Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 12, 2022 20:12:30 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
live.staticflickr.com/7143/6499852351_ce1399f538_b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md190/pages/md190_0001a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was setup to get the release of documents that various agencies still had in their possession. In addition to this task, they also examined the autopsy relating to the body of assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK). They relied on a number of interviews that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had conducted during their tenure with medical personnel that had been present at the autopsy.
This post will look at one such interview that took place on March 11, 1978, with Dr. John Ebersole. At the time of the assassination Dr. Ebersole was the Acting Chief of Radiology at Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) as the head of the department was away.
Dr. Ebersole stated that he was in the autopsy room when the coffin arrived and except for taking materials to the X-Ray department he was in the room until three o’clock the next morning. (ARRB MD – 60, p. 3)
When the body was removed he noticed a small irregular wound and a transverse surgical wound across the low neck. After they turned the body over he noticed a “textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline…”. (Ibid.) This same wound would be seen by others as well and the location is a long way from the base of the neck as Warren Commission (WC) member Gerald Ford and Counsel Arlen Specter claimed. He went onto clarify the wound type.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image04.gif
Again I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound – round, smooth, pure pellish, no raised margins. (Ibid.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=5
Quote off
This description matches a wound of ENTRANCE and not one of exit, but it would be inconceivable that a wound in this location could exit out of the throat. That is why this wound had to be changed by placing it at the base of the neck. Furthermore, the tracheotomy made the “surgical wound” in the throat one of an irregular large jagged looking wound so it could be claimed to be one of exit.
He then says two more things damaging to the official theory.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image04.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image05.gif
The back of the head was missing and the regular messy wound.
At that point, we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. (Ibid., pp. 3-4)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=6
Quote off
The fact the BACK of the head was missing indicates that JFK was hit from the FRONT and not from the back as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed. Furthermore, the back wound had no point of exit so there is no way that the bullet exited from the throat as the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) called for, therefore, it cannot be correct. And without the SBT the WC has no chance (and not much of a chance with it) of being correct.
Perhaps this is why the WC never called him to testify. He would state that he was present when the casket was opened, but he did not recall a plastic bag being around JFK’s head. (Ibid., p. 12) He also did not recall Doctor Humes asking “Who is in charge?” as some have said. (Ibid., p. 16)
I have heard a lot of things regarding the shooting of JFK, but Dr. Ebersole introduced something new to consider.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image26.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image27.gif
Dr. Baden. Dr. Ebersole is now looking at X ray No. 13 which is also the pelvis but has a more superior view.
Dr. Ebersole. At the time of the autopsy I felt that this metallic fragment to the right of the midline represented myelographic media. I think what this really represents is a buckshot since it is well to the right of the canal. This is the other possibility. It represents a buckshot or a myelographic media. This can be very positively identified as being taken that night. This was rounded material. The myelographic media would be in or near the midline of the spinal canal where this appears to be near the right. It could represent either thing although I expect from its density and rounded appearance it means buckshot.
Dr. Wecht. What do you mean by buckshot there?
Dr. Ebersole. A pellet from the shell fired by a shotgun.
Dr. Baden. Are you implying that this would have been a pellet fired into the body at some previous time?
Dr. Ebersole. I am saying at some previous time he ate a duck or a rabbit and this is either in the appendix or the – I expect out in the street we would find something like 15 or 20 percent to have that. (Ibid., pp. 25-26)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=27
Quote off
This is interesting. Could a shotgun been used? I realize that it is highly doubtful as it would have hit others, but how do we explain this then? Dr. Ebersole's reason seems unlikely to me simply because JFK came from a very wealthy family so one would expect that his food was well-cleaned and well-prepared. It wasn’t like he was eating venison in a shack somewhere.
So what could it have been? Perhaps it was a poison pellet in case the shooting failed? Why wasn’t this pellet removed and examined? This was supposed to be an autopsy for goodness sake. Why did he cut off his train of thought after he said it was in the appendix OR…? Or what?
He stated that it was his belief that the back wound was checked in the manner we see described in the Sibert-O’Neill Report (FBI Agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill) –using a finger. It acknowledged that it did not exit. (Ibid., pp. 62-63) After pages and pages of nothing worth highlighting, we see this comment.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image66.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image67.gif
Dr. Baden. …Do you remember or have any independent recollection of that condition of the President when you were in the autopsy room?
Dr. Ebersole. You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound then this but I certainly cannot state that this is the way it looked…had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the gaping wound here rather than more forward. (Ibid., pp. 66-67)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=66
Quote off
This comment by Ebersole tells us two very important things. Firstly, Ebersole recalls a GAPING WOUND in the BACK of the head. Secondly, the photographs in the record do NOT SHOW THIS! He says when looking at the photographs that these show the wound to be “much more lateral and superior” than he remembered. (Ibid., p. 67) This means the photographs do NOT depict the actual wound seen by him and others on November 22, 1963.
Despite Ebersole clinging to the official version of events for the most part, he does offer up a number of things that conflict with the official conclusion and supports what many other witnesses have said.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
live.staticflickr.com/7143/6499852351_ce1399f538_b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md190/pages/md190_0001a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was setup to get the release of documents that various agencies still had in their possession. In addition to this task, they also examined the autopsy relating to the body of assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK). They relied on a number of interviews that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had conducted during their tenure with medical personnel that had been present at the autopsy.
This post will look at one such interview that took place on March 11, 1978, with Dr. John Ebersole. At the time of the assassination Dr. Ebersole was the Acting Chief of Radiology at Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH) as the head of the department was away.
Dr. Ebersole stated that he was in the autopsy room when the coffin arrived and except for taking materials to the X-Ray department he was in the room until three o’clock the next morning. (ARRB MD – 60, p. 3)
When the body was removed he noticed a small irregular wound and a transverse surgical wound across the low neck. After they turned the body over he noticed a “textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline…”. (Ibid.) This same wound would be seen by others as well and the location is a long way from the base of the neck as Warren Commission (WC) member Gerald Ford and Counsel Arlen Specter claimed. He went onto clarify the wound type.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image04.gif
Again I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound – round, smooth, pure pellish, no raised margins. (Ibid.)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=5
Quote off
This description matches a wound of ENTRANCE and not one of exit, but it would be inconceivable that a wound in this location could exit out of the throat. That is why this wound had to be changed by placing it at the base of the neck. Furthermore, the tracheotomy made the “surgical wound” in the throat one of an irregular large jagged looking wound so it could be claimed to be one of exit.
He then says two more things damaging to the official theory.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image04.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image05.gif
The back of the head was missing and the regular messy wound.
At that point, we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. (Ibid., pp. 3-4)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=6
Quote off
The fact the BACK of the head was missing indicates that JFK was hit from the FRONT and not from the back as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed. Furthermore, the back wound had no point of exit so there is no way that the bullet exited from the throat as the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) called for, therefore, it cannot be correct. And without the SBT the WC has no chance (and not much of a chance with it) of being correct.
Perhaps this is why the WC never called him to testify. He would state that he was present when the casket was opened, but he did not recall a plastic bag being around JFK’s head. (Ibid., p. 12) He also did not recall Doctor Humes asking “Who is in charge?” as some have said. (Ibid., p. 16)
I have heard a lot of things regarding the shooting of JFK, but Dr. Ebersole introduced something new to consider.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image26.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image27.gif
Dr. Baden. Dr. Ebersole is now looking at X ray No. 13 which is also the pelvis but has a more superior view.
Dr. Ebersole. At the time of the autopsy I felt that this metallic fragment to the right of the midline represented myelographic media. I think what this really represents is a buckshot since it is well to the right of the canal. This is the other possibility. It represents a buckshot or a myelographic media. This can be very positively identified as being taken that night. This was rounded material. The myelographic media would be in or near the midline of the spinal canal where this appears to be near the right. It could represent either thing although I expect from its density and rounded appearance it means buckshot.
Dr. Wecht. What do you mean by buckshot there?
Dr. Ebersole. A pellet from the shell fired by a shotgun.
Dr. Baden. Are you implying that this would have been a pellet fired into the body at some previous time?
Dr. Ebersole. I am saying at some previous time he ate a duck or a rabbit and this is either in the appendix or the – I expect out in the street we would find something like 15 or 20 percent to have that. (Ibid., pp. 25-26)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=27
Quote off
This is interesting. Could a shotgun been used? I realize that it is highly doubtful as it would have hit others, but how do we explain this then? Dr. Ebersole's reason seems unlikely to me simply because JFK came from a very wealthy family so one would expect that his food was well-cleaned and well-prepared. It wasn’t like he was eating venison in a shack somewhere.
So what could it have been? Perhaps it was a poison pellet in case the shooting failed? Why wasn’t this pellet removed and examined? This was supposed to be an autopsy for goodness sake. Why did he cut off his train of thought after he said it was in the appendix OR…? Or what?
He stated that it was his belief that the back wound was checked in the manner we see described in the Sibert-O’Neill Report (FBI Agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill) –using a finger. It acknowledged that it did not exit. (Ibid., pp. 62-63) After pages and pages of nothing worth highlighting, we see this comment.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image66.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/pages/Image67.gif
Dr. Baden. …Do you remember or have any independent recollection of that condition of the President when you were in the autopsy room?
Dr. Ebersole. You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound then this but I certainly cannot state that this is the way it looked…had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the gaping wound here rather than more forward. (Ibid., pp. 66-67)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=66
Quote off
This comment by Ebersole tells us two very important things. Firstly, Ebersole recalls a GAPING WOUND in the BACK of the head. Secondly, the photographs in the record do NOT SHOW THIS! He says when looking at the photographs that these show the wound to be “much more lateral and superior” than he remembered. (Ibid., p. 67) This means the photographs do NOT depict the actual wound seen by him and others on November 22, 1963.
Despite Ebersole clinging to the official version of events for the most part, he does offer up a number of things that conflict with the official conclusion and supports what many other witnesses have said.