson concludes this is what should have been used from the start. Yet for “Hold everything,” a wider sampling window of 512 yielded a larger net peak than did a smaller sampling window of 64. Thompson offers no explanation for this seeming paradox. (See Figures 22-6 and 22-7; 6/26/21 interview with Mantik)

    If the “Hold everything secure” phrase is at the time of the assassination, then the acoustics is invalid, since this is spoken after the assassination. “I’ll check it” would be around the time of the shots. So the two phrases are in conflict if both were valid. The first phrase is at the wrong time, the latter one is at the right time. So Thompson argues that the “Hold” phrase has been altered and is really an overdub. (Thompson, pp. 345-47)

    This has also been placed in doubt by O’Dell. (See Dictabelt Hums and the “hold everything secure” Crosstalk) The “Check” phrase, as has been argued by many, is not really crosstalk at all. The same sound does not appear on both channels. (Email communication with O’Dell, 7/25/21). And further, Sonalysts showed that the spectrograms of the phrase differ on Channel 1 and 2. (Olsen and Maryeski, p. 6)

    I could go on. But I think the point has been made. There are simply too many uncertain variables with the acoustics evidence to rely on it as having a 95% probability. Much of this is due to the innate poor quality of the recordings themselves.

    When we were making JFK Revisited, producer Rob Wilson asked me to incorporate a section on the acoustics evidence. I recommended against it. I simply noted that with all the above problems with that evidence we would be making ourselves into a bull’s eye on a target range; a whole gallery of persons would take out their bows and arrows and start unloading their quivers on us.

    As I said in Part 1, there are good things in Last Second in Dallas. And as a responsible critic I have described them. In my opinion, they are important and valuable and have stood the test of time. But it is also my opinion that there are a lot of things which seem to me to be liabilities, including what the author thinks is the culminating arc of his book––and I have described those deficits also. This is why Last Second in Dallas is a decidedly mixed bag.


    Return to Part 1

  • The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry

    The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry


    On the afternoon of the JFK assassination, within an hour or two after his death, there was a press conference at Parkland Hospital. Three important pronouncements were made. In fact, they were so important that they should have shaped the case in a permanent manner.

    First, acting press secretary Malcolm Kilduff talked about how Kennedy had died.

    Malcolm Kilduff at Parkland press briefing

    When he did so, he pointed to his right temple and said something like: it was a matter of a bullet through the head. Very shortly after, Chet Huntley said the same thing live on NBC television. On the air, he revealed his source to be Dr. George Burkley, President Kennedy’s own personal physician.

    Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery—the man who actually pronounced Kennedy dead—said he observed a large gaping hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 80) Dr. Malcolm Perry, who cut a tracheostomy across the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck, said that the wound was one of entrance. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 367)

    Therefore, from these three pieces of evidence, one would have had to conclude that Kennedy was hit from the front. That implication would be almost inescapable. Therefore, some strange things happened with this key press conference. First of all, there is no film available of it today, which is remarkable in and of itself, because, as one can see from pictures and film snippets, there were many reporters in that conference room. It is very hard to comprehend how not one of them called for a film camera to cover the initial public pronouncement of President Kennedy’s death. Second, initially, the Secret Service told the Warren Commission that they did not even have a transcript of this conference. According to former Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) analyst Doug Horne, there are two real problems with the Secret Service saying this. First, according to Horne, the Secret Service went around collecting the films of this press conference. Thus making it disappear. (See Horne at Future of Freedom Foundation conference of May 18th. This is at the FFF web site.)

    But further, the Secret Service lied to the Commission about having the transcript. In responding to Commission counsel Arlen Specter’s request, Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley wrote a letter to chief counsel J. Lee Rankin. He said that he could not locate either the films or the transcript of this press conference. (DiEugenio, p. 367) As the ARRB proved, this was a lie, because they found a transcript of that press conference that was time stamped, “Received US Secret Service 1963 Nov. 26 AM 11:40”. (ibid) Does it get much worse than that? In other words, the Warren Commission’s own investigators were keeping important pieces of evidence from them—and then lying about it.

    As most of us know, Perry was pressured to alter his first day story. By the time of his appearance before the Commission, he now said that the edges of the wound were neither ragged nor clean and that the wound could have been an exit or entrance. Gerald Ford got him to say that the reporting from the press conference was inaccurate. Allen Dulles applied the icing on the cake: he said Perry should issue a retraction—which, of course, he just had. (DiEugenio, pp. 166–67)

    The reason Ford and Dulles could do this is because, in all probability, the Secret Service had absconded with the films and the transcript. But further, Perry had been worked on. As the Church Committee had discovered, a man named Elmer Moore had taken it upon himself to convert Perry to the Commission’s point of view. Moore was a Secret Service agent who was forwarded to work for the Commission. One of his first assignments was to take up a desk at Parkland Hospital and convince the doctors there that they were wrong and the autopsy report was correct. One of his priority targets was Perry. (DiEugenio, p. 167)

    As Pat Speer later discovered, this story about Moore gets even worse. After he performed his assignment in Dallas so effectively, he got a promotion to a longer term one. He became the aide de camp to Commission Chairman Earl Warren. (DiEugenio, p. 168)

    But it was not just Moore—and it was not just a couple of weeks later. As Horne stated during that FFF conference, Nurse Audrey Bell testified that Perry told her he was getting calls that evening directing him to alter his testimony.(DiEugenio, p. 169) This is now backed up by a startling piece of evidence surfaced by author Rob Couteau. Martin Steadman was a reporter at the time of the JFK assassination. Couteau discovered a journal entry by Martin that is online. Steadman was stationed in Dallas for several days after the assassination gathering information. Some of it got in print and some of it did not. From all indications, the following did not.

    One of the witnesses he spent some time with in Dallas was Malcolm Perry. Steadman was aware of what Perry had said at the press conference about the directionality of the neck wound. Steadman wrote that, about a week after the assassination, he and two other journalists were with Perry in his home. During this informal interview, Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean. He then added two important details. He said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. Further, hunting was a hobby of his, so he understood from that experience what the difference was. And he could detect it at a glance.

    Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night, he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license.

    After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did.

    What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night.

    But things always get worse in the JFK case. And this issue does also, because, if the reader can comprehend it, that night was not the first time Perry was told to revise his story—or to just plain shut up. Bill Garnet and Jacque Lueth have written, produced, and directed a documentary called The Parkland Doctors. It was shown at the CAPA Houston mock trial a few years back, but only to those in attendance, not to the viewing audience. Robert Tanenbaum is the host of the documentary. He let me see it at his home two years ago. It is a good and valuable film, since it features seven of the surviving doctors at that time, 2018.

    Towards the end of the program, Dr. Robert McClelland made a bracing comment about Perry. He said that as Perry was walking out of the afternoon press conference, a man in a suit and tie grabbed him by the arm. After he got his attention, he forcefully said to Malcolm, “Don’t you ever say that again!” I turned to Tanenbaum and said: “This is about ninety minutes after Kennedy was pronounced dead.” Tanenbaum said, “Jim, they knew within the hour.” At the very least, someone knew that there had to be a cover story snapped on.

    Malcolm Perry was a victim of a large-scale crime. The evidence above indicates that the cover up was planned with the conspiracy. I would love to know who that well-dressed man who accosted him was.

    One last point. When Elmer Moore was asked to appear before the Church Committee, he brought a lawyer with him. (DiEugenio, p. 168)

  • Bending the Story on a Bent Bullet

    Bending the Story on a Bent Bullet


    In October of 2017, I posted this story on WhoWhatWhy, “Navy Doctor: Bullet Found in JFK’s Limousine, and Never Reported.”

    If you’re familiar with the medical evidence in the matter of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, you may know that, during the president’s autopsy, skull fragments found in the limousine and street were brought to the autopsy table. What you may not know is that something else was allegedly found in the limousine and brought up with the skull fragments—but not reported.

    Decades later, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, came upon obscure documents concerning this important piece of evidence.

    According to Navy doctor James Young, a bullet was included in an envelope with the bone fragments and he had a chance to inspect it before passing it on to the pathologists. He wasn’t sure if it was made of copper or brass, but here’s what he said about its shape:

    “…it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent…”

    For more details on Young’s account, please scroll down to Appendix A.

    Recently, the very existence of that bullet has been challenged. This report is strictly in response to that specific challenge.

    It appears in one segment—point 4—of a much longer article, “Summary of Robertson’s Salient Mistakes” by Gary Aguilar, MD, Douglas DeSalles, MD, and Bill Simpich, JD.

    In Point 4, the authors focus on discrediting two people: James Young, the Navy doctor who said he saw the bullet, and Randy Robertson, who believed him.

    Issue 1

    The authors say, “Dr. Young used the term ‘slug’ to describe it and it is on this term that Robertson builds his case that a ‘whole bullet’ was found in the limousine.”

    It seems far more likely that Robertson saw the “slug” as a whole bullet simply because of Young’s description of it—which the authors do not include in their paper.  

    Young used the term “Bullet” with greater frequency than the word “slug.” He said “bullet,” about six times in the Oral History interview and three times in his letter to Gerald Ford.

    They reinforce this false premise: “After doing the Oral History interview, Young wrote to President Gerald Ford asking Ford if he knew anything about the ‘brass slug’ Chiefs Mills and Martinelli [sic] had found in the limo. Ford replied, ‘No, he didn’t know anything about it, had not heard anything about it ever.’”

    It appears that Aguilar et al. did not read much of the material, not even the short bits. “Bullet” is hard to miss in this correspondence. From Young to Ford:

    Two of the corpsmen left and returned sometime later with three varying sized pieces of President Kennedy’s skill bones. In addition, they brought back in an envelope a spent misshapen bullet which they had found on the back floor of the “Queen Mary” where they had found the pieces of skull bones. The bullet and pieces of skull were given to Dr. Jim Humes.

    I have never seen anything written about that spent bullet in the Warren Report or elsewhere. Do you recall any testimony or comments which would clarify my concerns?

    From Ford to Young:

    As a member of the Warren Commission I was very conscientious about my participation in the hearings. However, I have no recollection of “the spent bullet” you refer to.

    Young also said that he would ask Arlen Specter to “look into what happened to that bullet.” 

    The above makes it clear that Young frequently referred to a “bullet,” and much less frequently, called it a “slug.” So, why fault Randy Robertson for assuming Young was talking about a bullet when that is exactly what he called it?

    More important, whatever shape the bullet was in, it was an important piece of evidence that went unreported.

    Issue 2

    The authors assert that Young confused the little fragment (CE 569) shown below with a whole bullet:

    No ‘non-fragmented bullet with a bent tip’ ever existed. Robertson made up its existence out of an ambiguity in Young’s use of the term ‘slug.’ No ‘complete bullet’ was ever found in the limousine. Dr. Young was referring to Q3, later designated C3, and even later designated CE 569.


    How could Young have been referring to that little fragment—the base of a bullet, not the tip—when he never even saw it? He did not go down to the garage with the petty officers. Nor did those officers bring it back to the autopsy. Those fragments were turned over immediately to the FBI. And that fragment (CE 569) does not remotely resemble what Young described.

    Dr. Aguilar’s argument has all the credibility of what a man told the judge when he was being tried for shooting his mink-encased mother-in-law in the family garage. He said, “Your honor, I thought it was a raccoon!”

    Issue 3

    Aguilar et al. present a “foundational document” on the fragments discovered in the car, a document that does not mention a whole bullet—so we are to believe the bullet never existed:

    This is all Robertson says about Dr. Young and the ‘bent brass slug’ that Chief Mills or Marinelli [sic] found on the floor of the Presidential limousine. This is odd since one of the most foundational documents in the case—Commission Document 80, a 15-page document including photos and another SS Report—tells in granular detail how the various fragments were discovered on the evening of November 22nd.

    We in the research community have seen many documents that are false, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise not reliable.

    A passage in this “foundational” document contains intriguing information that may explain how the bullet, or whatever Young was talking about, could have been picked up by Martinell and carried—but unseen—because it was submerged in brain. (And this might explain why FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier never saw it.) (See Appendix B for a longer quote from the “foundational” document, CD 80.)

    They then recovered a three-inch triangular section of skull. Martinell also recovered what was apparently a quantity of brain tissue from the back seat of the car.

    Question 1: Could that “quantity of brain tissue” have embedded the bullet, or whatever Young called a bullet, so that it was—at the time—out of sight?

    Question 2: Whether it contained any metal or not, why didn’t Humes report that “quantity of brain tissue” when he reported the bone fragments? After all, it’s evidence. There should be a description of it, and whether it was searched for bullet fragments. (Humes reported plenty of trivia, so why not this?) Could that brain tissue have been cerebellum?

    But then Humes was quite deceitful when it came to reporting things directly related to the wounds. For instance, incredibly, he never even mentioned the gross condition of the cerebellum in the autopsy report or his testimony. Not one word on how much of it was left. We only have Parkland Hospital’s descriptions of the organ (very damaged, half of it missing…) This was one of the most talked about pieces of gore in all the literature on the head wound. I seem to be the only one concerned with this omission. (Click here for details)

    A related mystery: Clint Hill and others have said that hair was attached to the large bone fragment. That hair should have been documented, combed for bullet fragments—and used to help identify where the bone fragment came from. His hair was longish on top, but considerably shorter in back. What happened to it? 

    Question 3: Why didn’t Aguilar et al. mention this “quantity of brain” picked up by the petty officer along with the skull fragments—and not reported? It is clearly relevant.

    And here’s a discrepancy that may have a mundane explanation, but should be noted:

    Aguilar et al. said, “This ‘whole bullet’ is never mentioned in the notes FBI Agent Robert Frazier kept during his forensic examination of the limousine at the Secret Service garage between 2:00 AM and 4:30 AM on the morning of November 23rd.”

    But, according to the “foundational document,” the petty officers who picked up the bone fragments and Secret Service agents arrived much earlier—at 10:00 PM. 

    [Re the question about why the bullet was not mentioned by Frazier, the above may explain it. Or not.]

    Issue 4

    The authors try to close the case and snuff out Dr. Young’s contribution:

    Now with the whole story of what happened in the White House garage fully described in various reports, whatever Dr. Young thought he was seeing is rendered irrelevant. We know what happened. It was not just Martinelli [sic] and Mills who searched the limousine…

    “Rendered irrelevant?” Not so fast.

    “We know what happened.” Aguilar doesn’t seem aware of the simplest, most basic, most relevant facts upon which to base his theory—that Young confused the little fragment found in the front of the car with the less damaged bullet Young says was found in the back of the car and brought to the autopsy table along with the skull fragments.

    The Basic facts need repeating:

    • Young never even saw that little fragment. He stayed in the autopsy room and never went down to the garage where the limousine was, and where the front seat fragments were found. Petty officers were sent.
    • The front seat fragments were turned over to the FBI and whisked away. (Commission Exhibits 567 and 569)
    • The front seat fragments were NOT brought back to the autopsy table.
    • So how could James Young have confused a spent bullet (or any form of a bullet) with CE 569 which is the hollow base of a bullet—with no tip, bent or otherwise?

    When it comes to this case, it’s hard to know what to believe. But sometimes we know what not to believe. Considering all the deception we have seen, all the lies by major players about major issues, the planting of evidence, the destruction of evidence—why is it so hard to believe James Young?

    Aguilar et al. seem to believe official stories:

    The other bullet fragment found in the front seat area is shown in figure 31. The simplest explanation is clearly that CE 567 dropped down into the front seat area after striking the windshield at 328/329. CE 569 likewise dropped into the front seat area at 328/329 after striking the rear-facing chrome strip shown in Figure 30.

    As the authors know very well, the “stretcher bullet” was planted. Yet they trust the government version on the front seat fragments. While I have no reason to doubt that claim—I have no reason to believe it either.

    And I keep remembering something Roy Kellerman said. He’s the Secret Service agent who sat in the front passenger seat of JFK’s limousine, the place where the fragments were found. From his interview with the HSCA:

    Kellerman recalled that when he was in the car just moments after the shots he observed “a splattering of metal around me.” And he said there had to be “four or five metal fragments in the car.”

    Four or five? Had to be? But only two were reported. (I’m assuming he was not referring to tiny lead particles. Those were probably too numerous to count.) This could have an innocent explanation, but not necessarily.

    And then there’s the odd story of the undertaker who said a federal agent had shown him a glass vial filled with fragments taken from Kennedy’s head – 10 fragments. Yet, the lead pathologist said he only removed two fragments. (ARRB MD 180, p.3) (Someone else made a similar claim, but I can’t remember who.)

    In most of these cases of gross discrepancies, it’s impossible to find hard proof of who is right. But there is one thing you can prove: when a person makes a false claim about what is, or is not, in a particular document. Whether the false claim is a lie, or a mistake, is a matter of judgment.

    Personal Note

    I know all three of the authors (Aguilar, DeSalles, and Simpich) quoted above and suspect the ideas expressed in Point (4) of the larger paper are mostly those of Dr. Aguilar, whose work was trusted by the other two, but that’s just my theory. And I believe they dashed out that article too quickly, in defense of a comrade, Josiah Thompson, whose book Randy Robertson has harshly criticized. I can sympathize with this impulse. The problem is—they did it at the expense of James Young, who seems to have done nothing to deserve such disrespect. And if they succeed in snuffing out all references to this unprovable, but still interesting bit of evidence, then they also did it at the expense of future research.

    Addendum

    One theory about what happened to the bullet James Young said he saw:
    A family member of the late George Burkley, Kennedy’s personal physician, reportedly told researcher John Titus that “something relating to the assassination—something very important—was stolen from Dr. Burkley as he traveled between airports on his way to Denver.”

    Click here to read Titus’s story about what happened when he reported this to former Warren Commissioner David Slawson. And click here for more.

    Appendix A

    James Young, MD, one of Kennedy’s personal physicians who attended the autopsy, believes he witnessed something strange that was never reported anywhere, apparently.

    Soon after the autopsy, he wrote a memoir about what he saw for his children. He revisited that memoir in 2001 during an interview with the US Navy Medical Department Oral History Program.

    The lead pathologist, James Humes, MD, said bones were missing from JFK’s head, and asked two petty officers (Chiefs Thomas Mills and William Martinell) to retrieve any bone fragments left in the president’s car. (p. 53)

    They came back with an envelope that contained three pieces of skull as well as a “brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted.” Later in the interview he said:

    I came across this issue of the bullet [while looking at the memoir]…

    They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided about ever, apparently…I went through the entire Warren Commission book…I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.

    Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went…got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat, brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time…

    […]

    So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

    No, it was a brass jacket…I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent…and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, ‘Yes I do’ and he said, ‘You’re exactly right.’ He said, ‘We did bring that slug out from the back…’

    The last time Young tried to talk to Mills, Mills said he didn’t want to talk about it. He’s not the only one.

    Appendix B

    From Aguilar et al.’s paper: On the Mary Ferrell site it is described as “Commission Document 80 – Secret Service Report of 06 Jan. 1964 re: Presidential car.” Below is a photocopy of a paragraph from page 2 of the Report:


  • Forensics Journal Unintentionally Proves Conspiracy in Cover-Up of JFK Assassination

    Forensics Journal Unintentionally Proves Conspiracy in Cover-Up of JFK Assassination


    Lucien C. Haag, BS, describes himself as a “former criminalist and technical director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory, with nearly 50 years of experience in the field of criminalistics and forensic firearm examinations; president, Forensic Science Services Inc.” And he was an “expert witness” in the November 2017 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, hosted by South Texas College of Law.

    In the December 2019 issue of the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Haag demonstrates this “expertise” with his article, The Unique and Misunderstood Wound Ballistics in the John F. Kennedy Assassination.

    When it comes to this case, his expertise seems to be in the specialty of propaganda.

    His article demonstrates scholarship below the level of a junior high school term paper. The title, like the rest of his story, is misleading. The wounds were not unique, and would have been understood had they been properly explored, and truthfully explained in previous investigations. But Haag is correct when he says the evidence is misrepresented — and he himself grossly misrepresents the evidence in crude attempts to perpetuate the government-approved narrative. His techniques include the following:

    • Presents highly misleading and sometimes outright false information to support the Warren Commission.
    • Omits documented key facts that contradict it.
    • Provides almost no references to primary sources. Instead, he uses mostly his own articles as references. In other words, his “proof” of a particular statement is … that he said it before.
    • Litters the discussion with an obstacle course of “alternate facts” and distracting irrelevancies.

    Haag focusses on promoting a slightly tarted-up version of the single bullet theory: a bullet entered high in the base of JFK’s neck, exited his throat — traveling around 1800 fps (feet per second) — struck Governor John Connally while “yawing” (tumbling), perforated his torso, then wrist, and finally created a puncture wound in his thigh.


    Bullet Probably Not Yawing

    Haag’s main “proof” the bullet first went through Kennedy is the 15 mm elliptical wound in Connally’s back.

    Haag claims its size and shape prove the bullet struck Connally while turned somewhat sideways, that is, yawing (tumbling) — presumably a result of having first gone through JFK.

    Haag does not tell you that the wound in the back of Kennedy’s skull was also 15 mm long. No one claims that bullet had been yawing.

    Obviously there are two possible explanations for an ovoid or elliptical wound:

    The bullet strikes while turned sideways.

    The bullet strikes nose-on — but at a slant, and the nose travels a bit on the surface before entering the body. This is a tangential hit.

    Had the Connally hit been a tangential one, would the bullet have made a fairly straight path through his torso? Is this why Haag created this picture of a confused bullet tumbling around inside the governor?

    There is an additional, critically important fact to understand, which is either not understood or deliberately dismissed by conspiracy advocates who draw straight wound paths through Governor Connally’s torso … A yawing, tumbling, destabilized bullet entering the Governor’s body is not at all likely to follow a straight path through his body. Because Governor Connally lived, we do not have the benefit of an autopsy report and autopsy photographs through which the actual wound path might be ascertained

    Then why not report what Connally’s thoracic surgeon said about it?

    Robert Shaw, MD testified to seeing indications of a straight path though the torso. Among his observations: the bullet created a small “tunneling wound … The bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential way.” And it “followed the line of declination of the fifth rib.” Even more revealing was “the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.” Apparently not the behavior of a tumbling bullet.

    And watch how Haag tries to trick you into thinking the FBI said the bullet was tumbling:

    The yawed entry of a de stabilized bullet was confirmed by FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier upon an examination of the governor’s suit coat, which also showed an elliptical entry hole approximately 5/8 of an inch in length.

    In fact, the FBI couldn’t even swear the hole was caused by a bullet, let alone whether it was destabilized. Here’s what Frazier actually said:

    On the hole on the back of the coat although it had the general appearance and could have been a bullet hole, possibly because of the cleaning and pressing of the garment, I cannot state that it actually is a bullet hole nor the direction of the path of the bullet, if it were a bullet hole.

    No wonder Haag gives no references to primary source materials.

    (Nor does he mention that Frederick W Light, Jr, MD, Former Chief Wound Assessment Branch, Edgewood Arsenal, testified to the Warren Commission that he was not convinced Connally was struck by a yawing bullet.)


    JFK’s Throat Wound

    Haag mentions the well-publicized smallness and roundness of JFK’s throat wound, but says nothing about its lesser known but more compelling features. Malcolm Perry, MD who performed the tracheotomy said it was approximately 5 mm (originally he said 3-5mm, later he seemed to have been persuaded to say it was a bit larger), punctate, had clean edges, not punched out (i.e. not everted) and, more important, something considered by many to be definitive of an entrance — it had a contusion ring. And figures for its small size included this bruising. (Charles Baxter, MD who assisted Perry, supported this observation.) To see more on contusion rings, please go here; and to see my own work on the throat wound, go here.

    No one can say for sure whether the wound was an exit, but I cannot find any record of an exit wound associated with such bruising. And the back wound was never proven to connect with the throat wound. It was never dissected, and could not be probed with a finger. And, while viewing the open chest from the front, an autopsy technician said there was no entrance into the chest cavity from behind, and the bullet seemed to have stopped at the apex of the right lung.

    Haag tries to sell the wound as an exit:

    There is a common expectation that exit wounds from high-velocity rifle bullets will be larger than the entrance wound … The 6.5-mm Carcano bullet is not at all likely to behave this way. As will be shown, it is extremely stable as it penetrates soft tissue, resulting in exit wounds that are little different, to no different in dimensions, from entry wounds. This was, in fact, the case insofar as President Kennedy’s first gunshot wound.

    Further below, I present reasons for why Haag’s research proves no such thing. But first you should take a look at this next specimen. But don’t step in it. Step around it:

    The Carcano bullet, and others like it, are essentially a cylinder with a blunt, hemispherical nose. In such bullets, the CG [center of gravity] and CP [center of pressure] nearly coincide so the distance between them is very small. Any destabilizing force applied to the blunt, rounded nose when such a bullet deviates slightly from its nose-forward penetration into soft tissue is quickly counteracted by a much greater correcting force aft of this bullet’s CG … many, many shots have been fired by this writer into blocks of ballistic soap, 10% ordnance gelatin, 20% ordnance …These bullets consistently remain nose-forward throughout their journey …

    The above may be true, but is a distraction from more relevant realities.


    Relation of Wound Size to Exiting Velocity

    The very small size of Kennedy’s throat wound suggested it was an entrance — but that’s not the biggest problem for the single bullet theory.

    Here’s the biggest problem: a bullet, especially a 6.5mm FMJ bullet, exiting at 1800 fps, or even 1600 fps, does not create a 5mm wound — even if it exits straight out, that is, nose-on, and not sideways.

    This was proven with experiments using steel spheres performed by Frederick W Light, Jr, MD, (mentioned above). Their shape eliminates such variables as bullet orientation (sideways vs nose-on) since the presented area of a sphere is always the same. Light said “the size of the wound at a given point in a given type of tissue depends basically on only two things: (1) the presented area of the missile at the point, and (2) velocity of the missile at the point.”

    But what sort of wound would be created by an undeformed FMJ from a centerfire rifle, exiting straight out, without tumbling, at a velocity of ~1800 fps?

    Larry Sturdivan, an Army wound expert consulted by the HSCA — and one of Haag’s sources — told me in an email that such a wound would be large with obvious lacerations radiating from the center (“stellate”). He described how these lacerations are formed:

    Poke a finger through something flexible, such as cloth or saran wrap, and you will first see a “tenting effect,” a cone, with the tip of your finger at the small end. Push forward and you tear a hole in the material, and the tear grows into a laceration as you perforate the material.

    Sturdivan said that Kennedy’s throat wound would have looked like a typical exit — i.e., much larger than 5mm, had it not been a “shored” wound.

    Haag does not mention this argument about a shored wound, but you should be aware of it, lest he try to use it in the future: Sturdivan and the late John Lattimer, another favorite source of Haag, have spread the false claim that JFK’s throat wound was kept small and prevented from being stretched outward, because it was buttressed, or “shored,” by the collar and necktie. To understand why this could not have happened in this case, please take a look at what happens when shoring occurs:

    Skin between the outgoing bullet and the buttressing material is crushed, and it becomes stuck to the material. When that material is pulled away, it creates a wide abrasion collar consisting of skin tags that resemble a peeling sunburn.

    More important — grossly visible skin is left behind on the material. (Am J Foren Med Path 1983; 4(3):199-204) The FBI closely inspected Kennedy’s shirt, inside and out, and did not report seeing any skin on it.

    Another thing. The wound was reported to have been “right above” any material that might have shored it.


    Haag’s Scam: Don’t Use Skin! Don’t Even Mention it!

    Haag assassinated many blocks of gelatin in his quest to prove that a Carcano bullet does not tumble when burrowing its way through 7 inches of the stuff. That is the assumed distance between the alleged high entrance in back to the throat. But it tumbles after it exits.

    Therefore, says he, the bullet would (1) create a small exit, and (2) then tumble its way to fulfilling its job as a magic bullet. And never mind the effect of velocity alone on the size of the wound. He won’t tell you about that, even if he knows.

    But here is yet another reason to doubt Haag’s conclusions: The behavior of skin. Entrance and exit wounds are in skin. And, according to one study, gelatin “does not replicate the significant resistance that human skin provides in preventing penetration into sub-dermal tissue.” [And presumably out of such tissue.] According to another study,

    Hydrogels prepared from water solutions containing 10-20 mass% gelatin are generally accepted muscle tissue simulants in terminal ballistic research. They, however, do not have a surface layer which simulates the effect of human skin.

    Haag said the stable Carcano bullets went through gelatin without yawing. So of course their exit holes — in that simulant — were not much larger than the bullet’s diameter.

    Haag makes much ado about this. Look, he says, no yawing during its course through the simulant, and that “proves” why Kennedy’s throat wound was an exit, though small. And look, he says, the bullet does tumble right after it exits through those 7 inches. This “proves” why Connally’s wound was the size of a tumbling bullet.

    But in none of his experiments did Haag give the bullet the job of exiting skin.

    And he does not mention the fact that when the Warren Commission had the US Army perform experiments to reproduce the assassination — they did use skin, animal skin — but they did not reproduce small exits. Most of the bullets began to yaw during their exit, after going through only 5.3 to 5.7 inches of gelatin.

    But back to Haag’s penetration of 7 inches before the bullet yawed, how many more inches were between Kennedy’s throat — and the true location of his entrance in the back? Might that longer journey, plus an exit through skin, have resulted in more yawing? (See next section.)

    In any case, if Kennedy’s throat wound had been an exit, its small size suggests the bullet that created it was nearly out of energy — and could not have gone on to perforate Connally’s torso and smash his wrist.

    (And those who say a bullet exited Kennedy’s throat wound, but did not go on to strike Connally in the back should explain where it did go.)


    Haagwash Regarding JFK’s Back Wound

    A big problem for the government-approved narrative was, and still is, the location of the back wound. It was lower than the throat wound. How could a bullet from the sniper’s nest above come down, enter the back — then go back up again?

    To solve the problem, the late John Lattimer — one of Haag’s main sources of “information” — raised the back wound to the sixth cervical vertebra (C-6), using deceitful props, false reporting on X-ray findings, and fraudulent representation of neurological implications.

    If you want to see instant proof of how much of a fraud Lattimer was, just look at the picture below. It says it all.

    lattimer skeleton

    lattimer skeleton caption

    And the caption that went with the picture demonstrates one of Lattimer’s techniques in conning people. Lattimer created this prop himself, then said — as if he were an independent observer — “It appears that the first bullet … grazed the tip of the transverse process of his sixth cervical vertebra.” Of course it did: he put it there. (Note: the fragments of bone he mentions were dismissed as artefact.)

    Haag appears to have learned from past experience that some of Lattimer’s “research” is too blatantly fraudulent, so he would not likely want you to see Lattimer’s contrivance shown above. It is conspicuously at odds with the autopsy photo below:

    backwound

    Photo credit: JFK Lancer

     

    Like Lattimer, Haag tried to use X-ray reports to sell the higher entrance wound: He said:

    [There was a] possible graze to the right traverse [sic] process of one of the cervical vertebrae at, or adjacent, to C6.

    As usual, he provides no reference to support this assertion. In fact, the graze, if it happened, was assumed to have occurred lower, at the first thoracic vertebra — T-1, not the higher C-6:

    “There is an undisplaced fracture of the proximal portion of the right transverse process of T-1 … There is no evidence of fracture of the cervical spine or its associated appendages.”

    And why doesn’t Haag mention what is in the autopsy report? It said the wound was “just above the upper border of the scapula.” (But numerous witnesses thought it was even lower. Kennedy’s own physician said it was at the T-3 level.)

    Haag also recycles another Lattimer hoax — the “Thorburn position.” He repeats the false claim that JFK was struck at the C-6 level, based on the way he moved his arms after being shot for the first time. He said it was a reflex, tied exclusively to C-6, as described by the surgeon, Sir William Thorburn. As Haag put it:

    When the President first reappears from behind this sign [on the Zapruder film], his arms are in a very odd position, and it looks as though he is reaching for his throat. This is not the case; rather, it has been attributed to a little-known, involuntary response first described by the English spinal surgeon and military doctor, Sir William Thorburn,1 in 1887 …

    In fact, Thorburn described an entirely different position of the arms in response to damage at C-6. At no time did Kennedy ever move his arms in a way that resembled the position of Thorburn’s C-6 patient. That patient’s arms were abducted; Kennedy’s adducted.

    (Many readers of KennedyandKings.com are already familiar with this scam. Those who are not can go here for my detailed report. And see also Donald B. Thomas’s fraudulent revision of Lattimer’s scam.)

    Aside from using deceitful means for establishing a back wound at C-6 while omitting documented information that contradicts it, Haag pretends Kennedy’s back wound controversy concerns whether it is was an entrance or exit:

    Regarding this matter of entry or exit for this singular perforating gunshot wound, it is definitively solved by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) firearms examiner Robert Frazier when he notes and documents the presence of bullet wipe around the margin of the small, circular hole in the upper back of the President’s suit coat.


    Kennedy’s Head Wound

    Haag repeats the old government-approved line:

    A massive exit site with expulsion of bone, tissue, and brain matter was produced in the upper right-front of the President’s head.

    Yes, the wound was in right front and right side — but also the right rear, which he omits. Even the autopsy report says so: the wound extended into occipital bone. According to Parkland Hospital’s former chief of neurosurgery, enough occipital bone was missing to reveal a great deal of missing cerebellum.

    Haag also made this strange claim:

    The WCC Carcano bullet’s ability to totally change character into that of an expanding bullet once its nose area is breached by striking thick bone. In this situation, testing by this author and others (Lattimer2 and Sturdivan7) has shown that the nose of the full metal jacket Carcano bullet can be breeched [sic] upon striking skull bone, after which the bullet behaves much like a soft-point hunting bullet.

    But Lattimer said that, in all experiments — his and those performed by the Army — there was a “complete separation” of the copper shell and the lead core. After that, much of the bullet’s energy has been spent. So how could the jacket alone go on to do the damage of a soft-point hunting bullet? That sort of bullet does its damage immediately on contact.

    (Lattimer also claimed a complete separation of shell and lead core in the case of JFK’s head wound. But what was found in the front seat, and presumed to have been “the” head bullet, were two jacketed fragments, but that is another story.)

    Regarding JFK’s backward head movement, Haag chose not to get into this issue. Instead, he referred readers to past articles on the jet effect.

    Please go here to see my gallery of amazing scams related to this case, including my exposure of fraud — based on the omission of one fundamental fact — in all presentations of the so-called jet effect.


    Conclusion

    Haag published his article in a journal that makes the following claims about itself:

    Drawing on the expertise of leading forensic pathologists, lawyers, and criminologists, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology presents up-to-date coverage of forensic medical practices worldwide. Each issue of the journal features original articles on new examination and documentation procedures. (Emphasis added.)

    Original? Haag is just a recycler. And what he recycles is crude pseudoscience.

    New examination? He repeated experiments performed long ago by others, and they don’t back up his conclusions with respect to Kennedy’s wounds..

    Documentation procedures? Haag violates the most basic principles of documentation. He provides no references to the primary sources that he pretends back up his misleading assertions. And he leaves out critical facts that challenge them.

    How does such an unscholarly piece get into a peer reviewed journal? Obviously its vetting process has been corrupted by the deep, insidious contamination of politics.