Customer Reviews

In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First of all, I may be a little biased: I had Bill over my home back in 1998 during the two days it took to interview one of the x-ray technicians to JFK's autopsy, Jerrol Custer; a very memorable experience (as it was when I was present for the 11/22/91 interview of Custer done by Harry Livingstone for "High Treason 2"). That said, Bill has written a masterpiece: the best single volume of the medical evidence and related matters (a close second would be the medical chapters in "Murder In Dealey Plaza"). Very well written and put together, the book is a bona fide cornucopia of great nuggets of information from FIRST HAND WITNESSES to the autopsy, NOT JUST ANOTHER THEORY; very valuable. While this book would appeal to anyone with an interest in the Kennedy assassination, for those with a particular bent for all things medical, this work is essential reading. I have no complaints. Buy it asap.

Highly recommended book! Read this and then spend some time on the "History Matters" website to get an idea of the enormity of the JFK assassination cover-up.

We're not only talking about subversion of the medical evidence but also the backgrounds of Oswald & Ruby, Dealey eyewitness testimony, the failures of not only the Warren Commission but the HSCA and the ARRB ... and the list goes on ... for nearly a HALF CENTURY now.

Which is too-often overlooked by folks who want to direct the discussion towards the Mob, supposed JFK Cuban plots, Secret Service agents firing from the front seat, and whatnot.

Oliver Stone wondered who had the power to orchestrate such a massive cover-up ... who had to most to gain by it?

Makes sense.

History is not always what one reads in encyclopedias or text books. To understand what actually happened it is important to hear the accounts of those who were actually there, almost all of them merely by circumstance. What is interesting is that frequently when one hears the accounts of others who were present at the same event their perspective of everything changes. It is clear in this instance that each of the people interviewed subsequently realized that they were victims of deception. Some readers may be confused that people may give different descriptions of the same event. However, for anyone that has ever observed witnesses in the court process, different perspectives may often be given within hours of an event. It is similar to the three blind men describing an elephant. For me, some of the differences in the observations give the accounts more credibility. Some differences can never be resolved but the picture is clear that the truth about the death of JFK is far different than what one may read in official government reports. William Law has written an important book. For anyone who cares about the truth of what happened on November 22, 1963, this is a must for their library.

Dr.Kemp Clark,Dr Mcclelland,Dr.Paul Peters,Dr.Charles Carrico,Dr.Macolm Perry,Dr.Gene Akin and Nurse Diana Bowron AL PLACED AND DESCRIBED JFK HEAD WOUND IN THE ''RIGHT OCCIPITAL REGION'' OF THE SKULL.THERE IS NO WAY THIS DOCTORS COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAW THAT DAY.UNLESS THEY GOT TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO LIE!!DONT THINK SO!!THEY ALSO SAW THE THROAT WOUND IN THE ANTERIOR OF THE NECK!!JFK GOT SHOT FROM THE RIGHT FRONT!!THE BACK WOUND WAS SEVERAL INCHES BELOW THE COLLAR LINE TO THE RIGHT OF THE 3RD THORACIC VERTEBRA IT NEVER EXITED HIS BODY OR HIS NECK!!TO LEARN MORE I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK!!

I believe this book has great value as a JFK assassination investigation resource. But not for the reasons of others. That the memories of the witnesses, all seemingly well-intentioned, are so diverse, is indicative of the frailty of human memory. As a result, no isolated recollection can be held up as infallible and those quoting the 35-40 years after recollections of these witnesses as "proof" of anything are off the mark. What can be determined from reading these interviews, however, is that something wasn't right about the Bethesda autopsy. So much so that most everyone involved had questions about the eventual conclusions. Particularly enlightening, IMO, are the statements of Frank O'Neill, an FBI agent present at the the autopsy. O'Neill feels quite sure that Oswald acted alone, even though his personal recollections of the wounds substantially differs from the official interpretations, and would make a conclusion of conspiracy inevitable. His reluctance to accept the implications of his own memories is indicative of the mindset of much of the media, IMO. Charles Roberts of Newsweek, for example, witnessed the Secret Service cleaning up the limousine after the shooting, something never mentioned in any of their reports, yet wrote a book assuring the public that all was well and good with the Warren Report, which failed to investigate or mention the clean-up Roberts witnessed. Hide in plain sight.

First and foremost, I should mention my biased opinion as well; back in the late nineties my sister and I went to visit Uncle Billy...now Uncle William...to help him around his house. What he didn't tell us was around his house meant watching his two boys as he made chicken scratches on paper, which he insisted, were words. After he finished his writing, my dear Uncle informed my sister and I that he wasn't very agile on the computer and needed someone to type for him...if there are phrases that don't make much sense in the book...I admit fault; I couldn't read the physicians scribbles.
As to the book...
This is an in-depth look into the assassination of JFK through the eyes of those most intimately involved in his Presidential career. From observers on the sidelines, witnessing the bullet catapult the President (indicating where the shots were fired from) to the coroner who conducted the sealed autopsy. Though this book might easily be used as a historical textbook in a university, the details and conspiracy rank it among the most absorbing historical documentaries of its kind. Anyone who enjoys a good intrigue will surly take pleasure in this masterpiece.

Though not covering as much, and in a more objective tone, I found this book to be superior to Douglas Horne's book.
ERG

I had to ask myself, if I disagree with the conclusions of an author, does that make the book a bad book. The answer in this case in no. The book is an important contribution to this subject. Its an engaging read as well. It contains interviews with military personnel on duty at the JFK autopsy. I felt after reading the book again after a few years break that it poses some very interesting questions. Not for me that the body was altered to disguise wounds that meant conspiracy, but how is it possible that a few individuals who were there generally have a recollection that does not support the official Warren Commission conclusion. Well one thing that is apparent when reading the book, is that individual recollections of the same event can differ considerably. But is this sinister ? Personally I think not. But I can understand how one might reach the conclusion that "something was not right" about the autopsy. But what was not right ? In my humble opinion what was not right is that the autopsy was not conducted by the appropriate doctors and was not thorough enough. But this was the President and we should not be surprised by the flawed work given the circumstances. It is however very frustrating that we are left with questions regarding for example the exact location of the back wound and whether or not the bullet traversed the back exiting the throat - because the doctors failed to recognize that the throat wound was more than just a tracheotomy - it was a bullet wound as well.

Most of the attendants in this book were very young at the time of the autopsy. They were interviewed in this book some approx 30 years after the event. Can we rely on their recollections I wonder ? Well I can certainly accept that an event like this would leave a firm impression on an individual, but I cannot be sure I can rely on any individual to recall everything accurately. And their lack of experience should be taken into consideration. So in a nutshell we cannot truly know what is accurate and what is not. But we certainly get an impression.

A central issue of course is that of the head wound, its size and location. Was the exit in the rear of the head as so many doctors seem to state and do the photo's published in this book form the autopsy show what actually happened or are they faked ? Its important to realize that the same wound can be photographed at different times during the examination and appear to be a "different" wound. In this case we have variations in what was visible and what was not according to person and the time at which their observations were made. Some describe intact brain, some missing brain, some highly damaged brain. Make of it what you will. But there is witness testimony and there is witness testimony - they do not all carry the same weight. A case in point is that of Dr Robert Grossman one of the attending neurologist at Parkland in Dallas and the only man or woman present who spent the whole time adjacent to and looking at the head wound. He sates that it is in the side of the head, above the ear in a recent bbc radio interview. Not at the back of the head. No one is in a better position than he. Yes we hear some of the attending personnel at Bethesda describe a larger wound extending further back. Isn't it just possible that the wound did in fact become more avulsed as time passed, as the body was handled ? It seems to me that scalp and bone could easily have become loosened in transit and handling. And as the autopsy progressed the wound would change - depending on when you saw it would influence your picture. I am not taken at all by the argument that the wounds were altered as per David Liftons "Best Evidence" - of which this book in some ways is perhaps an extension - but I am intrigued by the interviews recorded here and it makes for a highly interesting read. A decent and honest if not misguided work and one for the collection.

As a firm believer in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63.

But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine) position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his head. Very strange.

"In The Eye Of History" paints a picture of a seemingly-undeniable multi-shooter conspiracy with respect to John Kennedy's death. But in order to believe the accounts written in this volume, the reader must ALSO disbelieve and completely disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented evidence in the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a large number of people, within various organizations, told numerous lies with respect to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked evidence to support a Lone-Assassin conclusion).

I ask -- Is that type of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in the back of JFK's head?

If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). In such a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors MUST be scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on the most important document any of them would ever sign, even though they had to know the report was nothing but a pack of lies.

If that large hole was at the back of JFK's head, we've also got to swallow the notion that a large amount of the ballistics evidence in the case is dead wrong and was deliberately falsified by an unknown number of people who served the "cover-up" very well. Or, short of believing that theory, we'd have to believe that a "magical" thing occurred just after JFK was shot from the front, and that all of those frontal-shot bullets (however many there might have been that struck President Kennedy) just vanished on their own without the aid of any conspirators' handiwork.

In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city policeman J.D. Tippit as well).

And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly mean that many, many members of the House Select Committee On Assassinations in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too -- because that committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did in 1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets Struck The Victims; And Who Fired Those Shots?" .... With the answers being: only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; both of those bullets came from behind the vehicle; and Lee Harvey Oswald fired those shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Does "In The Eye Of History", or any conspiracy volume, really trump the hard, physical evidence in the JFK case? Because if it truly does, then a whole bunch of OTHER STUFF sure worked out in perfect apple-pie order for these unidentified conspirators who mapped out that amazing multi-shooter plot to kill the President.

Did the "real assassins" really get THAT LUCKY with respect to all of the physical evidence (i.e., guns, bullets, shells, and fingerprints), which ALL adds up to ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murders of Jack Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Is it even remotely possible that a group of plotters could have pre-arranged such a perfect "It Was Only Oswald" plot (save for those "BOH" wound witnesses), while at the same time utilizing multiple gunmen hidden throughout Dealey Plaza?

The number of people who needed to be "in" on such a massive after-the-shooting cover-up operation must have been staggering. .... From the Dallas Police, to the FBI, to the Secret Service, to the Dallas doctors who attended both JFK and wounded Texas Governor John Connally (doctors who must have hidden some of the bullets from view, surely!), to the scumbags at Bethesda doing the botched autopsy and then faking the official autopsy report (a report which states, unequivocally, that Kennedy was shot twice from behind....no mention of any frontal shots at all striking the President). .....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- From Page 6 of John F. Kennedy's Official "Pathological Examination (Autopsy) Report"

People who wish to believe that President Kennedy received the fatal blow to his head as a result of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza should ask themselves a thought-provoking question regarding the above paragraph I just provided from the 1963 autopsy report.

That question being ----

Is it reasonable to believe that all three of those autopsy physicians would have possessed a desire to attach their signatures to an incredibly-important document like the official autopsy report of the President of the United States, all the while knowing full well that the conclusions they reached within that document they had just signed were complete, outright lies? Is that truly a "logical" thing to believe with respect to Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell?

What a perfect all-inclusive "Let's Frame Oswald" plot it must have been (per many conspiracists) -- to have been able to wangle signatures out of ALL THREE of those autopsy doctors....even though the doctors KNOW what they're signing isn't true at all; and they know without question that that "Report" they've signed-off on would probably be more at home on a roller in their bathrooms!

And then (as if signing and fully endorsing an obviously-inaccurate autopsy report isn't bad enough) -- All of these doctors then must have been forced to follow up their initial falsification of the autopsy report by lying about the true nature of JFK's wounds whenever they spoke of the matter to anyone .... for years and years on end, including during their sworn testimony in front of the WC, the HSCA, and the ARRB. An amazing and comprehensive decades-long cover-up that is still continuing to this day evidently.

And that's precisely one of the biggest reasons to know why such a large-scale JFK conspiracy never could have possibly happened (or have been covered-up so beautifully) in the grandiose fashion that many CTers champion. Because only Houdini could have masterminded such sleight-of-hand magic and such indomitable powers of unrelenting influence and domination over so many different people (within various official and unofficial capacities) in 1963, and for all eternity thereafter.

Back to reality now.......

The documented evidence that exists surrounding the 1963 murder of President John F. Kennedy does NOT indicate "conspiracy". Not even close. Let's have a quick look:

1.) Three bullet shells are discovered in the Book Depository's "Sniper's Nest" by police (shells that positively came from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald).

2.) A bullet ("Commission Exhibit 399") is found in Parkland Hospital; and CE399 is a bullet which just happened to also come from the rifle of Lee H. Oswald.

3.) Two large bullet fragments (also from Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion") are found inside the very vehicle which was being occupied by John F. Kennedy when he was killed by rifle fire on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

4.) Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints are all over the "Sniper's Nest" area, including his prints on a paper bag THAT HAD NO LEGITIMATE AND LOGICAL REASON FOR BEING THERE IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL DAY-TO-DAY BOOK DEPOSITORY OPERATIONS. (A very important point, IMO.)

5.) Eyewitnesses who place Lee Oswald (or someone who looked remarkably similar to him) in the Sniper's Nest at the exact moment JFK was being assassinated via rifle fire (or just seconds prior to the murder).

6.) Oswald's actions after leaving his workplace on 11/22/63; e.g.:

6a.) Oswald leaves work three minutes after the American President is gunned down right in front of his place of employment (and lies about why he did so, with his excuse of "I figured there would be no more work today" being one that won't make the grade, even via "CT" standards -- because of WHEN he actually left -- 12:33 PM; there is no way, at that time, he could have KNOWN he could just leave without getting permission first from one of his bosses, Bill Shelley or Roy Truly; which is permission he never obtained).

6b.) Oswald rushes into his roominghouse on North Beckley Avenue, grabs a jacket and a revolver, and quickly leaves.

6c.) Oswald shoots and kills police officer J.D. Tippit with a handgun at approximately 1:14 PM on Tenth Street.

6d.) Oswald is seen acting and looking "funny" (suspicious) by shoe-store employee Johnny C. Brewer just minutes after the Tippit slaying.

6e.) Oswald punches in the face and attempts to kill another of Dallas' finest within the Texas Theater.

6f.) Oswald's comments made in the theater: "This is it!" and/or "It's all over now!" ... Now, can some CTer come up with a good and reasonable "He's Innocent Of Killing Anyone" explanation for Oswald having said those two phrases -- or even just one of them -- just as the police approach him in the theater on November 22nd? Good luck trying, because Oswald's "It's all over now!" has "consciousness of guilt" stamped all over it.

7.) Oswald's continual lies to the police and to the American people VIA LIVE TELEVISION after his arrest .... e.g., "I didn't shoot anyone" and "They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union; I'm just a patsy!", among gobs of other provable falsehoods spouted by LHO.

8.) And let's not forget this not-so-trivial little item --- Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (proven to have been used to kill JFK without a shred of a doubt) is found on the Depository's sixth floor at 1:22 PM on November 22nd -- the very same rifle that just happened to turn up missing in Ruth Paine's garage that very same day.

And what do conspiracy theorists have in their "Physical Evidence Of A Conspiracy/Multiple Shooters" basket? (Stuff like "guns", "bullets", "shell casings", "clothing fibers", and/or "eyewitnesses who positively identified a specific human being to the exclusion of all other humans as being the killer of both JFK and Officer Tippit"? How much of that kind of stuff is on the CT table to date?)

Answer: None. Not a scrap. And there never has been.

The above batch of "single-assassin evidence" (with all of this evidence spelling out "Oswald is a murdering and lying President-killing, cop-killing piece of filth") means little to hardline CTers, I know. But, in reality, that's of little consequence, and always has been. Because what theorists WANT to believe regarding this evidence is meaningless -- because, like it or not, THAT'S the physical evidence CTers must deal with (and somehow squirm their way out of in order to paint Oswald as an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/1963 AD).

And the "Hole-In-The-Back-Of-The-Head" witnesses do not come close to trumping all of the above evidence. They can't. No matter how many there are. Because there's too much OTHER STUFF on the "LN/LHO" table that is telling us that those witnesses cannot possibly be correct regarding the precise location of President Kennedy's head wound; and too many OTHER PEOPLE who would all have to be included in the category of "co-conspirators" in order for the back of JFK's head to be missing -- way too many to believe such a plot could have possibly been successful.

But, thankfully, there are people like Dale Myers, Larry Sturdivan, and Vincent Bugliosi around who DO still put some value on the physical evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, instead of merely screaming "It MUST all have been faked (somehow)", which is nonsense of the first order, of course, when considering the totality and perfect "LN/LHO Cohesiveness" of such a huge basket of would-be "faked" evidence (in both the Kennedy and Tippit cases).

Ignoring (or deeming as "all phony") the above batch of "One Assassin Named Oswald" evidence is about as silly an exercise as believing that some dumbbell plotters tried to frame a lone "patsy" by shooting up Dealey Plaza from every conceivable angle. THAT goofball plan should have everybody laughing out loud (even the CTers). But, remarkably, many conspiracy theorists have latched on to that "Patsy" theory and won't let go of it, despite its obvious implausibilities.

-------

Post-Scripts..............

A highly-recommended anti-conspiracy website that "sets the record straight on the JFK assassination" is a site founded in 2003 by Kenneth A. Rahn, Ph.D., who is part of a small but well-informed group of Lone-Assassin believers. The website is known as "Nonconspiracists United".

Here's the site address:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/

-------

Let me now interject a few words straight from the always-logical mind of former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi:

"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." --V. Bugliosi

-------

"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. There has not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." -- V. Bugliosi

-------


"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Mr. Bugliosi (via a portion of his Opening Statement to the jury during the 1986 televised Docu-Trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")

-------

"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80 percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- V. Bugliosi