Perhaps now is a good time to discuss more of the evidence that the cowlick entry site is bogus and that the EOP site is correct.
Before I do so, let's consider the wildly implausible scenario proposed by the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (except for Dr. Hodges), and the HSCA FPP: Two pathologists (Humes and Boswell) and a forensic pathologist (Finck) shockingly mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound slightly above the EOP, a stunning blunder of 10 cm or 4 inches (actually, 63/1000ths of an inch shy of 4 inches: 3.937 inches), and that they committed this astounding blunder even though they had several prominent reference points to use in identifying the wound's location, i.e., the hairline, the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture.
Both the WC and the HSCA diagrams of the large exit wound show that the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture would have still been intact and plainly visible when the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp. The now-debunked cowlick site was allegedly located right around 1.7 cm above the lambda, 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm above the lambdoid suture. The lambda is about 4 inches above the EOP.
Obviously, an entry wound 1.7 cm (0.66 inches) above the lambda, 0.8 cm (0.31 inches) to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm (1 inch) above the lambdoid suture would be nowhere near the EOP, much less the hairline. Indeed, such a wound would clearly not even be in the occipital bone at all--it would be in the parietal bone.
To accept the cowlick site, one would have to believe that the autopsy doctors somehow, someway closely examined a wound that was above and to the right of three clear reference points on the skull and that was obviously in the parietal bone but mistook it for a wound that was 4 inches lower and in the right-middle part of the occipital bone, even after they reflected the scalp.
Now, let us examine some of the evidence relating to the cowlick site and the EOP site:
-- The top-of-head autopsy photos (such as photo F7) show intact cerebral cortex at the cowlick site, as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed out. Thus, no bullet could have entered there. I'll return to this point later in this reply
-- There is no fragment trail near the cowlick site. The high fragment trail is 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the cowlick site.
-- The 6.5 mm object in the outer table of the skull is not at the cowlick site but is 1 cm below it. Virtually everyone now acknowledges that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. But, until the 1990s, everyone believed it was a bullet fragment, including the Clark Panel and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, says the following about the FPP's use of the 6.5 mm object as evidence of the cowlick entry site:
This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP and is mentioned by Dr. Baden as a “relatively large metal fragment” in his majority report in the open hearings. It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully-jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. (The JFK Myths, p. 184)-- The McDonnel fragment on the outer table of the skull is a genuine bullet fragment, but it is 1 cm below and to the left of the cowlick site.
-- Not a single witness at the autopsy said the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. Every autopsy witness who commented on the wound's location said it was near the hairline. JFK's hairline was about 1 inch below the EOP. Thus, a wound "slightly above" the EOP would certainly be near the hairline. (In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Finck seemed to define "slightly above" as being right around 1 cm, or 0.39 inches, or 1/100th of an inch less than 4/10ths of an inch.)
-- Chief autopsy photographer John Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, military aide Richard Lipsey, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill said the rear head entry wound was near the hairline. Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey drew wound diagrams for the HSCA and placed the wound low on the back of the head and near the hairline. Stringer specified that the wound was "very close" to the EOP.
-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that the rear head entry wound was located where the autopsy doctors said it was located. Dr. Ebersole's HSCA wound diagram places the wound very close to the EOP and near the hairline.
-- One of the important disclosures that came from the ARRB releases in the mid-1990s is the fact that two “angle lines” were drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray and that the lines converge at the EOP site. In their report on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy materials, the autopsy doctors specifically described those lines as “angle lines.” One of the lines goes upward at a 32-degree angle from the EOP site to a spot on the high point of the forehead. The other line goes straight through the area of the subcortical damage described in the autopsy report, the same damage discussed in detail by Dr. Riley in his two articles on the evidence that two bullets hit the skull.
-- Another key disclosure from the ARRB materials is the fact that Dr. Ebersole confirmed that a large piece of
occipital bone arrived from Dallas during the autopsy. This lends credence to Dr. Boswell's disclosure to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment from Dallas.
Of course, Dr. Ebersole's disclosure about a large occipital bone fragment creates a severe problem for the autopsy photos of the back of head (photos F3 and F5), because those photos show no bone missing from the occiput.
The late-arriving skull fragment may well have been the Harper Fragment, which appears to contain about one-third to one-half of a small circular wound on one of its edges. The only three pathologists who handled and examined the Harper Fragment itself said it was occipital bone. The three pathologists were Dr. A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, and Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who were also pathologists at Methodist Hospital.
When Dr. Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.
Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Again, the only three pathologists who handled and examined the fragment itself said it was occipital bone.
-- When Dr. Finck was asked about the cowlick site during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, he adamantly rejected it. The subject arose because the Clark Panel's report, which puts the rear head entry wound in the cowlick, 10 cm above the EOP site, had recently been released. Here's what Dr. Finck said:
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters [10 cm] above it. (Clay Shaw trial transcript, 2/26/69, p. 23, HSCA record number 180-10097-10185)-- As documented in previous replies, Dr. Fred Hodges, the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, said the autopsy photos and x-rays supported the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound in the right occiput.
-- Dr. Randy Robertson, a diagnostic radiologist, argues that the skull x-rays support the EOP site. Among many other points, Dr. Robertson notes that the angle lines drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray are virtually identical to the trajectory lines drawn by medical illustrator Harold Rydberg on CE 388, the WC's diagram of JFK's head wounds:
By an amazing coincidence the pencil lines drawn on the lateral skull x-ray match almost to the degree the trajectory lines present on CE 388. They both measure very close to 32 degrees. It is beyond my imagination to believe that these matching trajectory lines were drawn on CE 388 without the direct or indirect use of the measurements off the lateral skull x-ray. Interestingly the perspective of CE 388 is in the same straight side view of the head just as the lateral x-rays. There are strong implications that the x-rays were used as a template for CE 388. . . . When CE 388 and the lateral skull x-ray are compared side by side you see that they both intersect the skull at the same level--slightly above the EOP. ("The Tell Tale Trajectory Lines," http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf)-- Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, concluded that the autopsy photos and x-rays support the EOP site and destroy the cowlick site. Excerpts from his two articles on the subject:
In the "top of head" autopsy photographs, intact cerebral cortex is visible. (This has been confirmed in personal communications from Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. David Mantik, both of whom visited the archives. What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention. The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck.
There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right) [the EOP site]. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)The Panel [the FPP] devoted much of its discussion of the scalp wound to refuting Humes' placement of the wound near the hairline. Unfortunately, other than asserting that the photographs show the wound in the "cowlick" area and relying on visual impressions from the photographs, the Panel fails to present any objective evidence that the scalp wound corresponds to where the Panel locates the wound on the x-rays. The question remains: based on the location of the scalp wound, where is the entrance wound on the skull? Two lines of evidence indicate that the entrance wound is not where the panel places it.
First, the Panel asserts that the scalp wound is located in the "cowlick" area. Apparently the Panel believes that the visual impression of the combed hair establishes the location of the wound.
However, it is standard forensic procedure to comb the hair around a scalp wound in order to better display it. Obviously that is the reason that the hair is parted since John Kennedy parted his hair on the opposite side of his head. In addition, even a cursory look at a picture of John Kennedy shows that his cowlick is inches above the top of the ear. The scalp wound cannot be in the cowlick area.
Rather than relying upon visual impressions, the Panel should have used objective reference points to establish the location of the scalp wound. For example, the top of the ear may be used as a reference point. In Fig. IA, a line is drawn from the top of the ear perpendicular to the ruler. This line passes through the wound. Fig. IB, from the HSCA report, is a representation of the back of John Kennedy's head. A line drawn from the top of one ear to the other approximates the level of the wound in Fig. 1A. This line falls inches below the point determined by the Panel and places the wound in the occipital bone and near the point of entry described by Humes et al. and illustrated by Boswell on the autopsy sheet (Fig. 1E).
In the sole objective measurement the Panel makes, it notes that the scalp wound is 13 cm above the neck crease in the photograph. As shown in Fig. IC, 13 cm above the neck crease is consistent with the description of Humes et al. but incompatible with the Panel's location of the entrance wound. ("The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy," The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 6-7, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
