This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gary L. Aguilar, MD
University of California San Francisco

JAMA. 1992;268(13):1681-1682.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Rather than quell doubts about President Kennedy's autopsy findings, I fear that Drs Humes' and Boswell's^1,2 remarks in JAMA will only serve to heighten the level of disbelief in their observations. Neither Humes nor Boswell addressed their critics on contradictory evidence that subsequent government investigations have consistently revealed, namely, that neither the available photographs nor the roentgenograms support Humes' and Boswell's claims regarding the entrance location of the fatal skull wound. At least three qualified groups have reviewed the roentgenographic and photographic evidence and are unanimous in claiming that Humes' and Boswell's claims in the Warren Commission Report erred in placing the fatal skull entrance wound at the base of the skull just above the hairline ("2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance" according to Humes both in the JAMA interview, and before that, in his Warren Commission testimony). The Clark . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?