Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Don Curtis, Parkland resident, on JFK assassination: "the posterior part of his head was blown out."
This was posted at Jefferson Morley's JFK Facts site. Curtis also notes the autopsy photographs from Bethesda do not match what he saw that day at Parkland.
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
Physician discusses JFK assassination
By JAMES BARRINGTON Canyon News staff
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:25 pm | Updated: 3:23 pm, Wed Nov 13, 2013
<edit>
Curtis went on to say that when he entered the room, Kennedy was lying on his back and having difficulty breathing.
Curtis said there was a doctor and a nurse in the room who were working on the president.
<edit>
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back.
<edit>
He detailed the membership of the Warren Commission and the intimidation tactics used by Arlen Specter, the counsel for the commission that interrogated him and the other medical staff, essentially forcing them into compromising their testimony to make it fit the “official version” that was essentially laid out by J. Edger Hoover, the director of the FBI and a Kennedy opponent, before the Warren Commission was organized.
more...
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
because it was inconceivable that an event as earthshaking as the assassination of a President could be done by so prosaic a means as a bullet from behind. It had to be something exotic and mysterious and powerful, like a bullet from the front. 
They got him on a stretcher and attempted treatment; he was laid on his back the whole time. They didn't roll him over. This is in their testimony to the Warren Commission. And the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, and X-rays, all show that the back of Kennedy's head was intact. Dr Curtis may believe he saw the posterior of Kennedy's skull blown out, but the evidence contradicts that (as do all the forensic reviews of the photos and X-rays, as do the Parkland doctors who were interviewed for PBS who were shown the autopsy photos and X-rays and said "I don't see anything here that contradicts my recollection of the wounds"
.
On edit: see here, and here.
is the fact that a) none of the doctors at Parkland saw the back of Kennedy's head; b) they testified as such to the Warren Commission; c) the autopsy photos and X-rays show that the back of the head is not blown out, therefore any claims that it was are directly contradicted by evidence. Furthermore there is an apparent ignorance on the part of conspiracists as to what "posterior", in an anatomic sense, relating to the skull, actually means; Kennedy's head wound was caused by a bullet traversing his skull and generating a shockwave in brain tissue that blew out the side of his head (while he was slumped forward and not sitting upright). That wound was largely "posterior" in the sense that it was to the rear of the medial lateral line, behind the ear; this does not mean that the back of Kennedy's head was "blown out".
Representations of the head wound from X-rays:
When confronted with X-rays, autopsy photos, and the Zapruder film...all of which agree as to the nature of Kennedy's head wound...contradictory witness testimony has to be discounted, especially coming as it does many years after the fact.
The following is from Volume VII of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------
SECTION IV. AUTHENTICITY
PART I. INTRODUCTION
(151) At the outset of the investigation into the issues concerning the medical evidence, the committee determined that experts should examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays for two purposes: First, to establish or repudiate their authenticity (whether they are photographs and X-rays taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy); and second, to determine whether anyone altered or "doctored" them. Such examinations were essential to the analysis of consultants whom the committee
charged with interpreting the medical evidence, since their conclusions were to be based principally on the evidence derived from the autopsy photographs and X-rays.
(152) The committee also wanted these examinations conducted as one way to resolve the varying accounts of where the wounds to the President were situated. If the photographs and X-rays were proven to be authentic and unaltered, then any account of the President's wounds which differed from what they
showed would be incorrect. Conversely, if the photographs or X-rays or both were proven to be fake or altered, they might then provide a clue which would assist in determining which account of
the injuries was correct.
(153) The various accounts of the nature of the wounds to the President differ significantly. As revealed in section 2 of this volume, "Performance of the Autopsy," eyewitness descriptions of the wounds, as described by staff at Parkland Memorial Hospital, differed from those in the autopsy report, as
well as from what appears in the autopsy photographs and X-rays.(1) Further, the reports of FBI agents Silbert and O'Neill referred to "surgery" of the head area being evident when the body arrived for the autopsy, (2) yet no surgery of the head area was known to have been performed. Finally, the Clark panel--the panel of experts assembled in 1968 by then-Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark--said the entrance wound in the President's head was 10 centimeters (almost 4 inches) higher than was
described by the autopsy pathologists. (3)
(154) Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have focussed on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. (4) They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wounds, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds.
(155) In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts. (5) Further, in 1967 the autopsy
pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, as well as Dr. James H. Ebersole, the acting chief of radiology, and one of the autopsy photographers, John Thomas Stringer, viewed the autopsy photographs or X-rays, or both, and verified them as accurately portraying the wounds of President Kennedy. (6)
(156) Aside from using scientific analysis to determine authenticity and verify that no alterations had been made, the committee also considered what reasonably might have happened. It assumed that if the Parkland doctors are correct, particularly with respect to the gaping hole in the back of the President's
head, then it would mean: (1) The autopsy photographs and X-rays had been doctored to conceal this hole; (2) the body itself had been altered, either before its arrival at Bethesda or during the autopsy so that the hole was not obvious in the photographs and X-rays; or (3) the photographs and X-rays were not of President Kennedy. Further, if the Parkland doctors are correct, then the autopsy personnel are incorrect and either lying or mistaken.
(157) It did not seem plausible to the committee that 26 persons would be lying or, if they were, that, they could provide such a consistent account of the wounds almost 15 years later. Second, it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and thorough examination of the body. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that the autopsy personnel were correct.
(158) If the autopsy doctors are correct, then the Parkland doctors are incorrect and either lying or mistaken. It does not seem probable that they are lying, because it would be difficult to maintain a conspiracy of lying among the approximately 14 persons involved for 15 years. On the other hand, it does seem possible, that the Parkland personnel could be mistaken, given their cursory observations of the wounds, the brief period of time they examined the President, and their function at the time: To administer emergency procedures to save the life of the President, rather than to document the nature and location of his wounds.
(159) The theoretical possibility also exists that both Parkland and the autopsy personnel are correct in their observations and that the autopsy photographs and X-rays accurately reflect the observations of the autopsy personnel. This could have occurred if someone had altered the body while in transit from Parkland Memorial Hospital to Bethesda Naval Hospital. This possibility however, is highly unlikely or even impossible. Secret Service agents maintained constant vigilance over the body from Parkland to Bethesda and stated that no one altered the body. (7) Second, if such alterations did occur, it seems likely that the people present at the autopsy would have noticed them; in which case they are now lying about their
observations. As stated previously, this does not appear likely.
(160) A further complicating factor could be the possibility that all persons are somewhat mistaken in their observations or their memories of them and that the autopsy photographs and X-rays do not portray the wounds in sufficient detail to resolve the matter. This possibility would not, however, account for the major disagreement between the Parkland and autopsy personnel: A large, gaping wound in the rear of the
head.
(161) Consequently, without considering any scientific analysis to evaluate authenticity and any possibility of the autopsy photographs and X-rays having been altered, appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.
PART II. PROCEDURES EMPLOYED IN EXAMINING THE AUTOPSY
PHOTOGRAPHS AND X-RAYS
(162) As mentioned, the committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and
unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants.
(163) From the beginning, the committee's investigative approach in the medical evidence area was to assume nothing about the authenticity of the photographs and X-rays. To conduct the analyses to determine whether the photographs and X-rays could be identified as being of the President and whether they were altered, the committee retained experts in the following areas: Anthropology, forensic dentistry, photographic interpretation, forensic pathology, and radiology.
(164) Anthropologists studied the autopsy photographs in an attempt to verify the consistency of the subject matter specifically, whether the photographs of the rear of the head could be identified as being consistent with photographs of other views of the head in which the President's facial features are
recognizable. The anthropologists determined that the posterior photographic views of the head are identifiable as part of the same head as is visible in the side or front views and hence concluded that the posterior views are photographs of President Kennedy. (8)
(165) The anthropologists also studied the autopsy X-rays in comparison with premortem X-rays of President Kennedy, obtained from the Kennedy Library in Waltham, Mass. (9) The premortem X-rays had been collected by the Library from a number of different sources (10) over a period of a couple of years.
(11)
(166) By studying the premortem X-rays, the anthropologists were able to observe a number of unique anatomic characteristics whose absence or presence among the autopsy X-rays would, in their opinion, be determinative of whether the two sets of X-rays were of the same person. (12) Some of the anatomic
characteristics they noted included turcica, cranial sutures, vascular grooves and the air cells of the mastoid bone. (13) The anthropologists were able to observe enough of these anatomical features among the autopsy X-rays to conclude that the autopsy and premortem X-rays were taken of the same individual. (14)
(167) The committee also retained an expert in dental comparison, Dr. Lowell Levine, a forensic odontologist (15) experienced in the identification of victims of unnatural death, including, for example, individuals killed in airplane crashes. Dr. Levine also compared premortem X-rays with the autopsy
X-rays. He was confident in his conclusion that the three autopsy skull X-rays are identifiable as being of the same person as the premortem dental X-rays of President Kennedy. (16) Dr. Levine presented his conclusions in his public testimony before the committee on September 7, 1978.
(168) Once it was determined that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were of the President, the committee used relevant scientific expertise to look for evidence of alteration. Different techniques were used for studying the photographs and X-rays.
(169) Members of the committee's photographic panel carefully studied the autopsy photographs, negatives and transparencies. (17) There were a number of features the panel members noticed that were relevant to the issue of authenticity, including: emulsion numbers on the films, a pentagonal shaped
light spot, and a number of sets of photographic stereo pairs. (18)
(170) On April 8, 1978, David Eisendrath contacted Kodak to determine what information, if any, could be gleaned from the numbers visible on the autopsy films. (19) David Greenlaw responded for Kodak on June 8, 1978, providing information that indicated the numbers matched emulsion batches produced in 1963
and, in one film type, an operator number which was discontinued in 1969. (20)
(171) Several stereo pairs which the panel observed among the autopsy photographs were suitable for stereoscopic viewing. A stereo pair is created when the photographer takes two pictures
of a particular scene with either the camera or the object in slightly different position. According to Scott, (21)
A pair of stereo pairs enables one to see the scene in three dimensions; stereo pictures add depth to the perception of the photographed scene in much the same way as a pair of human eyes, separated from one another in space, can perceive depth.
(172) Also according to Scott, stereoscopic viewing heightens the ability of the human eye to perceive differences between the two photographs of a stereo pair:
To successfully avoid detection of picture alteration requires that each picture of a pair of
pictures be altered identically, which is essentially impossible, particularly with a stereo pair * * * Any
nonidentical alteration of the pictures of a pair is readily noted when pairs are viewed stereoscopically or
microscopically. (22)
(173) Fortunately, the autopsy photographer had taken two or more pictures of each scene, some of which were stereo pairs because of slight differences. (23)
(174) Scott believed there were pairs of autopsy photographs that provided sufficient stereoscopic viewing quality to permit the conclusion of authenticity, including: The back of the head (Nos. 42 and 43), top of the head (Nos. 32 and 33, and Nos. 34 and 37), the large skull defect (Nos. 44 and 45), and the
head from the front right (Nos. 26 and 28).(24)
(175) Scott said that in these he "* * * did not find any indication or evidence that any of the pictures were altered * * *" and thus concluded that the photographs for which there were stereo pairs "* * * are authentic photographs." (25)
(176) Calvin McCamy, a photogrammetrist, testified in public session of the select committee on September 7, 1978, on behalf of the photographic evidence panel on the issue of the authenticity of autopsy photographs. He agreed with Scott's assessment of the authenticity of the stereophotographic views and added that in his analysis, he found additional stereo pairs permitting the additional conclusions that the photographs of the back wound (Nos. 38 and 39) and of the anterior neck wound (Nos.
40 and 41) are authentic.(26)
(177) Dr. Gerald McDonnel examined the premortem and postmortem X-rays for evidence of alteration.(27) He reported that an alteration of the images "* * * should be readily * * *" discernible in a number of ways:
a. Observation of a difference in density of the images,
b. Discontinuity of anatomical structures,
c. Alteration of continuity of an abnormal pattern, or
d. Production of an image which is not anatomical or an
image of an impossible pathologic process.(28)
(178) Dr. McDonnel concluded that "[t]he radiologic images both ante mortem and post mortem, have not been altered in any fashion ..." except for two small areas of thermal damage and "minor * * * discoloration of the images due to incomplete processing of the film * * *." Neither of these conditions
affected the conclusion that the images were not altered "* * * to provide a false image * * *" nor "* * * to produce misinformation and therefore improper conclusions." (29)
For further explanation of the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, see paragraphs 512-604 of the Report of the Photographic Evidence Panel.
PART III. CONCLUSIONS
(179) From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner.
REFERENCES
(1) See sec. II of this volume, "Performance of the Autopsy, part II, Facts and Issues," para. 34 ff.
(2) FBI Report, BA 89-30, Nov. 26, 1963, p. 3 (JFK Doc. No. 013618).
(3) Report pursuant to a request by Hon. Ramsey Clark, Attorney General of the United States, entitled "1968 Panel Review of Photographs, X-ray films, Documents, and Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy on November 22. 1963, in Dallas, Tex.," April 1968.
(4) Sylvia Meagher, "Accessories After the Fact" (New York: Random House, Inc., 1976), pp. 134-165; Josiah Thompson, "Six Seconds in Dallas" (New York: Berkley Publishing Corp., 1976), pp. 131-151.
(5) Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy, House Select Committee on Assassinations. For citations to these reports, see generally sec. II of this volume, "Performance of the Autopsy," paras. 42-94.
(6) Blank letterhead memorandum, Jan. 26, 1967, from James J. Humes, M.D., J. Thornton Boswell, M.D.. pursuant to a Department of Justice request to examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays; blank letterhead memorandum entitled, "Report of Inspection by Naval Medical Staff on November 1, 1966 at National Archives of X-Rays and Photographs of Autopsy of President John F. Kennedy," signed James Jr. Humes, M.D., J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., John II. Ebersole, M.D., and John T. Stringer, Nov. 10, 1966.
(7) Outside contact report, William Greer, Dec. 4, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Doc. No. 014880); Outside contact report, Roy H. Kellerman, Dec. 1, 1978 (JFK Doe. No. 013394).
(8) John F. Kennedy Autopsy Authentication, a report to the House Select Committee on Assassinations by Ellis R. Kerley, Ph.D. and Clyde C. Snow, Ph. D. Feb. 9, 1979, pp. 1-2.
(9) Authentication of John F. Kennedy Autopsy Radiographs and Photographs, a report to the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, by Ellis R. Kerley, Ph. D. and Clyde C. Snow, Ph.D., Feb. 28, 1979, p. 1, Lowell J. Levine, D.D.S., "Identification of the Skull X-ray Films Taken During the Autopsy of President John F. Kennedy," Sept. 7, 1978, p. 5. Levine's report is contained in volume 1, pp. 153-176, of the hearings before the House Select Committed on Assassinations. 95th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).
(10) Some of the premortem dental films were supposed to have been taken by Robert D. Morris, D.D.S. 140 East 54th St., New York, N.Y. In a telephone interview between Dr. Levine and Dr. Morris, Dr. Morris confirmed that he had taken X-rays of the President on the date indicated on the X-ray films. See reference
9, Levine report, pp. 9, 16.
(11) Id. at p. 5.
(12) See reference 8, Kerley and Snow report, pp. 1-2.
(13) Id. at pp.
(14) Id. at p. 4.
(15) See reference 9, Levine report, pp. 1-4, for a discussion and description of the function of a forensic odontologist (dentist).
(16) Id. at. p. 20.
(17) Letter from Frank Scott to House Select Committee on Assassinations, Aug. 15, 1978. Testimony of Calvin S. McCamy, Sept. 7, 1978, Hearings Before the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1979),
vol. I, p. 176 (hereinafter referred to as McCamy testimony, Sept. 7, 1978, I HSCAJFK hearings, 176).
(18) Letter to Michael Goldsmith, from David B. Eisendrath, June 10, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Doc. 009129); letter to Jane Downey from David B. Eisendrath, Oct. 23,
1978, House Select Committee Assassinations, (JFK Doc. No. 012845); see reference 17, McCamy testimony, Sept. 7, 1978, I HSCA-JFK hearings, 176.
(19) Letter from David B. Eisendrath, to David S. Greenlaw, director, Corporate Commercial Affairs Eastman Kodak Co., Apr. 8, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Doc. No. 012845).
(20) Letter from David S. Greenlaw, assistant vice president, Corporate Commercial Affairs, Eastman Kodak Co., to David B. Eisendrath, June 8, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Doc. No. 009129).
(21) Letter to Jane Downey from Frank Scott, Aug. 15, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations p. 1.
(22) Id. at p. 2.
(23) Id. at p. 1.
(24) Id. at p. 4.
(25) Id. at p. 3.
(26) McCamy testimony, Sept. 7, 1978 I HSCA-JFK hearings pp.
176-179.
(27) Report of G.M. McDonnell, M.D., concerning observation analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy, Aug. 4, 1978. See addendum C of the Forensic Pathology Panel Report (sec. V of this volume) for this document.
(28) Report of G.M. McDonnel, M.D., Mar. 8, 1978, p. 4. See addendum C of the Forensic Pathology Report (sec. V of this volume) for this document.
(29) Ibid.
(180) ADDENDUM A
AUTHENTICATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY AUTOPSY RADIOGRAPHS AND
PHOTOGRAPHS
Final Report to the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S.
House of Representatives--March 9, 1979
Ellis R. Kerley, Ph.D.
Clyde C. Snow, Ph.D.
BOARD OF ANTHROPOLOGY CONSULTANTS, PHOTOGRAPHIC PANEL,
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS
Various conspiracy theorists have questioned the authenticity of the post mortem radiographs and photographs taken during the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy at the U.S. Naval
Hospital on November 22, 1963. The anthropology consultants were asked by the committee to examine these materials and, if scientifically possible, determine whether or not they were indeed those of the late President. Our approach to this problem was through the comparison of the post mortem X-rays and
photographs with those known to have been taken prior to his death.
AUTHENTICATION OF X-RAYS
Introduction
It is a well-established fact that human bone structure
varies uniquely from one individual to another. The bones not
only differ in their overall size and shape, but also in their
minute structural details so that the total pattern of skeletal
architecture of a given person is as unique as his or her
fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists have long made use of this
fact in establishing the positive identification of persons
killed in combat, aircraft accidents, or other disasters, by
comparing X-rays taken before death with those of the
unidentified body taken after death. Of course, just as no two
individuals are alike, no two X-rays of the same bones of the
same person are ever exactly alike because there is always some
variation in the positioning of the subject, the X-ray technique,
and the processing of the film. The skeleton also undergoes some
remodeling throughout life, so that a certain amount of variation
in detail is to be expected in films of the same individual taken
a few years apart. However, with experience, these technical and
age variations can be taken into account so that, given a pair of
reasonably good films of the same person, posed in the same way,
a positive identification can nearly always be made even if the
X-rays were made many years apart by different technicians using
different equipment.
In the following analysis we have applied this method in
comparing the post mortem X-rays said to be those of President
Kennedy with clinical films known to have been taken prior to his
death.
Materials examined
Both ante mortem and post mortem X-rays were examined were
from the JFK assassination materials created by the U.S. National
Archives in Washington, D.C. case No. 21296 of the U.S. Naval
Hospital in Bethesda, Md. They include front and side views of
the skull as well as a series of overlapping views of the torso
and upper legs. There are also several X-rays of three skull
fragments reportedly found in the Presidential automobile after
the assassination.
In addition to the autopsy X-rays, the Archives collection
includes three sets of clinical X-rays of President Kennedy taken
at various times prior to his death. Two of these sets were made
by personal physicians who treated the then-Senator Kennedy for
an upper respiratory illness in August 1960. The earliest, dated
August 14, bears the case No. 202617 of Dr. Stephen White, 521
Park Avenue, New York. The second set was made 3 days later at
the clinic of Drs. Groover, Christie, and Merritt, of 1835 I
Street NW., Washington, D.C., and bears the case number 336042.
Dr. White's series consists of a side view of the head and a
routine chest plate. Those from the Groover, Christie, and
Merritt Clinic, include side and front views of the skull. The
third (set) of ante mortem X-rays were taken at the U.S. Naval
Hospital in Bethesda on March 14, 1962, while President Kennedy
was undergoing treatment for a back complaint. These X-rays
consist of front and side views of the lower spine and pelvis.
Hereafter these three sets of ante mortem X-rays will be referred
to as the "White," "Groover," and "Navy" films, respectively.
We first compared the "Groover" and "White" ante mortem
X-rays of the skull with the autopsy films.
In the front views, we found that the outlines of the
frontal sinuses of the autopsy X-rays were virtually
superimposable on those shown in the clinical X-rays. The
sinuses, which are lobular air pockets inside the bone that forms
the forehead, vary uniquely in size and shape from one person to
another. This variability is seen particularly in the outlines of
their upper margin which typically cast a set of scallop-like
shadows on the X-ray. This scallop pattern is so individually
distinctive that forensic anthropologists have termed them "sinus
prints." For many years, law courts throughout the world have
accepted the matching of ante mortem and post mortem X-rays of
the sinuses as evidence for the positive identification of
unknown bodies. In the present case, the similarity in shape of
the sinus print patterns in the ante mortem and post mortem films
is sufficient to establish that they are of the same person on
the basis of this trait alone.
In addition to the sinus prints, several other strikingly
similar anatomical features were observed in the front view
X-rays. For example, the nasal septum--the thin wall of cartilage
and bone that separates the nostrils--was deviated to the same
side and to an identical degree in ante mortem and post mortem
films. Also the outlines of the bony rims of the orbits of the
eyes were nearly identical. The very slight variations observed
in these three features--sinus pattern, nasal septum, and orbital
margins--are the result of minor differences in the way the
X-rays were taken.
The profile views of the skull in the White and Groover
films were next compared to the autopsy X-rays. Again, a number
of almost identical anatomical features were observed in the ante
mortem and post mortem films. For example, the outlines of the
sella turcica (the saddleshaped depression in the base of the
skull), the complex patterns of the cranial sutures (the joints
uniting the bones of the skull), and location and arrangement of
the vascular grooves (the shallow depressions on the inner
surface of the skull which mark the course of blood vessels),
were the same. There was also nearly exact duplication of the
honeycomb-like air cells of the mastoid bone.
The chest X-ray taken by Dr. White in 1960, was next
compared to those of the upper torso taken at autopsy. Again, a
number of identical features were noted in both sets of films.
Among these were the outlines of the dorsal spines of the
thoracic vertebrae. (These spines are the bony projections that
are visible just under the skin along the center of the back.) In
X-rays these spines project a vertical series of small shadows of
varying sizes and shape that, like the architectural features of
the skull discussed above, are virtually unique in each
individual. In shape these shadows may range from almost perfect
circles to irregular trapezoids. They vary not only from one
individual to the next, but from one vertebra to another in the
same individual so that the series of a dozen or so of these
spines usually visible in a standard chest film, form a
combination of shapes distinctive for each individual. Allowing
for slight distortions due to position and technique, this series
of spines can be considered identical in the antemortem and
postmortem films.
In addition to the similar pattern of dorsal vertebrae
spines, a number of other features common to both sets of films
were observed. For example, the size and shape of the medial ends
of the clavicula (collar bones) were identical, as was the
pattern of ossification of the costochondral junctions of the
first ribs. Numerous details in the form and trabecular structure
of the ribs could also be matched from one set of films to the
other, particularly in the left eighth and ninth ribs which were
especially well-defined in both films.
The autopsy radiographs of the lower torso, including the
pelvis and upper legs, could be compared to the ante mortem
"Navy" films taken in 1962. These also show an impressive number
of osseous details in common. Of particular interest was the
right transverse process of the fifth lumbar vertebra. In both
sets of films it was displaced upward in a manner suggestive of a
congenital malformation or an old, ununited fracture.
To summarize, the skull and torso radiographs taken at
autopsy match the available ante mortem films of the late
President in such a wealth of intricate morphological detail that
there can be no reasonable doubt, but that they are indeed X-rays
of John F. Kennedy and no other person.
AUTHENTICATION OF AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS
The issue
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken
during autopsy. The deficiencies of these photographs as
scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
described elsewhere (Wilbur, 1968). Here it is sufficient to note
that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly closeups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or
impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features
(such as the wound in the upper back from anatomical landmarks.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date
and place of the examination.
In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste,
inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous
standards generally expected in photographs to be used as
scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the
defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable
objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and
documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts
about using certain of these photographs since they are more
confusing than informative. Unfortunately, however, they are the
only photographic record of the autopsy.
Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been
content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy
photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their
very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in
at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but
another decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of
wounds supportive of the Warren Commission's interpretation of
their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre
proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to
trial, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense
anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence.
In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these
photographs would have rested with the prosecution.
With the above considerations in mind, HSCA requested the
anthropology consultants to examine the questions surrounding the
authenticity of the JFK autopsy photographs. It should be
emphasized that our inquiry was limited to determining the
identification of the victim shown in the photographs. Other
aspects of authentication concerning the possibility of technical
alterations of the negatives and prints fall within the purview
of other photographic experts. Also, we did not concern ourselves
with the description and location of the wounds or of their
nature and significance, since this was clearly the
responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants.
MATERIALS EXAMINED
Post mortem
According to inventories (Humes et al., 1966, Carnes et al.,
1968) of the JFK autopsy materials in the National Archives, the
collection includes a total of 52 exposed negatives. These may be
divided into two series: (1) 25 4 by 5 inch black and white, and
(2) 27 4 by 5 inch color negatives. The entire series is numbered
sequentially beginning with the black-and-white series: Black and
white; No. 1 to No. 25; color; No. 26 to No. 52.
Examination of prints of the total series revealed that most
of the black-and-white negatives are virtually duplicates, in
subject and view, to corresponding negatives in the color series.
Therefore, our detailed analysis was limited to an examination of
the latter. These items were in the form of 8 by 10-inch enhanced
prints especially prepared for HSCA by Kodak Laboratories. Each
print was identified by its original negative number. The entire
series is described by subject in table I.
Ante mortem
In order to compare the facial features of the autopsy
subject with John F. Kennedy, a number of ante mortem photographs
of President Kennedy were examined. These were also furnished by
the National Archives. Two of these (National Archives Accession
Nos. 79-AR-6378G and 79-AR-8008K) were selected for a more
detailed comparison since they show a full profile of the subject
with his mouth slightly open, and in pose and camera angle,
correspond almost exactly with the full profile view of autopsy
photograph No. 29.
Analysis
To examine the autopsy photographs from the standpoint of
identification of the victim we have considered two hypotheses:
1. That the subject shown in the photographs was not John F.
Kennedy, but an unknown victim with a strong resemblance to the
assassinated President.
2. That the victim in the photographs, in which the facial
features are clearly visible, is indeed John F. Kennedy, but the
body in which the face is not shown (particularly photographs No.
32 thru No. 37 which document the location of the critical wounds
of the back and head) is that of another, unknown, individual.
In order to test the first hypothesis, it was necessary to
compare the facial features of the victim in the autopsy
photographs with ante mortem photographs of President Kennedy.
This comparison was made on the basis of both metric and
morphological features.
In making this comparison, it was first noted that there
were no gross inconsistencies between the autopsy victim and
general physical characteristics of John F. Kennedy. The victim
is a well-nourished, dark-haired, middle-aged, white male who
appears to be of northern European ethnic stock.
Our metric analysis was based on a comparison of autopsy
photograph No. 29 with the two ante mortem photographs
(79-AR-6378G and 79-AR-8008K) selected from the National Archives
series. The exact date of the ante mortem photographs was not
determined but both were made during the Kennedy Presidency and,
therefore, do not antedate the autopsy photograph by more than 3
years. All three photographs show the subject in nearly perfect
facial profile; Autopsy No. 29 and 79-AR-8008K are left profile
and 79-AR-6378G is a right profile photograph.
A series of 11 facial measurements were taken on each
photograph. These measurements are defined in table II.
Measurements were recorded to the nearest 1 mm and made from 8 by
10-inch prints.
Three sets of measurements were made on each photograph, and
the means were used to calculate the 10 indices given in table
III. The arrangement of President Kennedy's hair made it
impossible to take Physiognomic Face Height (No. 1) in
photographs 79-AR-6378G; otherwise all the 11 measurements could
be taken on each photograph.
As shown in table III, the index values of the autopsy
photograph and the two ante mortem photographs correspond very
closely. For further comparison, the mean of the ante mortem
indices was compared with the post mortem values (represented by
a single value in indices 1, 4, and 7 which as based on
measurement No. 1 that could not be taken on 79-AR-6378G). The
deviation between the ante mortem and post mortem means range
from 0.3 to 4 and the average deviation is 2.82 (table III). This
small deviation can be accounted for by a combination of several
factors such as the fact that in the autopsy the subject is
supine while he is standing erect in the ante mortem photographs,
and gravitational effects would cause some alteration of the
facial features. The facial measurements would also be influenced
by post mortem alterations and the effects of the massive cranial
trauma. In short, the metric similarities, as expressed by facial
indices are insignificant.
In addition to the strong metric similarities between
autopsy photograph No. 29 and the two ante mortem photographs, a
number of identical morphological features can be observed. Our
examination of morphological similarities was not limited to the
three photographs from which the measurements were taken, but
included comparisons between the other autopsy photographs which
show the victim's face (Nos. 26. 27, 28. 29, 30, 31, 40, and 41)
and a series of 43 close-up photographs of President Kennedy
selected from National Archives files to show his head and face
from a variety of angles. In these comparisons, no
inconsistencies in the morphological configuration of the eyes,
nose, mouth, ears, or other facial features were observed and, on
the contrary, a number of identical features were apparent. These
include rather distinctive traits such as the downward convexity
of the nasal septum and an angular and elevated nasal tip (the
latter, by the way, a trait observable in other members of the
Kennedy family). Among similarities noted in the ears are a
strong antihelix, small "tucked" tragus, narrow intertragic notch
and attached lobes. The lower margin of the helix is strongly
concave at its junction with the lobe, giving the latter a rather
attenuated appearance. Patterns of facial lines and wrinkles were
similar where they could be visualized in autopsy photographs. A
partial list of morphological similarities between the autopsy
subject and President Kennedy are shown in table IV. While they
are simply listed in the table, each has a distinctiveness about
it that impressed the examining anthropologists, both of whom
have examined similar traits in a large number of human faces.
Each of these traits, of course, can be separately observed in
the general population. However, the probability of their
occurring together in a single person is small. Their occurrence
in two individuals with near-identical facial proportions, as
expressed by the indices, is extremely remote.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the
individual shown in the autopsy photographs which show the
victim's face is beyond reasonable doubt, President John F.
Kennedy.
If it is accepted that the autopsy photographs showing the
victim's face are those of John F. Kennedy, it then is necessary
to examine the second hypothesis--namely that the remaining
autopsy photographs are those of another person.
Examination of table I shows that the entire series of 27 autopsy
photographs can be grouped as follows:
Groups: Negative Nos.
1. Left lateral views.........................29, 30, 31
2. Right lateral views................26, 27, 28, 40, 41
3. Superior views.........................38, 39, 42, 43
4. Posterior views................32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
5. Cranial cavity.................................44, 45
6. Brain......................46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
The photographs within each of the groups vary only slightly
in camera angle, lens-subject distance, subject position,
lighting and exposure. There is also sufficient commonality in
morphological features and other details to leave no doubt but
what they are of the same subject. Since we have concluded that
photographs in groups 1 and 2 (showing the face) are those of
President Kennedy, we can compare these with features observed in
the other photographs.
From the standpoint of pathological interpretation, the
least informative photographs are those of group 3, which provide
a superior view of the head and shoulders. This is because the
scalp has neither been shaved or reflected from the cranium,
procedures which would possibly have shown some of the crucial
details of the cranial trauma. In these photographs, a portion of
the victim's forehead and nose are shown from above. The
configuration of these facial features are consistent with the
nose and upper forehead contours of President Kennedy as surmised
from the ante mortem photographs taken from more conventional
angles. Also, certain random features such as bloodstains and an
apparent post mortem abrasion on the right shoulder (described in
more detail below), which can be seen in the photographs of group
2, can be observed in this set of photographs. We are therefore
of the opinion that these photographs are of the same person as
shown in groups 1 and 2 of the autopsy photographs--namely, John
F. Kennedy.
The most critical set of photographs from the standpoint of
identification are those of group 4 that show the head and upper
back of the victim from behind. To take these photographs, the
victim was apparently raised to a semi-upright position and held
there while the pictures were taken from the head of the autopsy
table. The purpose of these photographs was to document the scalp
and upper back wounds, the exact location of which has been a
matter of considerable controversy. In these photographs, the
only facial features visible are the back of the ears.
In comparing these photographs with those taken in group 2,
which show the right side of the head and face, several features
common to both were noted. These include two dried blood stains
on the upper right shoulder approximately 16 centimeters lateral
to the midline of the back. Approximately 7 centimeters medial to
these are a series of 3 narrow parallel marks approximately 3
centimeters in length, which appear to be slight skin abrasions.
These marks and stains are situated several centimeters lateral
to the back wound and do not appear to be directly associated
with it. It is possible that they were made in the course of the
handling and lifting of the body.
There is also a 3-by 5-centimeter area of discoloration at
the base the neck in the right area which apparently represents
either a slight contusion or some post mortem lividity. All of
these features are very irregular in shape and would thus be very
difficult if not impossible to duplicate. Such minor and random
details are also the kind of characteristics that would likely be
overlooked in any attempted hoax. Likewise, the hair, which is in
disarray and matted with blood and body fluids, presents a
complex of irregularly arranged strands and locks. Yet, allowing
for the different angles of view, these features appear to be
identical in size, location and shape in both the posterior
(group 4) photographs and those of the right lateral photographs
of group 1. which can be identified as being of President
Kennedy.
In addition to the above rather transient feature, others of
a more permanent nature were noted. These were the network of
transverse wrinkles extending across the back and side of the
neck. Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but
their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique
to the individual. Examination of these in the back photographs
of group 4 shows that they are identical in pattern and
development (again making allowance for view) as those seen on
the lateral side of the neck in the group 1 photographs. In
short, the profusion of minute and common detail lend us to
conclude that the individual shown in both sets of photographs is
the same.
The photographs of group 5, which show the cranial cavity
with the brain removed, are somewhat more difficult to evaluate.
One feature of interest is the outline of the fractured margin of
the frontal bone which is partially visible in the foreground of
these photographs. A deep V-shaped irregularity in this margin is
also visible in photographs group 1 in which the scalp is
partially reflected to expose the underlying bone. The anterior
margin of the cranial defeats also corresponds in shape to the
fractures observed in the cranial X-rays.
From the standpoint of positive identification, the most
problematical group of autopsy X-rays are those of group 6 which
show the isolated brain. Here we could find no anatomical
features that would associate this brain with the remaining
autopsy photographs. However, the trauma to the brain, effecting
primarily the superior aspect of the frontal lobes is certainly
consistent with the pattern of cranial trauma observed in the
autopsy photographs and X-rays.
CONCLUSION
Based on our examination of the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and comparison of these with known ante mortem X-rays
and photographs of John F. Kennedy, we conclude as follows:
1. The individual shown in the autopsy X-rays is John F.
Kennedy.
2. The individual shown in the autopsy photographs is John
F. Kennedy.
3. The brain shown in autopsy photographs Nos. 46 to 52
cannot be positively identified as that of John F. Kennedy.
However, this brain displays trauma consistent to the known
pattern of injury sustained by President Kennedy and, in the
absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, there is no
reason to believe that it is not the brain of the late President.
REFERENCES
(1) Wilbur, Charles C.: "Medicolegal Investigation of the
President John F. Kennedy Murder," Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield, Ill., 1978.
(2) Humes, J. J., J. T. Boswell, J. H. Ebersole, and J. T.
Stringer 1966. "Report of inspection by naval medical staff on
Nov. 1, 1966, at National Archives of X-rays and photographs of
autopsy of President John F. Kennedy."
(3) Carnes, W.H.R.S. Fisher, R.H. Morgan, and A. Moritz
1968. "Panel review of photographs, X-ray films, documents and
other evidence pertaining to the fatal wounding of President John
F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex." Washington, D.C.:
National archives.
TABLE I.--Description of autopsy photographs examined in
authentication study
Number:
26, head, right lateral ..| Superio-lateral view of head in quarter
27, head, right lateral ..| profile. Includes anterior neck wound,
28, head, right lateral ..| upper chest and shoulders.
29, head, left lateral ..|
30, head, left lateral ..| Profile view. Includes anterior neck
31, head, left lateral ..| wound. No. 30 over-exposed.
32, head, superior ..|
33, head, superior ..|
34, head, superior ..| Superior view of head and shoulders.
35, head, superior ..|
36, head, superior ..|
37, head, superior ..|
38, upper torso, posterior.| Shows shoulder wound.
39, upper torso, posterior.|
40, head, right lateral ..| Inferio-lateral view of head in quarter
41, head, right lateral ..| profile. Includes anterior neck wound.
42, head, posterior ..| Close-up of occipito-partial area
43, head, posterior ..| showing scalp wound.
44, cranial cavity ..| Anterio-superior views of cranial
45, cranial cavity ..| cavity. Brain removed.
46, brain interior ..|
47, brain, inferior ..|
48, brain, inferior ..|
49, brain, inferior ..| Removed from cranial cavity.
50, brain, superior ..|
51, brain, superior ..|
52, brain, superior ..|
TABLE II.--Measurements used to derive indices for
comparison of JFK ante mortem photographs with
autopsy photograph No. 29
1. Physiognomic face height.--Distance from the midpoint of
the hairline to the lowest point on the chin (trichion to
menton).
2. Forehead height.--Distance from the midpoint of the
hairline to the most anterior point on the lower forehead just
above the nasal root depression (trichion to glabella ).
3. Nose length.--Distance from the deepest point of the
nasal root depression to the junction point between the nasal
septum and the upper lip (subnasion to subnasale).
4. Total face height.--Distance between the most anterior
point on the lower forehead just above the nasal root depression
and the lowest point on the chin (glabella to menton).
5. Ear length.--Distance between the uppermost point on the
helix of the ear and the lowermost point on the earlobe
(superaurale to subaurale).
6. Lobe length.--Distance between the lowest point in the
intertragic notch and the lowest point of the earlobe
(intertragion to subaurale).
7. Chin height.--Distance from the point of contact between
the upper and lower lip and the lowest point on the chin (stomion
to menton).
8. Chin eminence height.--Distance from the point of deepest
depression between the lower lip and chin and the lowest point on
the chin (supramentale to menton).
9. Nasal projection.--Distance from the most anterior point
on the nasal tip to the junction point between the nasal septum
and the upper lip (pronssale to subnasale).
10. Nasal elevation.--Distance from the most anterior point
on the tip of the nose to the posterior most point on the
junction line between nasal alae and the cheek (pronasale to
postalare).
11. Total facial depth.--Distance between the most anterior
point on the nasal tip and the posterior most point on the
posterior margin of the helix of the ear (pronasale to
postaurale).
TABLE Ill.--Comparison of facial index values of ante
mortem photographs President John F. Kennedy
(79-AR-6378G, 79-AR-8008K) with left photograph
(No. 29) of autopsy subject
Mean deviation=2.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Antemortem
Index 1 (M/M x 100) Post-
79-AR- 79-AR- mortem
6378G 8008K Mean No. 29 diff
1. 2/1 x 100......................... 27.0 27.0 30.7 3.7
2. 3/4 x 100................. 26.4 35.1 35.8 33.1 2.7
3. 8/4 x 100................. 21.4 21.1 21.2 18.1 3.1
4. 7/1 x 100......................... 28.4 28.4 25.6 2.8
5. 7/4 x 100................. 37.1 36.8 37.0 33.8 3.2
6. 6/5 x 100................. 29.4 33.9 31.6 33.9 2.3
7. 5/1 x 100......................... 41.2 41.2 37.5 3.7
8. 9/3 x 100................. 47.1 45.0 46.0 50.0 4.0
9. 10/3 x 100................ 60.8 61.5 61.2 63.6 2.4
10. 5/11 x 100................ 49.7 45.9 47.8 47.5 .3
1 Numbers refer to measurements defined in table II.
2 Absolute differences between mean of ante mortem index and
post mortem index.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE IV.--Morphological similarities in both the ante mortem and
post mortem Kennedy photographs
Convex angle of nasal septum.
Lower third of nose convexity.
Nasal tip area elevated.
Attached ear lobe.
Strong ear antihelix.
"Tucked" ear tragus.
Distinctive lip profile.
Identical facial crease lines.
Similar neck crease lines.
(181) ADDENDUM B
REPORT TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SKULL X-RAY FILMS TAKEN DURING THE
AUTOPSY OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
(By Lowell J. Levine, D.D.S., Consultant for the Select Committee on
Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives., Sept. 7, 1978)
AUTHENTICATION OF AUTOPSY FILMS 1, 2, AND 3
BASIS FOR DENTAL IDENTIFICATION
The science of dental identification is based upon the fact that
characteristics associated with the dentition and the hard and soft
tissue structures of the oral cavity occur in astronomical numbers of
combinations.
Typically, the adult dentition contains 16 teeth in each jaw; 4
incisors, 2 canines, 4 premolars, and 6 molars. Each tooth has
characteristics such as morphology, root configuration, root canal
shapes, anomalies, pathology, and the like which are unique and
individual to that particular tooth. Similarly, the supporting
structures of the oral cavity have unique and individual
characteristics.
Teeth are often attached by carious lesions (decay) and other
processes which cause unique and individual characteristics.
There are five surfaces on each tooth which may be attacked by
dental caries and restored by the dentist. On posterior teeth
(premolars and molars), mesial and distal (toward and away from the
midline), occlusal (the grinding surface), buccal (towards the
cheek), and lingual (towards the tongue). On anterior teeth (incisors
and canines) mesial and distal, facial or labial (towards the face or
lips), lingual, and incisal (cutting surface). These surfaces may be
attacked by dental caries singly or in combination and restored by
the dentist in single- or multiple-surface restorations. Different
surfaces on the same tooth may be restored with various filling,
insulating, and lining materials. Different sized and shaped dental
burs (drills) are used to remove the dental caries, and prepare the
tooth to receive the filling material.
The dentist uses various materials to repair the effects of
dental caries. Metals such as gold in various forms and silver
amalgam are commonly used. Porcelains and acrylics are used and
various cements are used as temporary restorations, insulating
materials, and sealers.
It should be abundantly clear that the possible combinations
which may occur because of such factors as presence or absence of
particular teeth, surfaces of each tooth free of caries or decayed,
surfaces of each tooth present restored with various types of dental
materials, sizes and shapes of cavity preparations is limitless.
Almost all dental evidence is useful for identification
purposes. Dental evidence could include the written records of
examinations and treatments. Models of the mouth, teeth, and jaws
used for diagnosis and treatment planning or the actual fabrication
of prosthetic appliances. The prosthetic appliances themselves.
Photographs and X-ray films taken incident to diagnosis and/or
treatment.
X-ray films are excellent evidence for identification purposes.
The films will graphically exhibit characteristics such as presence
or absence of teeth, rotations of teeth, level of eruption of teeth,
tipping of teeth, and the relation of these teeth to each other.
The films will show the morphology of teeth, roots, and root
canals as well as the presence of caries, root canal therapy,
pathology such as retained roots and cysts, unerupted teeth,
anomalies, wear, and breakage among other things.
We may examine the shapes of fillings, extent of caries
involvement and removal, cement materials present, and density of
filling materials. Hard tissue patterns, pathology, and landmarks are
also graphically represented.
Even when extensive dental treatment, performed subsequent to
the date of the X-ray films, has considerably altered the visual
appearance of the teeth, the underlying hard tissue characteristics
remain quite distinctive.
DENTAL IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
The dental identification process will include a comparison by
the forensic odontologist of the unique and individual
characteristics exhibited by the evidence at hand with previously
existing records containing evidence of those same characteristics.
The forensic odontologist will use his training, experience, skill,
and expertise to form an opinion as to whether his comparison is
positive. He will render that opinion in a report which will also
contain the basis for that opinion.
The early use of dental identification in the United States can
be documented in two historically significant cases which both
occurred in President Kennedy's home State of Massachusetts.
Paul Revere, noted for his famous ride and as a silversmith,
also practiced dentistry. Gen. Joseph Warren, a Revolutionary War
hero killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill, had been a patient of
Revere. Originally buried by the British, his remains were
subsequently identified by Revere some 10 months later when Revere
recognized a prosthetic appliance he had made for General Warren.
In 1850 the Webster-Parkman case shocked Boston. Dr. John White
Webster, professor of chemistry and mineralogy at Harvard Medical
School was convicted of murdering Dr. George Parkman, professor of
anatomy at Harvard Medical School. In his first recorded instance of
dental identification in the courtroom, Dr. Nathan Cooley Keep,
subsequently first dean of Harvard Dental School, identified a few
fragments of lower jaw and an intact porcelain bridge which fitted
the cast Dr. Keep had preserved from recent dental care of the
missing Dr. Parkman. An expert witness for the defense was William
Morton, the young Boston dentist of other anesthesia fame.
EVIDENCE USED IN THE DENTAL IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
The evidence to be used for the comparisons was in the custody
of the National Archives of the United States at the time I examined
it. There was a "descriptive list" of the materials which was
apparently made when the National Archives received them from the
Kennedy Library.
"Descriptive list" (items I personally used for comparisons):
1. Manila envelope--business letter size.--Addressed to Capt. J.
W. Pepper, D.C., USN, containing two dental films, loose JFK July 12,
1962.
2. Manila envelope--business letter size.--marked JFK April 4,
196 containing two dental films, loose.
3. Manila envelope--about 5 by 6 inches.--
a. One mounted dental film dated March 11, 1961.
b. Two mounted dental films dated March 11, 1961.
c. Five mounted dental films dated January 18, 1961.
d. One mounted dental film dated March 8, 1962.
6. Manila Sleeve, about 10 inches by 12 inches.--JFK sinus
films, August 14, 1960, containing five films.
7. Manila envalope (sic), about 10 inches by 12 inches.--JFK
sinus films, August 14, 1960, containing four films.
Description of 1, 2, 3, 6, 7
1. Two dental films loose.--Both are left mandibular periapical
type films. The root apices (ends of the roots) do not appear on the
films. One film is taken slightly anterior to the other. The anterior
film includes a portion of the lower left canine, both lower left
premolars, the lower left first molar, and a portion of the lower
left second molar. (Universal Nos. 22, 21, 20, 19, 18.).
The posterior film includes a portion of the lower left first
premolar, the lower left second premolar, the lower left first molar,
and a portion of the lower left second molar. (Universal Nos. 21, 20,
19, 18.)
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored: first
premolar (No. 21), distal occlusal; second premolar (No. 20), mesial
occlusal distal; first molar (No. 19), mesial occlusal distal; second
molar (No. 28), mesial occlusal.
The restorations are interpreted as cast metal restorations. A
less radio opaque material pulpal (toward the "nerve"
to the
restorations is interpreted as dental cement. The lower left first
molar (No. 19) appears to have a portion of a previous metallic
restoration on the pulpal floor.
2. Two dental films loose.--Both are left mandibular periapical
type films. One film includes the root apicies, the other does not.
Both films include a portion of the lower left canine, the two lower
left premolars, the lowerleft first molar, and a portion of the lower
left second molar. (Universal Nos. 22, 21, 20, 19, 18.)
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored: first
premolar (No. 21), distal occlusal; second premolar (No. 20), mesial
occlusal distal; first molar (No. 19), mesial occlusal distal; second
molar (No. 18), mesial occlusal.
The restorations are interpreted as cast metal restorations. A
less radio opaque material pulpal to the restoration is interpreted
as dental cement. The lower left first molar (No. 19) appears to have
a portion of a previous metallic restoration on the pulpal floor.
3a. One mounted dental film dated March 11, 1961.--A film mount
marked, "Kennedy JF March 11, 1961," contains a left bite wing* type
film. It includes a portion of the upper left first premolar, lower
left first premolar, upper and lower second premolars, first and
second molars. (Universal Nos. 19, 13, 14, 15, 21, 20, 19, 18.)
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored:
Upper: First premolar (No. 12), mesial occlusal distal; second
premolar (No. 13), mesial occlusal distal; first molar (No. 14),
mesial occlusal distal; second molar (No. 15), roesial occlusal
distal.
Lower: First premolar (No. 21), distal occlusal; second premolar
(No. 20), mesial occlusal distal; first molar (No. 19), mesial
occlusal distal; second molar (No. 18), mesial occlusal.
The restorations are interpreted as cast metal on all surfaces
except for those of the two upper premolars. The restored surfaces on
these two teeth are metallic and may be either cast metal or silver
amalgam. There is dental cement pulpally on all teeth except the
upper and lower first premolars. There appears to be a portion of a
previous metallic restoration on the pulpal floor of the lower left
first molar.
3b. Two mounted dental films dated March 11, 1961.--A film mount
marked, "Kennedy John F 11 March 61" contains two maxillary left
periapical type films. These include a portion of the upper first
premolar, upper second premolar, upper first molar, and upper second
molar. (Universal Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15.)
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored: First
premolar (12), distal occlusal (mesial portion of tooth is not shown
on the film); second premolar (13), mesial occlusal distal; first
molar (14), mesial occlusal distal (probably lingual); second molar
(15), mesial occlusal distal.
All restorations are interpreted as being of metal with the
molars probably cast metal. There is cement visible under all
restorations with the exception of the first premolar.
3c. Five mounted dental films dated January 18, 1961.--A film
mount marked, "Kennedy, Pres. John F. January 18, 1961". The mount
bears a stamp, "Robert D. Morris, D.D.S., 140 East 54th St., New
York, 22 N.Y.".** The mount contains five X-ray films. There are two
right bite wing type films, two left bite wing type films, and one
maxillary left periapical type film.
<footnote>------------------------------------------
*This type film is usually of the crown portions of opposing
teeth of a segment or an entire side.
**Dr. Morris confirmed the fact that he treated President
Kennedy on Jan. 18, 1961 in a telephone conversation which occurred
on June 7, 1978, This appointment was 2 days prior to his
inauguration. He had a routine "check up" which included X-rays and
"cleaning".
<end footnote>---------------------------------------------
One right bite wing film is taken anterior to the other. The
more anterior film contains a portion of the upper and a portion of
the lower canine, the upper and lower first and second premolars, the
upper and lower first molars, a portion of the upper and lower second
molars. The more posterior film contains a portion of the upper and a
portion of the lower second premolars, the upper and lower first and
second molars.
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored:
Upper right: Canine (6), distal; first premolar (5), occlusal;
second premolar (4), mesial occlusal distal; first molar (3), mesial
occlusal distal; second molar (2), mesial occlusal.
Lower right: First premolar (28), occlusal, occlusal; second
premolar (29), distal occlusal; first molar (30), mesial occlusal
distal; second molar (31), mesial occlusal.
The upper right canine is interpreted as having a cement
restoration. All other restorations are metal. The first premolars
appear to have silver amalgam restorations, all others appear to be
cast metal. There appears to be cement pulpal to all restorations
except those of the first premolars.
One left bite wing film is taken anterior to the other. Both
films include the upper and lower first premolars, second premolars,
first molars and second molars. The more anterior film includes a
portion of the upper and lower second molars, the more posterior
film, a small portion of the upper and lower first premolars.
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored:
Upper left: First premolar (12), distal occlusal; second
premolar (13), mesial occlusal distal.
Upper left: First molar (14), mesial occlusal distal; second
molar (15), mesial occlusal distal.
Lower left: First premolar (21), distal occlusal; second
premolar mesial occlusal distal; first molar (19), mesial occlusal
distal; second molar (18), mesial occlusal.
The restorations are interpreted as cast metal on all surfaces
with the exception of the two upper premolars. The restored surfaces
on these two teeth are metallic and may be either cast metal or
silver amalgam. There is dental cement pulpally on all teeth except
the upper and lower first premolars. There appears to be a portion of
a previous metallic restoration on the pulpal floor of the lower
first molar.
The maxillary left periapical film includes a portion of the
upper first premolar, second premolar, first and second molars.
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored:
Upper left: First premolar (12), distal occlusal; second
premolar (13), mesial occlusal distal; first molar (14), mesial
occlusal distal (probably lingual); second molar (15), mesial
occlusal.
The restored surfaces of the molars are interpreted as cast
metal. The premolars may be either cast metal or silver amalgam.
There appears to be cement under all restorations with the exception
of the premolar.
3d. One mounted dental film dated March 8, 1962.--A film mount
marked, "JF Kennedy March 8, 1962" contains an upper left
periapical-type film. The film concludes a portion of the upper left
canine, first and second premolars, first molar, and a portion of the
second molar.
The following surfaces are interpreted to be restored:
Upper left: First premolar (12), distal occlusal; second
premolar (13), mesial occlusal distal; first molar (14), mesial
occlusal distal; second molar (15), mesial occlusal (the distal
portion of) No. 15 is not in the film.
All surfaces are restored in metal. The molars appear to be
restored with east metal the premolars with either cast metal or
silver amalgam. Cement is apparent pulpally on all teeth but the
first premolar.
6. JFK sinus films, August 17, 1960, * * *five films.---There is
a container marked, "5 sinus films"--J.F.K.
It is labeled: "Name Kennedy, Mr. John F., No. 336042; Remarks August
17, 1960.
Drs. Groover, Christie & Merritt
1835 I Street NW.
Washington 6, D.C."
The manila sleeve contains five X-ray films. One is a lateral
skull film. Four are AP films taken at various angulations.
The configuration of the frontal sinuses can be clearly
determined from the AP films.
The following dental restorations can be interpreted from the
lateral skull film:
Upper left: First premolar (12), distal occlusal; second
premolar (13), roesial occlusal distal; first molar (14), mesial
occlusal distal; second molar (15), mesial occlusal distal.
Lower left: First molar (19), mesial occlusal distal; second
molar (18), roesial occlusal.
Superimposition in the premolar area makes clear interpretation
difficult. Overlapping makes clear interpretation difficult toward
the anterior region.
These restorations all appear to be metallic. Cement can be
clearly seen pulpal to the restorations in the molar area. There
appears to be a portion of a previous metallic restoration pulpal to
the restoration and cement liner on the lower left first molar (19).
7. JFK Sinus Films, August 14, 1960, * * * four films.--There is
container marked, "#202617, 8-14-60, JFK, Dr. Stephen White, 'Sinus
X-Rays' ".
The envelope contains one lateral skull film and three AP-type
films taken at various angulations.
The configuration of the frontal sinus can be clearly determined
from the AP films.
The following dental restorations can be interpreted from the
lateral skull film: Upper right second molar (2), occlusal portion of
restoration; upper left second molar (15), distal portion of
restoration; lower right first molar (30), mesial occlusal distal;
lower right second molar (31), mesial occlusal.
There is considerable superimposition and overlap.
Authenticity of 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 6, 7.
The first task of the forensic odontologist is to form an
opinion as to whether the films he will use for comparison with the
films in question are authentic. The 22 films described were received
by the National Archives from the Kennedy Library. According to a
source at the Kennedy Library, the films were found in the White
House after the death of the President. They came to the Kennedy
Library through a family member.
Dates of Films and Source:
August 14, 1960--later skull film; three AP skull films--Dr.
Stephen White, No. 7.
August 17, 1960--lateral skull film, four AP skull films--Drs.
Groover, Christie, & Merritt No. 6.
January 18, 1961--five dental films-Dr. Robert D. Morris--No. 3c
two right bite wings, two left bite wings, one left maxillary
periapical.
March 11, 1961--three dental films--Capt. J.W. Pepper, D.C.,
USN--No. 3a, 3b; one left bite wing, two left maxillary periapicals.
March 8, 1962,--one dental film--Capt. J.W. Pepper, D.C.,
USN-No. 3d; one left maxillary periapical.
April 9, 1962--two dental films--Capt. J.W. Pepper, D.C.,
USN-No. 2; two left mandibular periapicals.
July 12, 1962--two dental films--Capt. J.W. Pepper, D.C.,
USN--No. 1; two left mandibular periapicals.
Films of the left side:
No. 1. Two films July 12. 1962--two mandibular periapicals.
No. 2. Two films April 9, 1962--two mandibular periapicals.
No. 3a. One film March 11, 1961--bite wing.
No. 3b. Two films March 11, 1961--two maxillary periapicals.
No. 3c. Three films January 18, 1961--two bite wings, one
maxillary periapical.
No. 3d. One film March 8, 1962--maxillary periapical.
No. 6. One film August 17, 1960--lateral skull.
There are 12 films taken over a 23 month period by at least
three different sources, Drs. Pepper, Morris, and White.
Films of the right side:
No. 3c. Two films Jan. 18, 1961--two bite wings.
No. 7. One film Aug. 14, 1960--lateral skull (also shows portion
of left).
There are three films taken in a 5-month period by two different
sources, Dr. Morris and Drs. Groover, Christie, and Merritt.
There are seven films useful for comparing frontal sinus
configurations, No. 6 and No. 7 from two different sources, Dr. White
and Drs. Groover, Christie, and Merritt.
Opinion as to the authenticity of
the films to be used for comparisons
Dr. Robert D. Morris confirms the fact that he did expose X-ray
films on President. John F. Kennedy on Jan. 18, 1961. There are
numerous unique and individual characteristics reproduced in the 15
films illustrating the dentition. The films were acquired from at
least four different sources. Films taken in like areas may be easily
compared with each other. It is my opinion that all films were taken
on the same person, John F. Kennedy.
Autopsy films 1, 2, 3
Description of films:
1. AP skull film. Lateral skull film.
2. Lateral skull film.
3. Lateral skull film.
Each film is marked, "21296" U.S. Naval Hospital, NNMC,
Bethesda, Md.
Description of areas of comparison of autopsy 1, 2, 3
Autopsy 1.--The configuration of the frontal sinuses are quite
distinctive. The right side, is "heart" shaped, the left almost
"rhomboid."
Autopsy 2.--There is considerable superimposition and overlap of
the jaws, teeth, and restorations, however, the right side appears
slightly superior. There is a radio-opaque rectangular-shaped object
with three small and one large radiolucent circular areas in it
extending from the second lower premolar considerably beyond the
third molar area. It obliterates the roots of the molars and extends
at an angle beyond the inferior border of the mandible. Because of
the angulation at which this film was taken, this object, is
parallelogram shaped, the circular areas oval-shaped.
The configuration and juxtapositions of a number of the dental
restorations are useful for comparison purposes. The two occlusal
restorations can be clearly interpreted on the lower right first
premolar (28) as can the occlusal portion of the distal occlusal
restoration on the lower right second premolar (29). In the second
molar area the two second molars are superimposed upon each other.
The very distinctively shaped cement liner in the lower left second
molar (18) is quite apparent. It is kidney-shaped with the concavity
toward the pulpal floor. The deeper portion extends toward the
distal. Immediately above the cement liner is the occlusal portion of
the mesial occlusal restoration. The concave distal occlusal wall is
apparent. The shallow portion of the distal occlusal wall of the
roesial occlusal restoration in the lower right second molar (31) can
be interpreted immediately above the convexity of the distal occlusal
wall of the lower left second molar (18) restoration. The deeply
rounded floor of the mesial portion of the roesial occlusal
restoration on the lower left second molar (18) can be seen.
The distal portions of restorations on the upper second molars
can be interpreted although considerably superimposed upon each
other.
There are unquestionably ample unique and individual
characteristics which can be interpreted for comparison purposes
contained in this film.
Autopsy 3.--There is no superimposition of the maxillary left
segment. Although there is slight overlap, the configuration and
juxtapositions of the dental restorations in this segment can be
readily interpreted. There is superimposition of the right maxillary
molar area on the superior portion of the occlusal of the lower right
second premolar (29) and lower right first molar (30). There is a
radio-opaque rectangular object, apparently the same object as in
autopsy 2, which obliterates almost entirely both lower left
premolars, the roots of the lower left first molar, and a portion of
the roots of the lower left second molar. The lower left second molar
appears free of distortions.
The characteristics of the restorations and existing lining
materials can be readily interpreted on the following teeth: Upper
left: First premolar (12); second premolar (13), first molar (14),
second molar (15).
Upper right: First premolar (5), second premolar (4).
Lower left: First molar (19) ; second molar (180).
There are numerous unique and individual characteristics which
can be interpreted for comparison purposes contained in this film.
Comparisons
Autopsy 1.--The configurations and relationships of the frontal
sinuses depicted in this film and in films contained in sinus 6 and
sinus 7 are similar.
Autopsy 2.--The unique and individual characteristics described
in this film can also be interpreted in films contained in: 1, 2, 3a,
3c, 6, and 7.
Autopsy 3.--The unique and individual characteristics described
in this film can also be interpreted in films contained in: 1, 2, 3a,
3b, 3c, 3d, 6, and 7.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that autopsy films 1, 2, and 3 are
unquestionably of the skull of President John F. Kennedy. It is
further my opinion that the unique and individual dental and hard
tissue characteristics which may be interpreted from autopsy films 1,
2, and 3 could not be simulated.
LOWELL J. LEVINE, D.D.S.
EXHIBITS
Comparison of dental X-rays are visually quite persuasive when
presented to juries of lay persons as photographic "blowups". The
forensic odontologist can easily demonstrate the characteristics and
relationships he has interpreted to form his opinion.
Almost at the outset of my examination in consultations between
Dr. Michael M. Baden, the committee staff, and myself, it was decided
it would be very desirable to attempt to get permission to reproduce
portions of X-ray films which were significant in forming my opinion.
The strongest reason for publishing facsimiles of the X-ray
evidence is that they are so much more convincing than a narrative
description of characteristics compared.
The committee staff obtained permission for me to photograph and
reproduce portions of the films I felt were necessary to document the
identification and authentication. Autopsy No. 1 was not photographed
at that time because it was my understanding that my permission
precluded reproducing areas which depicted injury pattern. The fact
that documentation of autopsy No. 1, is not included in these
exhibits should in no way be construed to imply that my opinion as to
the authenticity of that film is anything less than a positive
identification.
On November 15, 1977, I personally photographed the films at the
National Archives. The exhibits were produced under my direction by
Walter Poppe, forensic photographer, office of the medical examiner,
Nassau County, N.Y., while employed as a private consultant.
[Graphics omitted]
REPORT ON AUTOPSY COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS
AUTHENTICITY
(By Frank Scott, August 15, 1978)
I have carefully analyzed the original color transparencies
exposed in the camera used by the photographer during the autopsy of
President Kennedy. The photographer took two or more pictures of each
scene; for each scene he used a different exposure (different shutter
speed or different lens f-number) for each of the two or more
pictures; this is a common practice of photographers to enhance the
probability that one of the pictures of a particular scene is exposed
properly and as insurance. In the event any of the two or more
pictures of a scene are lost due to camera or processing (developing)
failures. The two or more pictures taken by the photographer of a
particular scene in several instances were made with the camera in
slightly (a few centimeters) different positions in space. For other
scenes, the photographer made the two or more exposures from the same
position in space, probably using a tripod on which the camera was
mounted or using a specimen stand as was, apparently, the case for
the pictures made of the brain specimen. The fact that, two or more
pictures of a particular scene were made from slightly different.
positions is very fortunate because the variation in camera position
provides true stereophotography, somewhat analogous to the different
positions of microphones in stereo recording of an orchestra. A pair
of stereo pictures enables one to see the scene in three dimensions;
stereo pictures add depth to the perception of the photographed scene
in much the same way as a pair of human eyes, separated from one
another in space, can perceive depth.
The stereo pairs of pictures provide a sound basis upon which to
assess the authenticity of the photographs. The same is true of the
nonstereo pairs, such as the brain pictures, but to somewhat lesser
extent.
In the case of nonstereo pairs of pictures, the pictures can be
superimposed on one another; the superimposition can be achieved
physically (actually placing one transparency over or on another
transparency) or by optical means (where the image of the
transparencies are optically brought together in register). Careful
examination of the superimposed pictures will reveal differences
between the two pictures. In viewing stereo pairs of photographs, one
eye views one picture and the other eye views the second picture; the
eyes, coupled with the visual image processes of the brain, very
readily reveal differences between the two pictures. When viewing a
photographed scene using a stereo pair of photographs, differences in
the scene between the two pictures tend to "pop out at you", that is,
are easily noted. When viewing a photographed scene using a nonstereo
pair of photographs, differences between the photographs are apparent
but not as readily noted and thus require more careful examination.
To successfully avoid detection of picture alteration requires
that each picture of a pair of pictures be altered identically, which
is essentially impossible, particularly with a stereo pair since each
picture of a stereo pair is a picture of the scene from a slightly,
but directly comparable, point of view. Any nonidentical alteration
of the pictures of a pair is readily noted when pairs are viewed
stereoscopically or monoscopically. A clear demonstration of this is
provided by one particular stereo pair: In one picture of the pair
there are more droplets of blood on the towel directly beneath a
clump of hairs of President Kennedy's head than there are in the
other picture of the pair; when viewing this scene in stereo, it
becomes very quickly and clearly apparent that the two pictures are
not identical with specific respect to this blood-droplets detail;
obviously, during the elapsed time between the two pictures,
additional blood dripped from the hair onto the towel.
In a careful examination of the pictures made of each scene, and
in searching for, and finding, candidate pictures for stereo pairs
for use by medical experts for the select committee, I did not find
any indication or evidence that any of the pictures were altered and,
thus, I conclude that these pictures are authentic photographs. In
forming this conclusion, I assume that the object photographed is,
indeed, the body of President Kennedy.
Attachment.
TRANSPARENCY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
Among the autopsy transparencies, the following pairs provided
stereoscopic viewing of the photographed scene:
43 JB and 42 JB
33 JB and 32 JB
44 JB and 45 JB
34 J7B and 37 J7B
26 J7B and 28 J7B
while the following pairs provided stereoscopic viewing but of poor
stereo quality:
38 JB and 39 JB
41 J7B and 40 J7B
while the following pairs, or sets of three pictures, appeared to be
identical to one another but did not provide stereoscopic viewing:
32 JB and 36 JB
37 JB and 35 J7B
29 J7B and 31 JB and 30 J7B
26 J7B and 27 J7B
47 JB and 46 JB and 48 JB
52 J7B and 51 JB and 50 JB
The numbers refer to those appearing on the envelopes or
protective cellophane sleeves of the 4 by 5 inch positive
transparencies as provided to me by Archive Courier, Mr. Bill Grover,
on March 2, 1978; these numbers may not be consistent with other
references to these photographs during the past years since the
transparencies may not have been stored consistently in their own,
correct, envelope or sleeve; the "JB" or "J7B" portion of the
notations or labels may not be correct since it is merely my
interpretation of letters/numbers which were not clearly written and
possibly misread by me.
[END OF MATERIAL IN HSCA VOLUME VII]
2. AUTHENTICATION OF THE KENNEDY AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AND XRAYS
(a) Introduction
(512) Authentication of the autopsy photographs allegedly taken
of President Kennedy was considered essential because of the
discrepant descriptions that have been given of the wounds incurred
by the President. The description of the size and location of the
President's head wounds, for example, by eyewitnesses at Parkland
Hospital differed dramatically from the testimony of the autopsy
doctors and the account set forth in the Warren Report.(195) More
recently, the panel of medical experts convened by then-Acting
Attorney General Ramsey Clark described Kennedy's head entrance wound
as approximately 10 centimeters higher than the location reported by
the Warren Commission (196) As a result of these discrepancies, it
was essential to verify that the autopsy photographs and X-rays did,
in fact, depict Kennedy and that these materials had not been altered
in any way.
(b) Issues
(513) 1. Do the postmortem photographs and X-rays in the
custody of the National Archives purporting to depict President
Kennedy, in fact, depict him?
(514) 2. Is there any evidence that either President Kennedy's
autopsy photographs or X-rays have been altered?
(c) Materials examined
(515) Twenty-seven original color transparencies and the twenty
five original black and white negatives were examined. These depicted
the subjects head and upper torso from various positions. In
addition 8 x 10 color and black and white photographic prints
generated from these transparencies were evaluated.
(516) The X-ray materials consisted of the following items:
(517) 1. An attempted anteroposterior projection of a skill
identified as:
21296 (numbers upside down).
U.S. Naval Hospital.
NNMC Bethesda, Md.
November 22, 1963.
<Start footnote>-----------------------------------------
*A more detailed description of these photographs is provided in
pars. 570-571, 583-595 infra.
<End footnote>-------------------------------------------
(518) 2. Right lateral projection of a skull with the same
identification symbols.
(519) 3. Left lateral projection of a skull with the same
identification symbols.
(520) 4. Three radiographs of three fragments of bone
unidentified by symbols.
(521) 5. An anteroposterior projection of a chest with the same
identification symbols as Nos. 1-3 above. This radiograph was
obtained with the thoracic cage intact, that is, before autopsy.
(522) 6. An anteroposterior projection of a chest with the same
identification as No. 5 above. This radiograph was obtained after the
thorax had been opened and the lungs and mediastinal contents had
been removed.
(d) Procedures
(523) Independent of the panel's analysis, the photographs and
X-rays were reviewed by the three physicians who performed the
autopsy, the, leader of the X-ray team that took the postmortem X-
rays, dividuals indicated that the photographs and X-rays accurately
portrayed Kennedy's various wounds. (197).
(524) The panel's board of consulting forensic anthropologists
and a forensic odontologist compared the photographs and X-rays with
premortem photographs and X-rays of Kennedy. Premortem materials were
studied for the purpose of discerning unique anatomic features whose
presence in the postmortem photographs and X-rays would verify that
the individual depicted was, in fact, Kennedy.
(525) The photographic materials and X-rays were examined
visually by the panel. This review included both microscopic
examination and viewing relevant photographs in a stereoscope, a
special device that allows pairs of photographs to be viewed in three
dimensions. Because stereoscopy provides an excellent means by which
altered or doctored photographs can be detected,(2) primary reliance
was placed upon this analytical technique.
(526) Finally, the autopsy X-rays, in addition to being
reviewed by the panel, were analyzed for evidence of fakery by a
radiologist who had particular expertise in the area of image
enhancement.
(e) Conclusion
(527) 1. The postmortem photographs and X-rays in the custody
of the National Archives purporting to depict Kennedy do, in fact,
depict him.
Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the
camera and lens that were used to take these photographs, the panel
was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken
with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine
whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the
photographs that were the subject of inquiry.
The principle of stereoscopy is discussed in detail in pars.
75-79. 434 36 supra. While several of the autopsy photographs and X-
days were enhanced through the use of digital image processing, the
resulting enhanced photographs and X-rays were used exclusively by
the autopsy panel for determining the nature and cause of wounds.
They were found to be unnecessary in the analysis to detect possible
fakery, since the original materials, when viewed stereoscopically,
were of sufficient quality to resolve this issue.
(528) 2. There is no evidence that either the Kennedy autopsy
photographs or X-rays have been altered.
(f) Analysis
(529) This section will deal primarily with the panel's visual
examination. Separate, reports have been filed setting forth the
detailed analysis of the panel's board of consulting forensic
anthropologists and the forensic odontologist.
(530) Visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and
transparencies revealed no evidence of retouching, compositing, or
other evidence of fakery. Because all of the relevant photographs
were studied stereoscopically, it is extremely unlikely that evidence
of fakery would have escaped detection.
(531) Stereoscopic viewing is made possible when two photographs
of a subject are taken from a slightly different position in space
(that a few centimeter movement of the camera or a similar degree of
movement by the subject photographed). This was made possible in the
present case because the autopsy photographer, in an apparent effort
to insure a good final result, took two or more pictures of each
relevant view.
(532) Because pairs of stereo pictures may be seen in three
dimensions, such photographs add depth to the perception of the
photographed scene in much the same way as a pair of human eyes,
separated from one another in space, can perceive depth.
In viewing stereo pairs of photographs through a stereoscope,
one eye views one picture and the other eye views the second picture.
As a result, the eyes, coupled with the visual image processes of the
brain, are able very readily to perceive any differences between the
two pictures. Such differences in the scene between the two pictures
tend literally to "pop out at you." No differences of this kind were
by the panel in stereo pairs of Kennedy's head, top of his head, the
large skull defect, the of the head, back wound or the anterior neck
wound. In this way, photographs of each of Kennedy's wounds were
effectively authenticated.
(533) It is theoretically possible to alter photographs that
comprise a stereo pair. To avoid detection of such alteration,
however, requires that each picture comprising the pair be altered
slightly different, in a systematic way. This is extremely difficult
because each picture of stereo pair is a picture of the scene from a
slightly different, but directly comparable, point of view. Such
alteration is virtually impossible when, as in the case of Kennedy's
head, the image photographed contains considerable detail.
(534) The examination of the postmortem X-rays focused
primarily on the following possible indicia of fakery:
(1) observation of a difference in density of the images;
(2) discontinuity of anatomical structures:
(3) alteration of continuity of an abnormal pattern; or
(4) production of an image which is not anatomical or an image
of an impossible pathologic process.
(535) No such evidence of fakery was discerned. (198) The X-ray
images have not been altered in any fashion except for:
(536) 1. Two small areas of thermal damage resulting from a
light source that was once held too close to the "anteroposterior"
image. These were reported to be present on an observation report
dated November 1, 1966, and validated by signature November 10, 1966.
This report is in the National Archives.
(537) 2. In addition, the panel observed minor "staining" or
discoloration of the images due to incomplete processing of the film
in the developing process. This discoloration will continue to be
more prominent with the passage of time. (199)
(538) Finally, the linear opacities associated with the
postmortem X-rays have been said to be the result of manipulation.
These opacities are normal grid lines from the grid used to eliminate
"scatter fogging" of the images at the time' of exposure of the
films, and, therefore, represent normal images rather than evidence
of manipulation.
3. FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGICAL ISSUES
(a) Introductory statement of approach
(539) In the course of its investigation of the death of
President Kennedy, the committee encountered several problems
concerning the photographic identification of certain individuals
either known or alleged to have been involved in the assassination.
Upon the advice of other scientific consultants, it was determined
that some of these problems fall within the purview of forensic
anthropology, a relatively new discipline of the forensic sciences.
(540) Forensic anthropology is defined as the application of
the physical anthropologist's knowledge of human variation to
problems of legal medicine. As implied in this definition, forensic
anthropologists, of whom there are fewer than 30 in the United
States, are physical anthropologists who, by training and experience,
are qualified experts in the medicolegal aspects of their science.
The parent field, physical anthropology, is the study of man's
biological variation in space and time. Any physical or physiological
difference between human individuals and populations is of interest
to physical anthropologists. Applications of their expertise range
from the search and study of man's remotest fossil ancestors to
helping design space suits for astronauts.
(541) For over a century physical anthropologists have measured
the distances between specific anatomical landmarks of the human body
in order to describe mathematically its variation in size and shape.
To minimize error and insure repeatability, the measurements are made
by trained anthropometrists with the subject positioned in a
standardized pose. Size differences in body dimensions are reflected
in the measurements themselves. Shape differences are defined by
simple indices or by more complex multivariate methods. An index is
ordinarily computed by dividing the smaller of two measurements by
the larger and multiplying the result by 100 to eliminate the
decimal. For example, the nasal index is computed as follows:
nose width
Nasal Index = ----------- X 100
nose length
From this it can be seen that the nasal index provides some
numerically expressed information about the shape of a given
individual's nose. In a person with a short, broad nose, the index
will be larger than in one whose nose is long and narrow.
(542) Although measurements are usually taken on living
subjects, techniques to obtain accurate anthropometric measurements
from photographs have also been developed. Nevertheless, such methods
require elaborate equipment and extremely close control of the
subject's post lighting, lens-subject distance, and other technical
factors. Photogrammetric anthropometry generally also requires that
the anatomical landmarks be marked on the subject in advance so that
the distance between these points can be measured on the photograph.
(543) From time to time, forensic anthropologists are also
asked to compare one or more photographs of crime suspects, disaster
victims, or other unidentified persons to establish their
identification. Usually, the photographs submitted for examination
consist of casual snapshots, press photographs, studio portraits,
passport pictures, or police "mug shots." Naturally, such
photographs vary greatly in enlargement, camera angle, image clarity,
lens-subject distance, lighting, and other factors that make direct
comparison of measurements taken from such disparate photographs
extremely difficult or totally impractical. For instance, an
individual's nose width and length measured from a wallet-size
identification photograph and a large studio portrait will be greatly
different. Unless we know the exact degree of enlargement, type of
camera, lens-subject distance, and many other technical features
involved in making both photographs, meaningful comparison cannot be
made between the nasal dimensions of the individual in terms of
absolute size. Unfortunately, this kind of information is usually
lacking on the types of photographs submitted for identification. In
short, size differences cannot usually be studied in such analyses.
(544) Nevertheless, if two photographs are reasonably similar
in camera angle---let us say, full-face--the ratio of nose width to
length will be the same, or nearly so, in both photographs.
Consequently, the index, as defined above, can still be determined
and meaningfully compared. This of course does not necessarily mean
that the value of the index will be precisely the same from
photograph to photograph of the same individual. Small variations in
camera angle, lighting, facial expression of the subject, and
measuring technique will introduce corresponding errors in the nose
width and length measurements taken from the photograph, and these
will be reflected as corresponding variations in the index values.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect the varying index values of
the same individual to cluster within a reasonably narrow range.
(545) Of course, one does not rely upon a single index. Along
with nasal width and length, a number of other facial measurements
can be accurately taken from suitable photographs and pairs of these
can be combined to produce other indices which describe other
features of facial shape. Angles are also independent of enlargement
factors and can be used for comparison. For example, from profile
photographs one can measure the angle between the nasal bridge and
the general facial plane and, in the same individual, it will be
found to be fairly constant from one photograph to another. Thus,
instead of only one or two indices or angles, several can be employed
to add reliability to the comparisons. The term metric analysis is
used to refer to comparisons based on numerically expressed variables
such as angles and indices.
(546) The use of indices of this kind has not been refined to
such an extent that a particular numerical result may automatically
be considered indicative of a strong resemblance between two
individuals, or that the same individual is, in fact, the subject
involved in each case. Nevertheless, for general guideline purposes a
mean deviation of five or less between the cumulative indices may be
considered indicative of strong physical resemblance.
(547) In addition to the analysis of metric traits by the use
of such indices, there are certain other facial features which,
although they cannot be conveniently measured or expressed
numerically, are nevertheless very useful in photographic
comparisons. This group of features vary considerably, but
collectively can be called morphological (as opposed to metric)
traits.
(548) An example of such a trait is the lowly ear lobe which,
aside from providing a convenient place to hang earrings, seems to
have no discernible purpose except to provide physical
anthropologists with something to classify. Accordingly, a threefold
classification of ear lobes as either free, attached, or soldered has
been devised. Free lobes are those that are to some degree pendulous;
in attached lobes the outside margins of the ears connect more or
less directly to the side of the face. The soldered lobe is an
extreme form of the attached type in which union of ear margin and
cheek is so direct that there is no discernible lobe at all. Since
ear lobe type can frequently be determined from photographs, the
trait can be useful in identification.
(549) In addition to lobe type, there are numerous other
structural features of the human ear that vary considerably from one
person to the next. The total complex of these traits, while not as
individually distinctive as fingerprints, are sufficiently unique to
permit identification beyond reasonable doubt in many cases.
(550) Along with ears, the human face possesses an array of
morphological features that, while difficult to measure, can be
readily classified. The nasal tip can be elevated ("snub-nosed"
or
depressed, pointed or bulbous: the bridge of the nose, in profile,
can be straight, convex or concave. Lips can be thick or thin: hair--
straight, wavy, curly, or kinky, and so on. Also within this category
are traits that are acquired by accident or age (or as Shakespeare
put it "... through chance or nature's changing course untrimmed"
.
Among traits acquired during life may be included warts, moles, and
other random blemishes, scars from accidents or surgery, broken
noses, cauliflower ears, and other more or less permanent
disfigurements. The inevitable loss of skin elasticity with age
produces wrinkles and these networks of creases and furrows form
patterns that, uniquely characterize each human face. The comparison
of traits that cannot be measured but only classified (as the ear
lobe) or described as "present" or "absent" (such as a scar)
constitutes the morphological analysis of the photographs question.
(551) The forensic anthropologists serving as committee
consultants were asked to deal with five specific problems of
photographic identification:
(552) 1. Authentication of JFK autopsy photographs and Xrays.--
Certain conspiracy theorists have claimed that the autopsy
photographs and X-rays are of a person other than the President. Is
there scientific evidence that will support or refute this claim?
(553) 2. The Milteer issue.--Whether a certain man
photographed in the line of motorcade spectators was actually one
Joseph A. Milteer. Milteer (now dead) was a militant right wing
activist who has been alleged to have had knowledge of a plot to
assassinate President Kennedy.
(554) 3. The three tramps issue--Shortly after the
assassination, three men, described as derelicts, were apprehended by
Dallas County Sheriffs officers in a boxcar on the triple overpass
overlooking Dealey Plaza. These men were released without being
formally identified. Could any of these men be certain individuals
who some conspiracy theorists claim were involved in an assassination
plot?
(555) 4. The "Second Oswald" issue.--Several assassination
theories have been based on the speculation that Lee Harvey Oswald
may, at one stage or another, have been impersonated by a double. Do
the known photographs of Oswald support or refute this hypothesis?
(556) 5. The Lovelady issue.--Photographs taken during the
assassination snow a man standing in the doorway of the Texas
Schoolbook Depository who bears a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey
Oswald. Was this man actually Oswald or another Depository employee,
Billy N. Lovelady?
(557) A review of the issues stated above shows that they were
diverse in scope and therefore required an equally diverse approach
in their resolution. Nevertheless, certain steps and procedures that
were common to all may be briefly outlined here.
(558) 1. Selection of materials. An initial step in all cases
was a review of the available photographic materials and selection of
those technically suitable for analysis. In some cases the selection
was extremely limited. For example, because only one photograph of
the spectator alleged to be Milteer was suitable for analysis, all
comparisons with known photographs of Milteer had to be made against
this single item. At the other extreme, dozens of photographs of Lee
Harvey Oswald ranging in time from his Marine Corps enlistment to his
arrest in Dallas were available for study.
(559) 2. Measurements.--Selected photographs were next
processed for measurement. In some cases, measurements were taken
from the unenlarged original photographs with a Bausch and Lomb
measuring, magnifier equipped with a calibrated metric scale. In
others, measure meats were taken from enlargements (made, when
possible, from the original negatives) to the nearest 1.0 min. All
measurements were taken by one observer. Measurements reported here
represent the mean of three trials.
(560) 3. Computations.--As noted previous]y, since enlargement
factors were unknown, size differences--as represented by the raw
measurements taken from the photographs--could not be meaningfully
compared. Instead, indices were calculated between related
measurement Fairs. Wherever possible, landmarks, measurements and
indices were selected that corresponded to those long standardized by
physical anthropologists for facial anthropometry. Not all
measurements could be taken from every photograph selected for study.
For example, the various facial breadth measurements obviously could
be obtained only from profile photographs. Even so, every effort was
to obtain as many index measurements as possible for comparison. More
detailed descriptions of data reduction and analysis will be provided
in the sections dealing with the individual problems of photographic
comparisons.
(b) Authentication of autopsy photographs
1. INTRODUCTION
(561) The anthropology consultants were asked by the committee
to examine postmortem radiographs and photographs taken during the
autopsy of President Kennedy at the U.S. Naval Hospital on Nov. 22,
1963, and, if scientifically possible, determine whether or not they
were in fact those of the President. The approach to this problem was
through the comparison of the postmortem X-rays and photographs with
those known to have been taken prior to his death.
(562) As noted previously in this appendix volume, the Kennedy
assassination materials in the National Archives contain a series of
negatives and prints of photographs allegedly taken during autopsy.
The deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of
a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. (200) Here it is
sufficient to note that:
(563) 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
(564) 2. Some, particularly close-up views, were taken in such a
manner that it is nearly impossible to orient anatomically the
direction of view.
(565) 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or
when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult
or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features
(such as wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.
(566) 4. None of the photographs contain information
identifying the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number,
and the date and place of the examination.
(567) In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste,
inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous
standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific
evidence. In fact in a criminal trial, the defense would probably
raise many objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and
documented photographs as evidence.
2. ISSUE
(568) Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been
content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy
photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their
authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least
some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another
decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds
supportive of the Warren Commission's statements of their nature and
significance. As macabre as this proposition might appear, the onus
of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have
rested with the prosecution.
(569) With the above considerations in mind, the Committee
requested the anthropology consultants to examine the questions
surrounding the authenticity of the JFK autopsy photographs. Their
inquire was limited to determining the identification of the victim
shown in the photographs. Other aspects of authentication concerning
the possibility of technical alterations of the negatives and prints
were undertaken by other photographic experts, as described elsewhere
in this appendix. Questions concerning the description and location
of the wounds and of their nature and significance, were considered
exclusively by the forensic pathology consultants.
3. MATERIALS
Post mortem
(570) It has previously been recorded and the committee
similarly found, that the autopsy materials in the National Archives
contain a total of 52 exposed transparencies and/or negatives. (201)
These may divided into two series: (1) 25 4 x 5 inch black-and-white
and (2) 27 4 x 5 inch color negatives. The entire series is numbered
sequentially beginning with the black-and-white series:
Black-and-white: No. 1--No. 25.
Color: No. 26-No. 52.
(571) Examination of prints of the total series revealed that
most the black-and-white negatives are virtually duplicates, in
subject and view, to corresponding negatives in the color series.
Consequently, our detailed analysis was limited to an examination of
the color series. These items were in the form of high quality 8" x
10" prints specially prepared for the committee by a team of
professors from RIT. Each print was identified by its original
negative number. The entire series is described by subject, in Table
I.
Antemortem.
(572) In order to compare the facial features of the autopsy
subject with those of John F. Kennedy, a number of antemortem
photographs of the President were examined. These were also furnished
by the National Archives. Two of these (National Archives Accession
Nos. 79-AR-6378G and 79-AR-8008K) were selected for a more detailed
comparison since they show a full profile of the subject with his
mouth slightly open, and in pose and camera angle correspond almost
exactly with the full profile view of autopsy photograph No. 29.
4. CONCLUSIONS
(573) 1. The individual shown in the autopsy photographs is
John F. Kennedy.
(574) 2. The brain shown in autopsy photographs No. 46-No. 52
cannot be positively identified as that of John F. Kennedy.
Nevertheless this brain displays trauma consistent with the known
pattern of injury sustained by President Kennedy and, in the absence
of any positive evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to
believe that it is not the brain of the President.
5. ANALYSIS
(575) To examine the autopsy photographs from the standpoint of
identification of the victim two hypotheses were considered:
(576) 1. That the subject shown in the photographs was not John
F. Kennedy, but an unknown victim with a strong physical resemblance
to the assassinated president.
(577) 2. That the victim in the photographs, in which the
facial features are clearly visible, is in fact John F. Kennedy, but
the body in which the face is not shown (particularly photographs No.
32 through No. 37 which document the location of the critical wounds
of the back and head) is that of another, unknown, individual.
(578) In order to test the first hypothesis, it was necessary
to compare the facial features of the victim of the autopsy
photographs with antemortem photographs of President Kennedy. This
comparison was made on the basis of both metric and morphological
features.
(579) In making this comparison, it was first noted that there
were no gross inconsistencies between the autopsy victim and general
physical characteristics of President Kennedy. The victim is a well
nourished, dark-haired, middle-aged, white male who appears to be of
northern European ethnic stock.
(580) The metric analysis was based on a comparison of autopsy
photograph No. 29 with the two antemortem photographs (79-AR-6378G
and 79-AR-8008K) selected from the National Archives series. The
exact date of the antemortem photographs was not determined but both
were made during the Kennedy presidency and therefore do not antedate
the autopsy photograph by more than 3 years. All three photographs
show the subject in nearly perfect facial profile; autopsy No. 29 and
79-AR-8008K are left profile and 79-AR-6378G is a right profile
photograph.
(581) A series of 11 facial measurements were taken on each
photograph. These measurements are defined in Table II and portrayed
graphically in Figure IV-39. Measurements were recorded to the
nearest 1.0 mm and made from 8 x 10 prints. Three sets of
measurements were made on each photograph and the means were used to
calculate the 10 indices given in Table III. The arrangement, of
President Kennedy's hair made it impossible to take physiognomic face
height (mmt No. 1) in photographs 79-AR 6378G; otherwise, all the 11
measurements could be taken on each photograph.
(582) As shown in Table III, the index values of the autopsy
photograph and the two antemortem photographs correspond very
closely. For further comparison, the mean of the antemortem indices
was compared with the postmortem values (represented by a single
value in indices 1, 4, and 7 which are based on measurement No. ]
that could not be taken on 79-AR-6378G). The deviation between the
antemortem and postmortem means range from 0.3 to 4.0 and the average
deviation is 2.82. (Table III). This small deviation can be accounted
for by a combination of several factors including that, in the
autopsy the subject is supine, while he is standing erect in the
antemortem photographs, and gravitational effects would cause some
alteration of the facial features. The facial measurements would also
be influenced by postmortem alterations and the effects of the
massive cranial trauma. In short, the metric similarities, as
expressed by facial indices are insignificant.
(583) In addition to the strong metric similarities between
autopsy photograph No. 29 and the two antemortem photographs, a
number of identical morphological features can be observed. The
examination of morphological similarities was not limited to the
three photographs from which the measurements were taken but included
comparisons between the other autopsy photographs that show the
victim's face (No. 26, No. 27, No. 28, No. 29, No. 30, No. 31, No.
40, No. 41) and a series of 43 closeup photographs of President
Kennedy selected from National Archives files to show his head and
face from a variety of angles. In these comparisons, no
inconsistencies in the morphological configuration of the eyes, nose,
mouth, ears or other facial features were observed and, on the
contrary, a number of identical features were apparent. These include
rather distinctive traits such as the downward convexity of the,
nasal septum and an angular and elevated nasal tip (the latter, by
the way, a trait observable in other members the Kennedy family).
Among similarities noted in the ears are a strong antihelix, small,
"tucked" tragus, narrow intertragic notch and attached lobes. The
lower margin of the helix is strongly concave at its junction with
the lobe, giving the latter a rather attenuated appearance. Patterns
of facial lines and wrinkles were similar where they could be
discerned in the autopsy photographs.
(584) A partial list of morphological similarities between the
autopsy subject and President Kennedy are shown in table IV. They are
simply listed in the table, each has a distinctiveness about it that
impressed the examining anthropologists, both of whom have examined
similar traits in a large number of human faces. Each of these
traits, of course, can be separately observed in the general
population. Nevertheless, the probability of their occurring together
in a single individual is small. Their occurrence in two individuals
with near-identical facial proportions, as expressed by the indices,
is extremely remote.
(585) On the basis of the foregoing, it was concluded that the
individual shown in the autopsy photographs that show the victim's
face is beyond reasonable doubt, President John F. Kennedy.
(586) If it is accepted that the autopsy photographs showing
the victim's face are those of John F. Kennedy, it then is necessary
to examine the second hypothesis-namely that the remaining autopsy
photographs are those of another person.
(587) Examination of table I shows that the entire series of 27
autopsy photographs can be grouped as follows:
Groups Negative Nos.
1. Left lateral views ...................29, 30, 31.
2. Right lateral views ..................26, 27, 28, 40, 41.
3. Superior views .......................38, 39, 42, 43.
4. Posterior views ......................32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.
5. Cranial cavity .......................44, 45.
6. Brain ................................46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52.
(588) The photographs within each of the groups was only
slightly in camera angle, lens-subject distance, subject position,
lighting and exposure. There is also sufficient commonality in
morphological features and other details to leave no doubt but what
they are of the same subject. Since we have concluded that
photographs in groups 1 and 2 (showing the face) are those of
President Kennedy, these features can be compared with features
observed in the other photographs.
(589) From the standpoint of pathological interpretation, the
least informative photographs are those of group 3, which provide a
superior view of the head and shoulders. This is because the scalp
has neither been shaved nor reflected from the cranium, procedures
which would possibly have shown some of the crucial details of the
cranial trauma. In these photographs, a portion of the victim's
forehead and nose are shown front above. The configuration of these
facial features are consistent with the nose and upper forehead
contours of President Kennedy as surmised from the antemortem
photographs taken from more conventional angles. Also, certain random
features such as bloodstains and an apparent postmortem abrasion on
the right shoulder (described in more detail below), which can be
seen in the photographs of group 2, can be observed in this set of
photographs. lt was concluded therefore, that these photographs are
of the same person as shown in groups 1 and 2 of the autopsy
photographs; to win, John F. Kennedy.
(590) The most critical set of photographs from the standpoint
of identification are those of group 4 that show the head and upper
back of the victim from behind. To take these photographs, the victim
was apparently raised to a semi-upright position and held there while
the pictures were taken from the head of the autopsy table. The
purpose of these photographs was to document the scalp and upper back
wounds, the exact location of which has been a matter of considerable
controversy. In these photographs, the only facial features visible
are the backs of the ears.
(591) In comparing these photographs with those taken in group
2, which show the right side of the head and face, several features
common to both were noted. These include two dried blood stains on
the upper right shoulder approximately 16 centimeters lateral to the
midline of the back. Approximately 7 centimeters medial to these are
a series of three narrow parallel marks approximately 3 centimeters
in length, which appear to be slight skin abrasions. These marks and
stains are situated several centimeters lateral to the back wound and
do not appear to be directly associated with it. It is possible that
they were made in the course of handling and lifting the body.
(592) There is also a 3- by 5-centimeter area of discoloration
at the base of the neck in the right area that apparently represents
either a slight contusion or some postmortem lividity. All of these
features are very irregular in shape and would thus be very difficult
if not impossible to duplicate. Such minor and random details are
also the kind of characteristics that would likely be overlooked in
any attempted hoax. Likewise, the hair, which is in disarray and
matted with blood and body fluids, presents a complex of irregularly
arranged strands and locks. Yet, allowing for the different angles of
view, these features appear to be identical in size, location, and
shape in both the posterior (group 4) photographs and those of the
right lateral photographs of group 1, which can be identified as
being of President Kennedy.
(593) In addition to the above rather transient features,
others of a more permanent nature were noted. These were the network
of transverse wrinkles extending across the back and side of the
neck. Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age but their
exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the
individual. Examination of these in the back photographs of group 4
shows that they are identical in pattern and development (again
making allowance for view) as those seen on the lateral side of the
neck in the group 1 photographs. In short, the profusion of minute
and common detailed the panel to conclude that the same individual is
shown him both sets of photographs.
(594) The photographs of group 5, which show the cranial cavity
with the brain removed, are somewhat more difficult to evaluate. One
feature of interest is the outline of the fractured margin of the
frontal bone that is partially visible in the foreground of these
photographs. A deep V-shaped irregularity in this margin is also
visible in photographs of group 1 in which the scalp is partially
reflected to expose the underlying bone. The anterior margin of the
cranial defects also corresponds in shape to the fractures observed
in the cranial X-rays.
(595) From the standpoint of positive identification, the most
problematical group of autopsy photographs are those of group 6 which
show the isolated brain. Here the panel could find no anatomical
features that would associate this brain with the remaining autopsy
photographs. Nevertheless, the trauma to the brain, affecting
primarily the superior aspect of the frontal lobes is certainly
consistent with the pattern of cranial trauma observed in the X-rays
and other autopsy photographs.
FIGURE IV-39.--Diagram of Measurements Set Forth in Table I.
[Graphic Deleted--Get METRIC.GIF]
TABLE l.--Description of autopsy photographs examined
in authentication study
Number
26 Head, right lateral ...| Superio-lateral view of head in quarter
27 Head, right lateral ...| profile. Includes anterior neck wound,
28 Head, right lateral ...| upper chest and shoulders.
29 Head, left lateral.....| Profile view. Includes anterior neck wound.
30 Head, left lateral.....| No. 30 overexposed.
31 Head, left lateral ....|
32 Head, superior .......|
33 Head, superior .......|
34 Head, superior .......| Superior view of head and shoulders.
35 Head, superior .......|
36 Head, superior .......|
37 Head, superior .......|
38 Upper torso, posterior | Shows shoulder wound.
39 Upper torso, posterior |
40 Head, right lateral ..| Inferio-lateral view of head in quarter
41 Head, right lateral ..| profile Includes anterior neck wound.
42 Head, posterior .....| Close-up of occipito-parietal area showing
43 Head, posterior .....| scalp wound.
44 Cranial cavity ........| Anterio-superior views of cranial cavity.
45 Cranial cavity ........| Brain removed.
46 Brain, inferior ................|
47 Brain, inferior ................|
48 Brain, inferior ................|
49 Brain, inferior ................| Removed from cranial cavity.
50 Brain, superior ................|
51 Brain, superior ................|
52 Brain, superior ................|
TABLE 11.--Measurements used to derive indices
for comparison of JFK antemortem photographs with autopsy
photographs No. 29
1. Physiognomic face height Distance from the midpoint of the
hairline to the lowest point on the
chin (trichion to menton).
2. Forehead height ......... Distance from the midpoint of the
hairline to the most anterior point
on the lower forehead just above
the nasal root depression (trichion
to glabella).
3. Nose length ............. Distance from the deepest point of the
nasal root depression to the
junction point between the nasal
septum and the upper lip (subnasion
to subnasale).
4. Total face height ........ Distance between the most anterior
point on the lower forehead just
above the nasal root depression and
the lowest point on the chin
(glabella to menton).
5. Ear length ............. Distance between the uppermost point
on the helix of the ear and the
lowermost point on the earlope
(superaurale to subaurale).
6. Lobe length ............. Distance between the lowest point in
the intertragic notch and the
lowest point of the earlobe
(intertragion to subaurale).
7. Mouth height ........... Distance from the point of contact
between the upper and lower lip and
the lowest point on the chin
(stomion to menton).
8. Chin eminence height .... Distance from the point of deepest
depression between the lower lip
and chin and the lowest point on
the chin (supramentale to
menton).
9. Nasal projection ......... Distance from the most anterior point
on the nasal tip to the junction
point between the nasal septum and
the upper lip (pronasale to
subnasale).
10. Nasal elevation ......... Distance from the most anterior point
on the tip of the nose to the
posterior most point on the
junction line between the nasal
alae and the cheek (pronasale to
postalare).
11. Total facial depth .........Distance between the most anterior
point on the nasal tip and the
posterior most point on the
posterior margin of the helix of
the ear (pronasale to
postaurale).
TABLE Ill.--COMPARISON OF FACIAL INDEX VALUES OF ANTEMORTEM
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (79-AR-6378G, 79--AR-800K)
WITH LEFT PROFILE PHOTOGRAPH (NO. 29) OF AUTOPSY SUBJECT
Mean deviation=2.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Antemortem
Index 1 (M/M x 100) Post-
79-AR- 79-AR- mortem
6378G 8008K Mean No. 29 diff
1. 2/1 x 100......................... 27.0 27.0 30.7 3.7
2. 3/4 x 100................. 26.4 35.1 35.8 33.1 2.7
3. 8/4 x 100................. 21.4 21.1 21.2 18.1 3.1
4. 7/1 x 100......................... 28.4 28.4 25.6 2.8
5. 7/4 x 100................. 37.1 36.8 37.0 33.8 3.2
6. 6/5 x 100................. 29.4 33.9 31.6 33.9 2.3
7. 5/1 x 100......................... 41.2 41.2 37.5 3.7
8. 9/3 x 100................. 47.1 45.0 46.0 50.0 4.0
9. 10/3 x 100................ 60.8 61.5 61.2 63.6 2.4
10. 5/11 x 100................ 49.7 45.9 47.8 47.5 .3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Numbers refer to measurements defined in table II.
(2) Absolute differences between mean of ante mortem index and
post mortem index.
TABLE IV.--Morphological similarities in both the
ante mortem and post mortem Kennedy photographs
Convex angle of nasal septum.
Lower third of nose convexity.
Nasal tip area elevated.
Attached ear lobe.
Strong ear antihelix.
"Tucked" ear tragus.
Distinctive lip profile.
Identical facial crease lines.
Similar neck crease lines.
(c) Authentication of Autopsy X-rays
1. INTRODUCTION
(596) Human bone structure varies uniquely from one individual
to another. The bones not only differ in their overall size and shape
but also in their minute structural details so that the total pattern
of skeletal architecture of a given person is as unique as his or her
fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists have long made use of this
fact in establishing the positive identification of persons killed in
combat, aircraft accidents, or other disasters, by comparing X-rays
taken before death with those of the unidentified body taken after
death.
(597) Of course, just as no two individuals are alike, no two
X-rays of the same bones of the same person are ever exactly alike
because there is always some variation in the positioning of the
subject, the X-ray technique, and the processing of the film. The
skeleton also undergoes some remodeling throughout life so that a
certain amount of variation in detail is to be expected in films of
the same individual taken a few years apart. Nevertheless, with
experience, these technical and age variations can be taken into
account so that, given a pair of reasonably good films of the same
person, posed in the same way, a positive identification can nearly
always be made even if the X-rays were made many years apart by
different technicians using different equipment.
(598) In the following analysis the committee applied this
method in comparing the post mortem X-rays said to be those of
President Kennedy with clinical films known to have been taken prior
to his death.
2. ISSUE
(599) Just as they have questioned the autopsy photographs,
critics of the Warren Commission have suggested that the autopsy X-
rays are not those of President Kennedy. The committee asked the
anthropology consultants to examine the X-rays to determine if they
are of the President.
3. MATERIALS
(600) Both ante mortem and post mortem X-rays examined were
from the JFK assassination materials curated by the National
Archives.
(601) The autopsy X-rays bear the case number "21296" of the
U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. They include front and side
views of the skull as well as a series of overlapping views of the
torso and upper legs. There are also several X-rays of three skull
fragments reportedly found in the Presidential automobile after the
assassination.
(602) In addition to the autopsy X-rays, the Archives
collection includes three sets of clinical X-rays of President
Kennedy taken at various times prior to his death. Two of these sets
were made by personal physicians who treated the then-Senator Kennedy
for an upper respiratory illness in August 1960. The earliest, dated
August 14, bears the case number "202617" of Dr. Stephen White, 521
Park Avenue, New York. The second set was made 3 days later at the
clinic of Dr. Groover, Christie, and Merritt of 1835 I Street NW.,
Washington, D.C., and bear the case number "336042." Dr. White's
series consists of a side view of the head and a routine chest plate.
Those from the Groover, Christie, and Merritt Clinic include side and
front views of the skull. The third set of ante mortem X-rays were
taken at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda on March 14, 1962, while
President. Kennedy was undergoing treatment for a back complaint.
These X-rays consist of front and side views of the lower spine and
pelvis. Hereafter, these three sets of ante mortem X-rays will be
referred to as the "White," "Groover," and "Navy" films,
respectively.
4. CONCLUSION
(603) Both the skull and torso autopsy radiographs, now in the
possession of the National Archives, are X-rays of President John F.
Kennedy.
5. ANALYSIS
(604) First the "Groover" and "White" ante mortem X-rays of the
skull were compared with the autopsy films. In the front views, it
was found that the outlines of the frontal sinuses of the autopsy X-
rays were virtually superimposable on those shown in the clinical X-
rays. The sinuses, which are lobular air pockets inside the bone that
forms the forehead, vary uniquely in size and shape from one person
to another. This variability is seen particularly in the outlines of
their upper margin which typically cast a set of scallop-like shadows
on the X-ray. This scallop pattern is so individually distinctive
that forensic anthropologists have termed them "sinus prints." For
many years, courts of law throughout the world have accepted the
matching on ante mortem and post mortem X-rays of the sinuses as
evidence for the positive identification of unknown bodies. In the
present case, the similarity in shape of the sinus print patterns in
the ante mortem and post mortem films is sufficient to establish that
they are of the same person on the basis of this trait alone.
(605) In addition to the sinus prints, several other strikingly
similar anatomical features were observed in the front view X-rays.
For example, the nasal septum--the thin wall of cartilage and bone
that separates the nostrils--was deviated to the same side and to an
identical degree in ante mortem and post mortem films. Also, the
outlines of the bony rims of the orbits of the eyes were nearly
identical. The very slight variations observed in these three
features--sinus pattern, nasal septum, and orbital margins-are the
results of minor differences in the
(606) The profile views of the skull in the White and Groover
flings were next compared to the autopsy X-rays. Again, a number of
almost identical anatomical features were observed in the ante mortem
and post mortem films. For example, the outlines of the sella turcica
(the saddle-shaped depression in the base of the skull), the complex
patterns of the cranial sutures (the joints uniting the bones of the
skull), and location and arrangement of the vascular grooves (the
shallow depressions on the inner surface of the skull which mark the
course of blood vessels) were the same. There was a]so nearly exact
duplication of the honeycomb like air cells of the mastoid bone.
(607) The chest X-ray taken by Dr. White in 1960, was next
compared to those of the upper torso taken at autopsy. Again, a
number of identical features were noted in both sets of runs. Among
these were the outlines of the dorsal spines of the thoracic
vertebrae. (These spines are the bony projections that are visible
just under the skin along the center of the back.) In X-rays these
spines project a vertical series of small shadows of varying sizes
and shape that, like the architectural features of the skull
discussed above, are virtually unique in each individual. In shape
these shadows may range from almost perfect circles to irregular
trapezoids. They vary not only from one individual to the next, but
from one vertebra to another in the same individual so that the
series of a dozen or so of these spines, usually visible in a
standard chest film, form a combination of shapes distinctive for
each individual. Allowing for slight distortions due to position and
technique, this series of spines can be considered identical in the
antemortem and postmortem films.
(608) In addition to the similar pattern of dorsal vertebrae
spines, a number of other features common to both sets of film were
observed. For example, the size and shape of the medial ends of the
clavicula (collar bones) were identical, as was the pattern of
ossification of the costo-chondral junctions of the first ribs.
Numerous details in the form and trabecular structure of the ribs
could also be matched from one set of films to the other,
particularly in the left eighth and ninth ribs which were especially
well-defined in both films.
(609) The autopsy radiographs of the lower torso, including the
pelvis and upper legs, could be compared to the antemortem Navy films
taken in 1962. These also show an impressive number of osseous
details in common. Of particular interest was the right transverse
process of the fifth lumbar vertebra. In both sets of films it was
displaced upwards in a manner suggestive of a congenital malformation
or an old, ununited fracture.
(610) To summarize, the skull and torso radiographs taken at
autopsy match the available ante mortem films of the President in
such a wealth of intricate morphological detail that there can be no
reasonable doubt that they are in fact X-rays of John F. Kennedy, and
no other person.
ENDNOTES
(195) These discrepancies are discussed in Thompson, "Six
Seconds in Dallas," ref. 2, pp. 40-58, 99-114, and 196-213; See
Warren Report, pp. 59-60 and 85-95.
(196) Clark Panel Review of Photographs, X-ray Films, Documents
and Other Evidence to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy
(1968) (J.F.K. Document 002430).
(197) See ref. 26, J.F.K. Forensic Pathology Panel Report, House
Select Committee on Assassinations--J. P.K. Hearings, para. 151-61.
(198) Letter from Dr. G.M. McDonnel to House Select Committee on
Assassinations, August 4, 1978 (J.F.K. Document 010585).
(199) Ibid.
(200) Charles Wilbur, "Medicolegal Investigation of the
President John F. Kennedy Murder" (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C.
Thomas Publishers, 1978).
(201) Humes, J.J.J.T. Boswell, J.H. Ebersole and J.T. Stringer,
"Report of Inspection by Naval Medical Staff on November 1, 1966, at
National Archives of X-rays and Photographs of Autopsy of President
John F. Kennedy," 1966; Cames, W.H., R.S. Fisher, R.H. Morgan and A.
Moritz. "Panel Review of Photographs, X-ray Films, Documents and
Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F.
Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas. Texas," 1968, Washington,
D.C.: National Archives.
Actually, EVERYBODY lied but somehow it's been a secret for 50 years!
Damn you BFEE!
How would that be possible with a shot from the front?
Just sayin'.
The Zapruder film shows that pretty clearly. It also shows that the major direction of spatter and spray of blood, bone and tissue was FORWARD.
Zapruder frame 313:
Frame 314:
Clint Hill doesn't reach the back of the car until frame 339:
The film ran at an estimated speed of 18 frames per second. So that's roughly 1.5 seconds after the headshot.
The car was moving at an estimated 11-12 mph; slow enough that a fit man in good condition could run and catch up to it, but fast enough that the relative speed would mean that matter blown forward would end up spattering behind. Which is simple physics and relative motion.
that afternoon .. before the spin took over.
BTW speaking of the 50th and press conferences dealing with assassinations.
@pattonoswalt: This Friday is the 50th anniversary of the deaths of JFK, Aldous Huxley & C.S. Lewis, all of whom died inside an 8 hour span of time
Ben Mankiewicz ?@BenMank77: @pattonoswalt The Warren Commission totally whitewashed the Aldous Huxley investigation.
Ben Mankiewicz is the son of RFK press secretary...
Frank Mankiewicz
Here's what a real doctor has to say:
Review of Reclaiming History
by Gary L. Aguilar, 21 Dec 2007
Ed note: This review first appeared in the Nov/Dec issue of The Federal Lawyer.
"
A)lthough there have been hundreds of books on the (JFK) assassination," Vincent Bugliosi writes in the introduction to Reclaiming History, "no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire (italics in original) case, including all of the major conspiracy theories." Indeed, no book has – not even this 1612-page book, supplemented by a CD-rom containing 958 pages of endnotes – although not because it is too short.
The gigantic swing that Bugliosi takes is easily the most ambitious one-person undertaking ever published on the Kennedy assassination. Bugliosi, the famous Charles Manson prosecutor, devotes more than 1400 pages of text and endnotes to "reclaiming" the lost truth as first set forth by the Warren Commission. He then devotes 900 more pages of text and endnotes to pounding myriad “conspiracy theorists” whose efforts over the years, Bugliosi claims, have wrought a grave injustice on the Commission and performed a "flagrant disservice to the American public."
It is not just that critics have convinced 75 percent of Americans (Bugliosi’s figure) to reject the official truth, which he says happens to be the real truth. These critics, Bugliosi contends, are also responsible for a widespread loss of faith in once-respected institutions. Such widespread skepticism, "gestating for decades in the nation’s marrow," he writes, "obviously has to have had a deleterious effect on the way Americans view those who lead them and determine their destiny. Indeed, Jefferson Morley, former Washington editor of the Nation, observes that Kennedy’s assassination has been 'a kind of national Rorschach test of the American political psyche. What Americans think about the Kennedy assassination reveals what they think about their government.'" To those who might wonder if more than 1600 pages of text and 900 pages of endnotes were really necessary, Bugliosi says that the problem is so severe that nothing less would have sufficed.
Although Warren Commission skeptics might not welcome this gargantuan new salvo, there is no denying that Bugliosi’s Herculean effort is an historic and important contribution. It is valuable not only as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro-conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked (most of it has been, if one has the time to find it). The book’s use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case. In fact, despite Bugliosi’s pugnacious pummeling, he hasn’t laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy.
And, regrettably, it must be said that the most distinguishing characteristic of this book is its demagogic pugnacity. Bugliosi cleaves the world of opinion holders neatly in two – sensible Warren Commission loyalists and conscious evildoers, the "conspiracy theorists." He allows, however, for the occasional sincere dupe. Although his prosecutorial, conclusions-driven style is redolent of Gerald Posner’s in Case Closed, the last attorney-written book to defend the Warren Commission, Bugliosi’s endless self-congratulation and his arrogant condescension make his book far more insufferable.
These traits may have served Bugliosi well as a Los Angeles County prosecutor where, he boasts, he won felony convictions in 105 of 106 jury trials. They may have helped him knock out true-crime books, including his famous book about the Manson murders, Helter Skelter. But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as "deranged conspiracy theorist," "crackpot," "con man," "kook," and "huckster" at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that’s particularly the case when he’s flat-out wrong on the facts.
A typical example is Bugliosi’s mocking of skeptics who say that Robert Kennedy was, to borrow from Bugliosi, a "conspiracy theorist." He counters not with an informed discussion, but by producing an RFK quotation of support for the Warren Commission. Ironically, in the very week that Bugliosi’s book premiered, a new best-selling book by David Talbot, Brothers, was published proffering book-length documentation of something skeptics have long known and Bugliosi could have known if he had really looked: While RFK toed the official line in public for the obvious, political reasons, in private, and until the day he died, he remained active as, to borrow from Talbot, "America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist."
CONTINUED...
http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/
No offense to Bugliosi, but that's the truth. Why you find it offensive is your business, Bolo Boffin.
Review of Reclaiming History
by Gary L. Aguilar, 21 Dec 2007
Ed note: This review first appeared in the Nov/Dec issue of The Federal Lawyer.
"
A)lthough there have been hundreds of books on the (JFK) assassination," Vincent Bugliosi writes in the introduction to Reclaiming History, "no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire (italics in original) case, including all of the major conspiracy theories." Indeed, no book has – not even this 1612-page book, supplemented by a CD-rom containing 958 pages of endnotes – although not because it is too short.
The gigantic swing that Bugliosi takes is easily the most ambitious one-person undertaking ever published on the Kennedy assassination. Bugliosi, the famous Charles Manson prosecutor, devotes more than 1400 pages of text and endnotes to "reclaiming" the lost truth as first set forth by the Warren Commission. He then devotes 900 more pages of text and endnotes to pounding myriad “conspiracy theorists” whose efforts over the years, Bugliosi claims, have wrought a grave injustice on the Commission and performed a "flagrant disservice to the American public."
It is not just that critics have convinced 75 percent of Americans (Bugliosi’s figure) to reject the official truth, which he says happens to be the real truth. These critics, Bugliosi contends, are also responsible for a widespread loss of faith in once-respected institutions. Such widespread skepticism, "gestating for decades in the nation’s marrow," he writes, "obviously has to have had a deleterious effect on the way Americans view those who lead them and determine their destiny. Indeed, Jefferson Morley, former Washington editor of the Nation, observes that Kennedy’s assassination has been 'a kind of national Rorschach test of the American political psyche. What Americans think about the Kennedy assassination reveals what they think about their government.'" To those who might wonder if more than 1600 pages of text and 900 pages of endnotes were really necessary, Bugliosi says that the problem is so severe that nothing less would have sufficed.
Although Warren Commission skeptics might not welcome this gargantuan new salvo, there is no denying that Bugliosi’s Herculean effort is an historic and important contribution. It is valuable not only as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro-conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked (most of it has been, if one has the time to find it). The book’s use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case. In fact, despite Bugliosi’s pugnacious pummeling, he hasn’t laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy.
And, regrettably, it must be said that the most distinguishing characteristic of this book is its demagogic pugnacity. Bugliosi cleaves the world of opinion holders neatly in two – sensible Warren Commission loyalists and conscious evildoers, the "conspiracy theorists." He allows, however, for the occasional sincere dupe. Although his prosecutorial, conclusions-driven style is redolent of Gerald Posner’s in Case Closed, the last attorney-written book to defend the Warren Commission, Bugliosi’s endless self-congratulation and his arrogant condescension make his book far more insufferable.
These traits may have served Bugliosi well as a Los Angeles County prosecutor where, he boasts, he won felony convictions in 105 of 106 jury trials. They may have helped him knock out true-crime books, including his famous book about the Manson murders, Helter Skelter. But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as "deranged conspiracy theorist," "crackpot," "con man," "kook," and "huckster" at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that’s particularly the case when he’s flat-out wrong on the facts.
A typical example is Bugliosi’s mocking of skeptics who say that Robert Kennedy was, to borrow from Bugliosi, a "conspiracy theorist." He counters not with an informed discussion, but by producing an RFK quotation of support for the Warren Commission. Ironically, in the very week that Bugliosi’s book premiered, a new best-selling book by David Talbot, Brothers, was published proffering book-length documentation of something skeptics have long known and Bugliosi could have known if he had really looked: While RFK toed the official line in public for the obvious, political reasons, in private, and until the day he died, he remained active as, to borrow from Talbot, "America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist."
CONTINUED...
http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/
No offense to Bugliosi, but that's the truth. Why you find it offensive is your business, Bolo Boffin.
Why some people think he may have been a hero after assassinating the President AND killing a cop is beyond me!
"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672
Response to Karmadillo (Original post)
