You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Were JFK autopsy photos altered? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Marksbrother Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-20-09 05:37 PM
Original message
Were JFK autopsy photos altered?
Advertisements [?]


30 witnesses in Dallas described a large wound in the (anatomical) right rear of JFK's head. Such a massive wound

could only be the result of a shot which originated from in front of the limo.

Here's what some of them said:

SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off

DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head

Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it

Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasnt even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo)

Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.

Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located)


Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the areawe speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound

Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.

Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital

Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear)

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear)

Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear)

Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head

Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head

FBI SA Frank ONeill: a massive wound in the right rear

Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole.

Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orangeCircularragged directly behind the back of his headthey brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the headit had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back overand stitched into that piece of rubber.

FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that
...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasnt intact, the bones werent in placethere definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

Law: Can you give me some information on the head wound?

Sibert: Oh, it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...now those two(Boswell and Humes) stayed there till about 5:30 in the morning as I recall. That was their admission--that they stayed and helped the morticians. In other words, they must have taken some other pictures too, because they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that.

...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done...


So, where did the rear head wound go that 30 witnesses described, but isn't in the autopsy photo?


Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC