A Crime Scene Between Two Hard Covers

by Milicent Cranor

If you ever want to witness a crime with your own eyes, you need only look at certain pages of the official record on the murder of John F. Kennedy. The crime is perjury. But unless you know a great deal about the case, you may not recognize it. There is, however, another crime scene you can visit that is easier to evaluate. Here, the crime is fraud, six pounds of it: “Reclaiming History,” by Vincent Bugliosi. 

This book is infested with fraud from cover to cover, but you might never know it unless you were to compare (a) the actual record with (b) what Bugliosi says is on record. You would also need to know (a) what else is on record that is relevant and significant, and (b) whether Bugliosi included this information.

This essay contains only a few samples of Bugliosi’s highly selective, and sometimes outright false reporting on the medical-ballistics in this case.

If this is how Bugliosi reports simple, physical information, imagine what he does with more complex issues.

The Throat Wound

Misrepresenting Parkland

Was the wound in Kennedy’s throat an entrance or an exit? The wound itself can no longer tell us. No samples of the perimeter of the wound in the skin were preserved on slides. The only known photos of the wound were taken from too far away and are of poor quality. Words describing the wound have been preserved, but often they can be used to fit either situation.

All of the doctors at Parkland Hospital agreed the wound was relatively small. Four of six doctors who saw the wound said the edges were not ragged. Two other doctors and one nurse said the opposite. (See below for actual quotes and references.) All of these words are suggestive but not definitive. The problem:

Exit wounds can be small.

Entrance wounds can be slightly ragged, or show “tattering” (Journal of Trauma 1963 (March) 3(2):120-128.) But words describing the little irregularities along the border of a round wound should not be confused with words indicating a jagged or star-shaped (stellate) wound — i.e., a typical exit wound.

You will never learn of these ambiguities in Vincent Bugliosi’s book. Bugliosi wants you to believe that (a) the wound was “ragged,” and (b) this proves it was an exit.

You will not learn from Bugliosi that the majority of Parkland doctors said the wound was not ragged. What is more seriously deceptive is that Bugliosi put these words — “ragged edges” — into the mouths of doctors who in fact said the opposite.

Read the full essay at www.maryferrell.org.

Comments

[Pat Speer]

This is an excellent, well-written treatment of but a few of Bugliosi's distortions, Milicent.
Congratulations.

I would like to point out that, IMO, the head wounds are not as mysterious or confusing as once thought, and that at patspeer.com I examine them in detail, and (hopefully) solve a few of these mysteries.

P.S. Those not convinced by Ms. Cranor's critique of Dr. Baden's credibility should watch Part 1 of my video series. It shows Dr. Baden, Bugliosi's chosen expert on the medical evidence, testifying before congress with his exhibit upside down, and never catching on.

[Pat Speer]

This is an excellent, well-written treatment of but a few of Bugliosi's distortions, Milicent.
Congratulations.

I would like to point out that, IMO, the head wounds are not as mysterious or confusing as once thought, and that at patspeer.com I examine them in detail, and (hopefully) solve a few of these mysteries.

P.S. Those not convinced by Ms. Cranor's critique of Dr. Baden's credibility should watch Part 1 of my video series. It shows Dr. Baden, Bugliosi's chosen expert on the medical evidence, testifying before congress with his exhibit upside down, and never catching on.

[Martin Hay]

Very nice piece, I really enjoyed reading it. I just wanted to point out one thing that I thought important. In discussing the exit hole in Governor Connally's jacket, Cranor doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that the hole was no where near the lapel. In fact it was several inches down from the lapel making the whole "lapel flip as proof of bullet strike" theory very questionable indeed. A picture that clearly shows where the hole was can be found here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes2/soc.htm