Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
For the most part, there seems to only be speculation on these points. The actual evidence of a shallow wound with no exit point was dismissed at Bethesda, and replaced with the spurious, unfounded claims of a single bullet which entered and exited the body.
<snip>
At any rate, the important issue is that the back wound had no exit point. That alone debunks the Warren Report's SBT, which means Oswald was not the only shooter, and raises serious doubts that he was even a shooter at all.
|
I had originally planned to address this in my reply to turbonium's answers, but as this discussion is ongoing, I'll go ahead and tackle it now.
First, the issue of whether the autopsy "was a complete farce."
As has been mentioned, clearly the autopsy should have been performed in Dallas, by experienced forensic pathologists. However, for perfectly understandable but misguided reasons of emotion, Kennedy's body was immediately flown back to Washington. The decision on where the autopsy should be performed was left to Mrs. Kennedy--she chose Bethesda Naval Hospital because "Jack was a Navy man."
The doctors selected had little practical experience in performing autopsies; additionally, they were requested to expedite the procedure.
Quote:
HSCA Report
(81) Dr. HUMES. There were no questions but we were being urged to expedite this examination as quickly as possible, that members of the President's family were in the building, that they refused to leave the premises until the President's body was ready to be moved; and similar remarks of the vein which we made every effort to put aside and approach the investigation in as scientific a manner as we could. But did it harass us and cause difficulty--of course it did, how could it not!
[...]
(83) This evidence indicates that:
1. Commander Humes had full authority to perform a complete autopsy, and indeed, that Admiral Galloway told him to do so;
2. Commander Humes, not anyone else, made any decision that resulted in a deviation from a complete forensic autopsy; and
3. The remarks of others to expedite the autopsy were probably the reason for the decision to perform a less than complete autopsy.
|
For these reasons, the HSCA report identified the following ways in which the autopsy might have been better conducted.
Quote:
HSCA Report
1. Conducting the autopsy in an atmosphere free from the presence of individuals not necessary to any medical or investigative aspects of the autopsy....
2. Consulting the Parkland Hospital doctors who administered emergency treatment to the President before initiating the autopsy. According to the medical panel of the committee, such consultation is normal procedure.
3. Acquiring the assistance of an experienced pathologist engaged in the full-time practice of forensic pathology, as opposed to the consulting capacity Dr. Finck possessed. Such experienced assistance might have prevented several errors.
4. Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are movable points and should not have been used.
5. Dissecting the wound that traversed the upper back of the President. The medical panel stated that probing a wound with a finger is hardly sufficient; to ascertain the actual track, the wound must be dissected.
6. Examining all organs and documenting the results of such examinations. Although the pathologists did examine most organs, they made no reference to the adrenal glands, part of the anatomy routinely examined during the autopsy.
7. Sectioning the brain coronally. Such documentation could have provided additional insight into the destructive impact of the missile in the brain.
|
Although some unfortunate but understandable mistakes were made, the autopsy was not, as you have characterized it, "a complete farce." (see also testimony following)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Now, I'd like to ask Spitfire a couple of questions...
1. Do you dispute the autopsy finding no exit point for the back wound?
2. If so, what evidence can you provide to support that opinion?
|
1. No, I do not dispute it--however, I dispute your premise, that the reason no exit wound was found is that there never was an exit wound to begin with.
2. See following.
First of all, you have used the following quotation from the autopsy report at least three times, by my count: "The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved." [emphasis added] The report actually reads "probed," rather than "proved." This is a typo that occurs on about half of all the web sites with text versions of the report (including McAdams' site--I've emailed him about it). That is the reason that the probes wouldn't go through--because the wound was not easily probed.
The following is from the HSCA's forensic panel's report:
Quote:
HSCA Forensic Pathology Report
430. The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation. [emphasis added]
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
The throat wound was described at Parkland as an entry wound. The autopsists only saw the wound after it had been enlarged, and should have deferred to the Parkland doctors for an accurate description of the wound prior to any surgical procedures on it. But they presume it was an exit wound, without knowing its original size and condition. Inexcusable mistake.
|
Wow, turbonium, what can I say? You've got me dead to rights--they should have deferred to the Parkland doctors' opinions.
Quote:
Dr. Malcolm Perry(WC)
Mr. SPECTER - What experience have you had, Dr. Perry, if any, in gunshot wounds?
Dr. PERRY - During my period in medical school and my residency, I have seen a large number, from 150 to 200....
Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations of the neck wound alone, do you have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.
Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile....
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?
Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, assuming one additional fact that there was no bullet found in the body of the President, and assuming the facts which I have just set forth to be true, do you have an opinion as to whether the wound which you observed in the President's neck was an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound and with the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound....
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the autopsy report?
Dr. PERRY - I have.
Mr. SPECTER - And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way with your findings and opinions?
Dr. PERRY - They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the time....
Representative FORD - In other words, you subsequently read or heard what was allegedly said by you and by Dr. Clark and Dr. Carrico. Were those reportings by the news media accurate or inaccurate as to what you and others said?
Dr. PERRY - In general, they were inaccurate. There were some that were fairly close...but of those which I saw I found none that portrayed it exactly as it happened. Nor did I find any that reported our statements exactly as they were given.
They were frequently taken out of context. They were frequently mixed up as to who said what or identification as to which person was who....
Mr. McCLOY - Did you discuss with any of the other doctors present, and you named quite a number of them, as to whether this was an exit wound or an entrance wound?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir...you must remember that actually the only people who saw this wound for sure were Dr. Carrico and myself, and some of the other doctors were quoted as saying something about the wound which actually they never said at all because they never saw it, because on their arrival I had already made the incision through the wound, and despite what the press releases may have said neither Dr. Carrico nor myself could say whether it was an entrance or an exit wound from the nature of the wound itself and Dr. McClelland was quoted, for example, as saying he thought it was an exit wound, but that was not what he said at all because he didn't even see it. [emphasis added]
|
Quote:
Dr. Malcolm Perry (HSCA)
PURDY: Do you have an opinion based on those two points that you described as to the origin of the missile that caused the damage?
PERRY: No, I don't, and the reason is that I didn't clearly identify either an entrance or an exit wound. In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds....But in general, full jacketed bullets make pretty small entrance holes. And so I don't really know. I thought it looked like an entrance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any others and so that was just a guess.[emphasis added]
|
Quote:
Dr. Charles James Carrico (WC)
Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations on the neck wound alone did have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. CARRICO - No, sir; we did not. Not having completely evaluated all the wounds, traced out the course of the bullets, this wound would have been compatible with either entrance or exit wound depending upon the size, the velocity, the tissue structure and so forth.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to add some facts [substantially the same as given to Dr. Perry] which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion....
Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in (sic) consistent with being an exit wound?
Dr. CARRICO - It certainly was. It could have been under the circumstances,
Mr. SPECTER - And assuming that all the facts which I have given you to be true, do you have an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether, in fact, the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound?
Dr. CARRICO - With those facts and the fact as I understand it, no other bullet was found this would be, this was, I believe, was an exit wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What opinions did you express at that time?
Dr. CARRICO - Again, I said that on the basis of our initial examination, this wound in his neck could have been either an entrance or exit wound, which was what they were most concerned about, and assuming there was a wound in the back, somewhere similar to what you have described that this certainly would be compatible with an exit wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Were your statements at that time different in any respect with the testimony which you have given here this morning?
Dr. CARRICO - Not that I recall.
Mr. SPECTER - Were your views at that time consistent with the findings in the autopsy report, or did they vary in any way from the findings in that report?
Dr. CARRICO - As I recall, the autopsy report is exactly as I remember.
Mr. SPECTER - Were your opinions at that time consistent with the findings of the autopsy report?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes. [emphasis added]
|
Now, turbonium, two specific questions.
1) You stated that the opinions of the Parkland doctors about whether or not the throat wound was an entry wound were the only ones that mattered. Are you still willing to accept that, as it clearly flies in the face of your assertions, or are you going to claim that Arlen Specter was pointing a sawed-off shotgun at them as they testified, or some other such handwaving?
2) In view of the foregoing, do you still consider the Single Bullet Theory "utterly ludicrous?"
__________________
--Doug
"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me
Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor
|