Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 22, 2021 20:48:17 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
Edward Reed was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on April 21, 1978, and this interview was included in the files of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Reed was a student in the X-ray department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). (ARRB MD-194, p. 1)
Reed said that he was the only “person who knew the portable (X-ray) well,” and the portable would be used during the autopsy of JFK. He arrived at the morgue at 6:30 P.M. on November 22, 1963. He stated that JFK’s body arrived soon afterwards (Dennis David said it arrived at the morgue at 6:40 P.M.).
He was asked about the type of casket they removed JFK’s body from.
Q. Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway?
A: It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel or aluminum, whatever. I guess, then it was stainless steel.
Q: Did -What kind of handles did the casket have?
A: Just the normal stainless steel handles.
Q: Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket?
A: No. (Edward Reed ARRB testimony, pp. 25-26)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7&tab=page
This supports what Dennis David said about the casket – a shipping casket arrived at the morgue, but JFK was put in a bronze ceremonial casket in Dallas. This has caused many to ask, how did the body change caskets during the flight from Dallas to Washington?
He would tell the ARRB the following in regards to what he saw after the casket was opened in the morgue.
Q. After the casket was opened, what did you see?
A. I was able to look in, and I saw President Kennedy without – completely nude in a plastic bag.
Q. What kind of plastic bag was it?
A. It was a heavy-gauge plastic bag. Plastic – almost like lawn – that people use to put leaves and stuff like that in. But it was see – it was a see-through.
Q. Was the bag President Kennedy in a body bag?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Were there any wrappings on the body at all, either on the – sheets on the head, or towels, or…
A. No. (Ibid., pp. 23-24)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=6&tab=page
Why do we get different answers from different people on almost every issue in this case? He saw JFK in a plastic bag and had no wrappings around the head. Others would say the body was in a body bag and had the head wrapped. Why all the discrepancy if everyone was seeing the same body?
Reed said that he stayed within about fifteen feet of the body during the autopsy and moved in closer to take for various shots (X-rays). He took the X-ray film upstairs and developed it himself. Reed describes the wounds that he observed.
Quote on
…Reed recalled seeing three wounds. The first was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. The second was in the anterior neck and measured about two inches in diameter. The third wound was situated in the back… (ARRB MD-194, p. 2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=725#relPageId=2&tab=page
This statement about the wounds disputes the conclusion of the Warren Commission (WC) as they said JFK had just two wounds (head and throat). It also disputes his description of the head wound he testified to before the ARRB in 1997.
Q. Did you see any scars or wounds anywhere on his forehead or face?
A. Not on his forehead or his face.
Q. Did you see any wounds at all on his head?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Could you describe where those wounds were?
A. It was on the temporal parietal region, right side. I could – it was large enough that I could probably put four fingers into it.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at the beginning to see the back of President Kennedy’s head?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any wounds on the back of his head?
A. No. (Edward Reed ARRB interview, pp. 27-28)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7&tab=page
What happened in the intervening nineteen years that caused him to alter his statement from a wound in the occipital area (rear) to one of seeing a wound in the temporal parietal region (above the ear)? He explicitly said in 1997 that he saw no wound on the back of the head, but in 1978 he said that he did. What changed? The ARRB wanted to know too.
Q. Do you recall the wound on President Kennedy’s head as having been occipital?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall ever having been contacted by a staff investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Yes, I do. (Ibid., p. 69)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=14&tab=page
He would try and make an excuse by saying that his wife was pregnant and was anxious about him talking about this with the HSCA. He said that she was due on “February 28th", but he talked with the HSCA on April 21 which means that she had the baby already. Was this just a mistake? He was given the interview to read first and one could think that there was a date on it.
Then he tried some other excuse.
Q. …Now, let’s back up a little bit. When I said “occiput", the occiput comes up as fare as here. And you’re pointing to --
A. To the – This is the mastoid. The mastoid bone is in the – it’s temporal occiput region. This is the occiput. This is the temporal. This is frontal.
So when you describe something in general detail, you may actually insert a word, like occipital, temporal, parietal and frontal…
Q. In Exhibit No. 194, Mr. Flannagan reports you as having identified the wound in the head in the occipital region. Is it your best understanding now that you said “occipital region" to Mr. Flannagan, or that Mr. Flannagan misunderstood what you said?
A. No, I probably said that.… (Ibid., pp. 72-73)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=14&tab=page
He then goes on with more excuses. The skull was sectioned for the exact reason he is trying to make excuses for. There is a difference between parietal and occipital no matter what he says. He is informed that Dr. Ebersole said that the wound was in the occipital area, but he says that he was wrong in so many words. So a twenty-year-old student knows better than an experienced doctor?
The ARRB didn’t give up though and continued asking him about the different statements.
Q. …both Dr. Ebersole and yourself referred to that [head wound] in 1978 as occipital, and neither of you referred to it as parietal or temporal.
A. Well –
Q. Isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this wound principally occipital, extending into the parietal and temporal.
A. Yes. I'll –
Q. But principally occipital?
A. I'll say -- I'd say you could use that terminology. (Ibid., pp. 74-75)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=15&tab=page
So he did say occipital in 1978, what made him change his mind in the convening years? Doesn’t this seem odd? Especially when his excuses are considered?
Other interesting things are that he said the 1978 HSCA interview was incorrect about the time for the arrival of the casket at the morgue. He told the ARRB that it arrived at 4:30 P.M. and not 6:30 P.M. as the HSCA report said. (Ibid., p. 76) No one else said this that I am aware of, so what body could have arrived at that time? He also said that he did not observe the doctors probing any wounds during the autopsy. (Ibid., p. 78)
What should we make of his comments? They are important for the record.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
Edward Reed was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on April 21, 1978, and this interview was included in the files of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Reed was a student in the X-ray department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). (ARRB MD-194, p. 1)
Reed said that he was the only “person who knew the portable (X-ray) well,” and the portable would be used during the autopsy of JFK. He arrived at the morgue at 6:30 P.M. on November 22, 1963. He stated that JFK’s body arrived soon afterwards (Dennis David said it arrived at the morgue at 6:40 P.M.).
He was asked about the type of casket they removed JFK’s body from.
Q. Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway?
A: It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel or aluminum, whatever. I guess, then it was stainless steel.
Q: Did -What kind of handles did the casket have?
A: Just the normal stainless steel handles.
Q: Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket?
A: No. (Edward Reed ARRB testimony, pp. 25-26)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7&tab=page
This supports what Dennis David said about the casket – a shipping casket arrived at the morgue, but JFK was put in a bronze ceremonial casket in Dallas. This has caused many to ask, how did the body change caskets during the flight from Dallas to Washington?
He would tell the ARRB the following in regards to what he saw after the casket was opened in the morgue.
Q. After the casket was opened, what did you see?
A. I was able to look in, and I saw President Kennedy without – completely nude in a plastic bag.
Q. What kind of plastic bag was it?
A. It was a heavy-gauge plastic bag. Plastic – almost like lawn – that people use to put leaves and stuff like that in. But it was see – it was a see-through.
Q. Was the bag President Kennedy in a body bag?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Were there any wrappings on the body at all, either on the – sheets on the head, or towels, or…
A. No. (Ibid., pp. 23-24)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=6&tab=page
Why do we get different answers from different people on almost every issue in this case? He saw JFK in a plastic bag and had no wrappings around the head. Others would say the body was in a body bag and had the head wrapped. Why all the discrepancy if everyone was seeing the same body?
Reed said that he stayed within about fifteen feet of the body during the autopsy and moved in closer to take for various shots (X-rays). He took the X-ray film upstairs and developed it himself. Reed describes the wounds that he observed.
Quote on
…Reed recalled seeing three wounds. The first was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. The second was in the anterior neck and measured about two inches in diameter. The third wound was situated in the back… (ARRB MD-194, p. 2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=725#relPageId=2&tab=page
This statement about the wounds disputes the conclusion of the Warren Commission (WC) as they said JFK had just two wounds (head and throat). It also disputes his description of the head wound he testified to before the ARRB in 1997.
Q. Did you see any scars or wounds anywhere on his forehead or face?
A. Not on his forehead or his face.
Q. Did you see any wounds at all on his head?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Could you describe where those wounds were?
A. It was on the temporal parietal region, right side. I could – it was large enough that I could probably put four fingers into it.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at the beginning to see the back of President Kennedy’s head?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any wounds on the back of his head?
A. No. (Edward Reed ARRB interview, pp. 27-28)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7&tab=page
What happened in the intervening nineteen years that caused him to alter his statement from a wound in the occipital area (rear) to one of seeing a wound in the temporal parietal region (above the ear)? He explicitly said in 1997 that he saw no wound on the back of the head, but in 1978 he said that he did. What changed? The ARRB wanted to know too.
Q. Do you recall the wound on President Kennedy’s head as having been occipital?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall ever having been contacted by a staff investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Yes, I do. (Ibid., p. 69)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=14&tab=page
He would try and make an excuse by saying that his wife was pregnant and was anxious about him talking about this with the HSCA. He said that she was due on “February 28th", but he talked with the HSCA on April 21 which means that she had the baby already. Was this just a mistake? He was given the interview to read first and one could think that there was a date on it.
Then he tried some other excuse.
Q. …Now, let’s back up a little bit. When I said “occiput", the occiput comes up as fare as here. And you’re pointing to --
A. To the – This is the mastoid. The mastoid bone is in the – it’s temporal occiput region. This is the occiput. This is the temporal. This is frontal.
So when you describe something in general detail, you may actually insert a word, like occipital, temporal, parietal and frontal…
Q. In Exhibit No. 194, Mr. Flannagan reports you as having identified the wound in the head in the occipital region. Is it your best understanding now that you said “occipital region" to Mr. Flannagan, or that Mr. Flannagan misunderstood what you said?
A. No, I probably said that.… (Ibid., pp. 72-73)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=14&tab=page
He then goes on with more excuses. The skull was sectioned for the exact reason he is trying to make excuses for. There is a difference between parietal and occipital no matter what he says. He is informed that Dr. Ebersole said that the wound was in the occipital area, but he says that he was wrong in so many words. So a twenty-year-old student knows better than an experienced doctor?
The ARRB didn’t give up though and continued asking him about the different statements.
Q. …both Dr. Ebersole and yourself referred to that [head wound] in 1978 as occipital, and neither of you referred to it as parietal or temporal.
A. Well –
Q. Isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this wound principally occipital, extending into the parietal and temporal.
A. Yes. I'll –
Q. But principally occipital?
A. I'll say -- I'd say you could use that terminology. (Ibid., pp. 74-75)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=15&tab=page
So he did say occipital in 1978, what made him change his mind in the convening years? Doesn’t this seem odd? Especially when his excuses are considered?
Other interesting things are that he said the 1978 HSCA interview was incorrect about the time for the arrival of the casket at the morgue. He told the ARRB that it arrived at 4:30 P.M. and not 6:30 P.M. as the HSCA report said. (Ibid., p. 76) No one else said this that I am aware of, so what body could have arrived at that time? He also said that he did not observe the doctors probing any wounds during the autopsy. (Ibid., p. 78)
What should we make of his comments? They are important for the record.