Subject: Aguilar's "Back of the Head" Witnesses - 8
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 03:12:36 GMT
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Organization: Marquette University
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk

Gary Aguilar claims to have examined the testimony of 46 witnesses to
Kennedy's head wound, at both Parkland and Bethesda, and found that 44
of the 46 described the head wound as contradicting the photos and
x-rays of the autopsy as they exist in the National Archives.

So does Gary have 44 "back of the head" witnesses?  And are his 46
witnesses selected so as to avoid witnesses who placed the wound at
the top of the head, or the side of the head?

Let's take one example:

The following quotes from Aguilar are taken from:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

19) PHILIP C. WEHLE - then Commanding officer of the military District
of Washington, D. C., he described the head wound to the HSCA's Andy
Purdy on 8-19-77 He did not describe it to the Warren Commission. A
copy of memo on Purdy's interview with Wehle was only released in
1993. Purdy reported that Wehle said he was an observer during the
later stages of the autopsy. "(Wehle) noticed a slight bruise over the
right temple of the President but did not see any significant damage
to any other part of the head. He noted that the wound was in the back
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
face up; he also said he did not see any damage to the top of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
head, but said the President had a lot of hair which could have hidden
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that...." (HSCA record # 10010042, agency file # 002086, p. 2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Yes, Aguilar has a "back of the head witness" who didn't *see* the
back of the head!

Not the only one on his list, as we shall see.

Wehle's logic -- that he didn't see the wound and therefore it must
have been in the back of the head -- might seem compelling except for
one thing:

AGUILAR BELIEVES THE TOP OF THE HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT.  In fact, he makes
a lot of Boswell's diagram showing the top of the head blown out as
far forward as the coronal suture.  I agree that the top of the head
was blown out, and most people on both sides of the conspiracy issue
do.

Therefore, if Wehle failed to see the massive defect on the top of the
head, he was mistaken.  If he can be mistaken about something he
claims he did see, how are we supposed to take seriously his inference
about something he *didn't* see?

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm