[...continued]
The Parkland doctors, as I said, all agreed that the throat wound was an entry wound
Oh, they did, did they?
Quote:
Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins (WC)
Mr. SPECTER - Now, going back to the wound which you observed in the neck, did you see that wound before the tracheotomy was performed?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes; I did, because I was just connecting up the endotracheal tube to the machine at the time and that's when Dr. Carrico said there was a wound in the neck and I looked at it.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe that wound as specifically as you can?
Dr. JENKINS - Well, I'm afraid my description of it would not be as accurate, of course, as that of the surgeons who were doing the tracheotomy, because my look was a quick look before connecting up the endotracheal tube to the apparatus to help in ventilation and respiration for the patient, and I was aware later in the day, as I should have put it in the report, that I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound, and by "clean" clearly demarcated, round, punctate wound which is the usual wound of an entrance wound, made by a missile and at some speed. Of course, entrance wounds with a lobbing type missile, can make a jagged wound also, but I was of the impression and I recognized I had the impression it was an exit wound. However, my mental appreciation for a wound--for the wound in the neck, I believe, was sort of--was overshadowed by recognition of the wound in the scalp and skull plate. [emphasis added]
|
Quote:
Dr. Gene Coleman Akin (WC)
Mr. SPECTER - What did you mean when you just made your reference to the academic aspect with the wound, Dr. Akin?
Dr. AKIN - Well, naturally, the thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could, also have been an exit wound, depending upon the nature of the missile that made the wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What would be the circumstances on which it might be one or the other?
Dr. AKIN - Well, if the President had been shot with a low velocity missile, such as fire from a pistol, it was more likely to have been an entrance wound, is that what you mean?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes.
Dr. AKIN - If, however, he had been shot with a high velocity military type of rifle, for example, it could be either an entrance wound or an exit wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Why do you say it could be either an entrance wound or an exit wound with respect to the rifle?
Dr. AKIN - Well, because a high velocity missile coming from a military rifle, especially if the missile were a jacketed missile, a copper- or steel-jacketed missile, itself, the missile itself is not distorted when it passes through soft tissue, and the wound made when the bullet leaves the body, is a small wound, much like the wound of entrance, but like I said, I didn't devote much time to conjecture about this.[emphasis added]
|
Also, the following is from the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: these quotations (and the one following) are from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and are reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.)
Quote:
Teri Randall
The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....
As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time.
|
I want to head off a potential objection to the preceding--possibly you will attempt to claim that so many doctors couldn't all be wrong. Well, yes they could, because their observations are correlated, due to the fact that they were all observing the same set of wounds. As discussed in the doctors' Warren Commission testimony, a jacketed, high-velocity bullet can cause an exit wound that looks similar to an entrance wound, and would be quite likely to be mistaken for one.
And the doctors and all others present at the autopsy were unanimous (despite Dr. Humes only willing to state that probing was "difficult") that the back wound was a shallow entry wound, only a few inches deep when probed, and had no exit point. James Jenkins has consistently maintained this to be absolutely factual.
All right,
turbonium, I'm calling you out on this one.
You deliberately ignored my quotation from the HSCA that totally destroys the other part of your claim that the Single Bullet Theory is "utterly ludicrous." That's failure to debate, pure and simple. You keep mindlessly repeating your "shallow entry wound" mantra as if your doing so somehow makes it the truth, but the evidence that the autopsy doctors were very likely mistaken about this is incontrovertible. As has been pointed out numerous times, the fact that you uncritically accept this one autopsy "finding" (which was subsequently corrected in the report) while at the same time characterizing the entire autopsy as "a complete farce" demonstrates the lengths to which you will go to cherry-pick data that you believe points to a conspiracy.
Here's the quote again:
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]
|
No one disputes that, before learning of the throat wound from Dr. Perry, everyone involved in the autopsy
believed that the back wound was a shallow entrance wound. The problem is, this belief was a mistake, caused by the pathologists' inexperience and their haste to complete the autopsy so that the President's body could be moved. After speaking with Dr. Perry the next day, Dr. Humes learned of the throat wound, realized his mistake, and corrected the report accordingly. Do you dispute this version of events?
Also, from the JAMA article quoted above:
Quote:
Teri Randall
The study's high error rate doesn't surprise Baden, and he adds that some general pathologists without forensic training may also lack the expertise to interpret gunshot wounds. Autopsies on gunshot wound victims are often conducted by nonforensic pathologists, including that of John F. Kennedy, the most controversial autopsy in US history.
|
I'll have a detailed question for you on this in a bit.
So to answer your second question: In view of the overwhelming evidence, the SBT is indeed utterly ludicrous.
turbonium, again, it seems that you are being deliberately obtuse, and I suspect the moderators agree with me on that. It is obvious that for some reason, you are simply ignoring large amounts of evidence that have been presented that discredit your theory.
Now,
turbonium, I pose the following specific questions, which I request that you answer, or affirmatively admit that you cannot answer. For your convenience, I'll restate my questions from earlier in this post.
1) You have maintained that the Single Bullet Theory is "utterly ludicrous." Your primary support for this assertion has consisted of the claims that a) The autopsy showed that the wound in Kennedy's back was only a shallow entrance wound, and b) the doctors at Parkland hospital all stated that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
With respect to a): Given the autopsy doctors' lack of practical experience, their lack of knowledge of the throat wound, the known pressure to finish the autopsy quickly, and the fact that "[p]robing a track blindly [i.e., without dissecting it] may produce false tracks and misinformation," how can you continue to claim that there is little or no chance that the "shallow entrance wound" appraisal was incorrect? Please address all four of these points in your response.
With respect to b): Given statements by the Parkland doctors that their judgments of whether gunshot wounds are of entry or of exit were only "educated guesses" and "speculation," their statements that jacketed, high-velocity rifle rounds can produce exit wounds that look similar to entrance wounds, their testimony that they agreed with the final autopsy report, and the JAMA article showing that emergency room physicians frequently misidentify entry and exit wounds, how can you continue to claim that that there is little or no chance that the "entry wound" identification was incorrect? Again, please address all four of these points in your response.
2) You state that Arlen Specter's question to some of the doctors in which he asks them whether, in the case of a Mannlicher-Carcano shot from above and behind, the wound would represent an exit wound, is completely based on "unfounded assumptions" and "made-up facts." Please list every unfounded assumption and made-up fact in Specter's question to Dr. Perry, and give at least one reason why each is unfounded or has been made up. As a follow-up, please explain how any of the supplied assumptions or facts do not fit the theory that a Mannlicher-Carcano shot fired from the 6th floor of the Depository building struck Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat.
3) Please comment, as specifically as you can, on your understanding of the concept of proving that a theory is possible, or that a theory is impossible.
4) Finally, if you could, and taking into account your answers to the foregoing, please summarize your "overwhelming evidence" that the SBT is "utterly ludicrous."