J. _- ., ‘: c ;:+7 , / : : -_z* _-_‘. s - .:. _:. t .: October 7, 1992 The Journal of the American Medical Associatiin c - MD 23 - m Injuriesto JFK and before that, in his Warren Commission testimony). The TO the Editor.-The article featuring Drs Humes’ and Clark Panel in 1968,3 John Lather, MD. in 1972.’ and the Boswell’s” explanation of the events surrounding the au- House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978j ali de- topsy of John F. Kennedy was certainly timely and should termined that the fatal entrance wound was 10 cm higher in clear up many misconceptions. the cowlick area at the top of the head on the basis of the ~ft.er reading urologist Dr John Lattimeis3 explanation of available roentgenograms and the autopsy photographs. JFK’s wounds in a medical journal some years ago, I never se- Humes and Boswell also never reported seeing a round riously doubted that the former president was struck from ‘large metallic &agment which on the antero-posterior film above and behind by two bullets. However, the Warren Com- lies 25 mm to the right of the midline*P”’ measuring 6.5 mm m&ion stated that the first bullet that traversed President in diameter in the rear of the skull in the autopsy roentgen- ~ennedy’s neck also caused all the woundsin former Texas Gov- ograms that Humes and Boswell claim to have reviewed emor John Connally.If the Zapruder film is to be believed, this during the autopsy.” While Humes took pains to describe all bullet, after exiting President Kenned!% neck, would have had the visible bullet fragments in his Warren Commission tes- to make sequential sharp right and then left turns and literally timony, this very large &agment was never described and, to hover in midair between its victims for about 1% seconds, presumably, was never seen. This large fragment in the rear gince the 61m Srst shows Kennedy in distress apparently reach- of the skull, however, was plainly seen and described by all ing for his throat while Connally sits unperturbed raising his subsequent groups reviewing the roentgenograms. Thus, the white hat in his right hand. It is not until approximately 35 “incontrovertible” photographic and roentgenograpbic evi- ties later that Connally appears hit and drops his right hand dence appears to directly contradict sworn statements bl this wristbone was fractured by thebullet). Humes and Boswell before the Warren Commission that Connally always maintained that he had heard the f?rst were repeated in their JAMA interview. 4 ahot before he was hit. In addition, since the second bullet Humes’ contradictory statements, regrettably, have oc- . struck Resident Kennedy in the back of the head just to the curred before. When questioned by Dr Charles Petty before right of midline aid exited from the right side of the head and the House Select. Committee on Assassinations, he was asked since it was fired from above and to the right, the President’s where the skull entrance wound was. He replied, “It’s below head would have had to be turned significantly toward the the external protuberance.” . left. Yet, the Zapruder film appears to show the slain Pres- “It’s below it?” Dr Petty asked incredulously. ident in profile on the frame immediatelv before impact “Right,” answered Dr Humes. “Not above it?” pressed Dr Pett? (l/l&h of a second before impact). This &dely published . I. interpretation of the critical frames of the Zapruder film “No. It’s to the right and infenor to external occipital protuberance. And when the scalp was reflected from there. continues to cause consternation. Since Dr Micoz3 in his _ Editorial preceding the At Large articles states that he re- there was virtually an identical wound in the occipital bone.” viewed the Zapruder film frame by frame in New Orleans was Dr Humes’ unequivocal reply.6 early in 1992, perhaps he could explain these seeming incon- Inexplicably, Humes later changed his mind, stating before sistencies and allow many of us who have attempted to make the House Committee, ‘Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion,” and at that point Humes endorsed the photographic _. sense of the assassination through the years to rest easier. .: and roentgenographic placement of t.he wounds at least 10 cm Arthur J. Wilson. MD . Memphis, Term higher at the cowlick area in the parietal bone!: The question ._. of the unmentioned bullet fragment seen by subsequent re- L BrewDLJFK’s death-the plain truth from the MD.+who did the autopsy. JAMA. viewers in the roentgenogtams was not brought to Dr ._ ~~%F%‘death, parr II-Dallas MDo recall their memories. JAMA 1992; Humes’ attention before the House Select Committee, but :- ==4-28% the question certainly should be answered. i L ktrimer.UL Observations based on a reviewofautopsy photographs, ~+a.?. and the late President John F. Kennedy. Redm.f StuflPhysuian. Neither Boswell nor Dr Pierre Fin& the other pathologist present at the autopsy, would change his mind about the MS Likln, Kennedy, and the autopsy. Jq 1992$679791. location of the fatal entrance wound. They continued to claim that the entrance wound was low, 10 cm below where the than quell doubts about President House Select Committee panel and Humes then claimed it ~ ILennedy’s autopsy findings, I fear that Drs Humes’ and was! From the interview, Humes seems to be changing his Boswe&12 remarks in JAMA will only serve to heighten the mind again to agree with Boswell and Finck that the entrance level Of disbelief in their observations. Neither Humes nor Boswell addressed their critics on contradictory evidence tht subsequent government investigations have consistentlv &vaed, namely, that neither the available photographs ndr Guidelines for titters tie roentgenograms support Humes’ and Boswell’s claims Letters will be published&&he discretion of the editors as space wg the entrance location of the fatal skull wound. At permits and are subject.to editing and abridgment. They should be least tbr ee qualified groups have reviewed the roentgeno- typewritten double-spaced and submitted in duplicate. They should mPhiC and photographic evidence and are unanimous in not exceed 500 words of text. References, if any, should be held to ag that H umes’ and Boswell’s claims in the Warren a minimum, preferably five or fewer. Letters discussing a recent CQmmission Report erred in placing the fatal skull entrance JAMA article should be received within 1 month of the a&cie’s pub- lication. Letters must not duplicate other material published or sub- wound at the base of the skull just above the hairline (“2.5 cm mitted for publication. A signed statement for copyright, authorship to the right and slightly above the external occipital protu- responsibility, and financial disclosure is essential for publication. berance” according to Humes both in the JAMA interview,- I\ Letters not meeting these guidelines are generally not aclmowl- edged. We do not routinely return unpublished letters. Also see In- cd-Edbd b Dmmmond Rem-tie.MD. Deputy Edlror (West). and Bruce 6. Dan. MD. structions for Authors. - Eciitw. * ktober 7.1992-Vol268. No 13 Letters 1681 Ir 1. ~rroDLJF~sduth--rhcp~inrrurhfmmtheMDswhodidthe~~y.f~~~ wound is low and, presumably, that the roentgenograms and 19%X727%2&3. - photographs are wrong. 2 BM DLJFK’s d&h. part II-Dalhs MDs recall their memoria JAMA ~q \ ?67Bo4-2807. These discrepancies in evidence are far from inconsequen- 3. House Select Committee on Aswsinations. Washington. DC: US COVER tial clinically, forensically, or evidentially. A IO-cm “error” Printing 05ce: 197%7943-2%. just does not occur in a careful forensic autopsy and a 6.5mm bullet fragment is simply not “missed” on a roentgenogram, To the Editor.-Let me congratulate you on the outsmd~ particularly when a radiologist, John Ebersole, was present service that your interview with Drs Humes and Boswell*a and at the autopsy to review the films. If Humes and Bosweil’s the Parkland physicians offers to the reading public. Humes evewitness observations are right, that the fatal entrance and Boswell are seen at last as the men that they are, eminently iound was low in the skull and that no rear bullet hgments capable pathologists. While they are not forensic pathologists were visible radiographically, then the repeated claims of their knowledge of gunshot wounds is indeed impressive. I & evidence tampering by Jerrol Custer and Floyd Riebe?” delighted that they have fInally consented to speak publidy roentgenogram and photographic technicians who were concerning their activities and their observations present at the autopsy, are greatly strengthened. Are Humes I also congratulate you on remembering to include the Pa&_ and Boswell “open” to address these issues? Why has not land physicians in this medical documentation Your ability to Finck also come forward to defend the Warren Commission persuade Dr Rose to give his views is especially illuminat&,. findings, and why was he unavailable for the JAMA inter- Earl Rose was one of the clearest thinking individuals in t&e view, or even for a brief message of endorsement? Parkland emergency room on that fateful November day ir, With the distrust many Warren Commission critics have of 1963. The single largest. contriiut43r to the uncertainty gilt_ JFK’s military autopsy, JAMA might have aided its cause by rounding President Kennedy’s death must be attributed to & choosing a public representative other than the well-respected Secret Service’~ decision to *move the body from Parkland George Lundberg, MD, if only because of his well-known Hospitalbeforeanautopsycouldbeperformed.Humesand~ military ties. Humes or Boswell might have been more help- ers were understandably sensitive to the emotional state of&e ful if either had joined Dr Lundberg for the news conference family at that particular time.