Talk:Autopsy of John F. Kennedy

Where's the Warren Commission's depiction of where the entry wound to JFK's head was situated?

Given that the article is supposed to be about the autopsy performed on JFK on 22 November 1963, why do you show a 1978 HSCA drawing "made for the House Committee showing the trajectory of the bullet through President Kennedy's skull," but none of the drawings depicting what the autopsy doctors found -- a beveled-on-the-inside-surface, approximately 15 cm X 6 cm entry wound which was some four inches lower than the HSCA theorized location, i.e., about 2.5 centimeters above and to the right of JFK's External Occipital Protuberance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure what the issue here is. Yes, the diagram showing the trajectory of the head shot is from the HSCA, but ALL the pathologists who looked at the issue of the entrance wound to the head after the original autopsy, including Cyril Wecht, agree that the original doctors had the location wrong. Besides, what did the original autopsy report actually say? Only that the wound was "slightly above" the external occipital protuberance. It was in fact 9-10 cm above.

The HSCA interviewed Dr. Humes on this very issue. He said that the final report reflected what he had in his original notes (i.e. "slightly above"). Question: "So the exact distance, then, above the external occipital protuberance was not noted...?" Humes: "It was not noted, with the feeling, of course, that the photographs and X-rays that we had made would, of themselves, suffice to accurately locate this wound."

Which is exactly what happened with the later investigations. The Clark Panel said it was "approximately 100 millimetres" above the ecp, i.e. 10 cm, nearly 4 inches, the HSCA forensic panel said it was precisely 9 cm above the ecp. And this is illustrated in the article by the middle sketch from a photograph showing the location with the ruler next to it.

NONE of the subsequent investigations agreed with the lower location of the wound and while the surgeons at the time testified it was lower, the physical evidence looked at by the later panels concluded they were wrong. Those included the photographs of the head, including, I believe, photos of the skin peeled away to expose the skull, and the x-rays of the skull. Further, that lower part of the brain was not damaged, as it would have been if a bullet had passed through it. And, that material confirms there was only a single entry wound at the back of the head. The original surgeons did not see that material until several years later.

"a beveled-on-the-inside-surface, approximately 15 cm X 6 cm entry wound..." Not sure why this is here - the beveled nature of the wound confirms it to have been a wound of entry, and it's 15 mm x 6 mm, not cm! Besides, the entire issue is essentially moot. It would simply mean a higher degree of deflection to the exit wound, that's all. And, as stated, that part of the brain was damaged so the original surgeons had the location wrong, as previously stated. Canada Jack (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)