LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Michael T. Griffith]

Why do you always apply the most paranoiac interpretation to events?

What exactly is "paranoid" about my view that the astonishing contradictions between the autopsy report and the autopsy skull x-rays prove the x-rays have been altered? Do you live somewhere where people involved in a cover-up never alter evidence? Have you heard of the Rampart scandal, where investigators finally discovered that numerous Los Angeles Police Department officers had been planting evidence, tampering with evidence, and destroying evidence for years? The city of LA ended up having to pay a massive settlement over those cases.

So, how about you finally, finally, finally deal with and explain the facts I've presented. Let's review them:

The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.

Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.

And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other, much less missed the high fragment trail.

Also, the high fragment trail on the x-rays and the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.

The crux of the problem:

-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and the high fragment trail seen on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail.

So, are you going to try to explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? There are really only three possibilities:

1. The autopsy doctors committed the unfathomable, astounding blunder of confusing the high fragment trail for a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ranged upward to a point just above the right eye.

2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail. IOW, the low fragment trail never existed. The autopsy doctors fabricated it in order to explain the EOP entry wound.

3. The low fragment trail did exist but was made to disappear because it was a clearly separate trail from the high fragment trail, thus proving that two bullets hit JFK's head.

The only innocent explanation is #1, but it is so unbelievable as to be unthinkable and untenable. The high fragment trail is at least 2 inches above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and its angle the exact opposite of the angle described in the autopsy report.

What's your explanation for these contradictions?

[Tom Graves]

What's your explanation for these contradictions?

Griffith,

People make mistakes.

The autopsy was rushed.

Humes was incompetent.

The X-ray machine was not ideal for the tasks at hand.

High-velocity bullets do strange things.

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Regarding "people make mistakes," CIA officer Kenneth J. McDonald, and/or one or more people in his department, erred when they cobbled together an 82-page "history" memo in 1992 that said, "Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source from 1948 to 1956."

EDIT: Oops. Make that J. Kenneth McDonald.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The argument that some autopsy x-rays were destroyed, though valid, does not explain why the low fragment trail does not appear in any of the extant autopsy x-rays. We have two lateral views and an AP view, and none of them show a fragment trail anywhere near the location of the fragment trail described in the autopsy report.

Furthermore, the autopsy doctors were allowed to review the autopsy x-rays and photos in 1966 for five hours and wrote a report about their review in early 1967, and in that report they said tho autopsy materials verified the autopsy report:

<<< The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report. (https://jfklancer.maryferrell.org/HumesBos.html) >>>

So, either (1) the x-rays that Humes-Boswell-Finck examined in 1966 showed the low fragment trail and not the high fragment trail, or (2) the x-rays they examined showed only the high fragment trail and the doctors lied about the trail's location in their report, or (3) the x-rays showed both the low fragment trail and the high fragment trail and the doctors failed to notice the high fragment trail, or (4) the x-rays showed both fragment trails and the doctors purposely failed to mention the high fragment trail in their report.

Moreover, the autopsy doctors' 1966 review of the autopsy materials makes the stark conflict between the x-rays and the autopsy report even more disturbing and problematic. Yes, "people make mistakes," but doctors don't make those kinds of staggering, astonishing, mind-boggling mistakes. They don't spend hours looking at autopsy x-rays and "miss" two clearly separate fragment trails that are at least 2 inches apart and have different angles, nor do they "miss" either of those trails but notice the other one, nor do they "mistake" a fragment trail near the top of the head with a back-high-front-low trajectory for a fragment trail that is at least 2 inches lower and that has a back-low-front-high trajectory. No way.