Talk:John F. Kennedy autopsy/Archive 1

HSCA analysis (1979)
It should be noted on the article that the HSCA drawing of the head and body position is complete rubbish as the video clearly shows him sitting upright when the first shot goes thru the neck. The picture was falsely drawn this way to exclude the 3rd bullet as there was 3 that hit him.--Biebersbro2 (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The above point is relevant independent of suppositions as to number of bullets. Why not include the Boswell autopsy drawing that shows the back wound farther from the top of the head than the throat wound? Arlen Specter later asked Dr Boswell if he had anything to elaborate or modify and Boswell answered "None... everything is exactly as we had determined." A bullet fired from 6 floors up would enter higher and exit lower if from behind. If it exited near the clavicle, where tie is knotted, it would have to enter higher or not come from behind. The autopsy sketch shows the back wound lower than the head wound, but is conspicuously absent along with the name and testimony of its author. translator (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Boswell sketch is schematic - the text right next to the back wound clearly shows where this is located - "14 centimetres (5.5 in) from the tip of the right acromion process, and 14 centimetres (5.5 in) below the right mastoid process." This places the wound higher than the dot on the diagram - at the upper edge of the shoulder blade. As for the "higher/lower" claim, this is misleading and ignores what we know. The throat wound is higher but in the anatomical position - ie. assuming a person upright with perfect posture. If, however, one is seating, with a slight slouch, with the head leaning slightly forward - as JFK is observed to be doing just before he is hit - then the trajectory though downwards appears to travel up in term of the anatomical position. Buglioisi has diagrams which illustrate this fundamental point (pg 422-3) which the conspiracy crowd chooses to ignore. Instead, they pretend the dot on the diagram is the exact location despite the text right next to it, and ignore Kennedy's actual posture vs the medical anatomical posture, two different things. Canada Jack (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

List of personnel
I'm delighted to find this list already exists. I'll move it to here, and tag the other with a delete. S B Harris 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is in major need of a format and sourcing overhaul. I will try to assist as much as I can over the next few days. Ramsquire 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bunched up suit coat and/or shirt?
I took out some confusing language in the article indicating that the bullet holes should not be at the same spot because the coat could have been bunched up towards his neck.

But, the undeniable fact is that all three bullet holes were at the same level of the skin, the shirt and the coat. This establishes that the coat wasn't bunched up. If it had have been bunched up towards the neck, the bullet hole in the suit coat would have been even lower than the third thoracic vertebra on his back.

The citation given said nothing similar what was said in the article. It had some pictures of when the coat was bunched up.

Here is what was taken out:

"However, again there has been controversy on the matter of whether or not the holes in the president's clothing should be expected to correspond to the location of his back wound, since he was sitting with a raised arm at the time of the assassination, and multiple photographs taken of the motorcade show his suit jacket bunched at the back of his neck and shoulder, so that it did not lie closely against his skin."

RPJ 02:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do skin, shirt and coat all have a bullet hole at same spot?
If one looks at the diagram of the autopsy report, the discription in the death certificate referencing the bullet wound to the third thoracic vertebra, with the bullet hole in the shirtcat the same level as the the diagram and the death certificate, and the coat with the bullet hole at the same level as the diagram, death certificate and shirt, one must conclude that is where the bullet hit. Any alleged bunching of the coat either didn't occur or had no effect on that part of the coat.

Is that correct? RPJ 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ANSWER: No. I think you're assuming that which remains to be shown. If a man sits with arm raised and waving for a period of time, it's natural that not only will his coat ride up, but the shirt underneath also. We have no proof that this is what JFK's shirt did, but his coat certainly did, and if the shirt did along with it, then their holes would match, and our mystery is basically solved. All that remains to do is assume that Dr. Burkley, who never got a good look at the back wound anyway (and certainly no chance to measure it), simply placed it wrongly. The world would not stop turning on its axis if clothing holes didn't match with skin holes in a homicide (this is very common, actually), and if a doctor who wasn't at the table at the autopsy happened to miss-locate a wound by a few inches. Why should he do better, if he didn't have a ruler? The above scenario is positively serene compared to the contortions you have to go into to explain things, if the back wound is where Burkley and the clothing ostensibly put it. Now you have the following list of difficulties: *THREE doctors, not just one, need to be wrong, and need to be wrong with far less excuse than Burkley, since their job was to stand next to the body for hours and make sure they got this right. The three autopsy doctors in charge of measuring the wound's placement THEN must verify an existing autopsy back photograph (which shows a high wound over the shoulder blade) as being correct. Which they did. *Not only that, but the JFK back photo (which exists and which none of the autopsy doctors, nor any member of the HSCA committee has publicly found any problem with) has to be faked. *Also, the X-ray (which shows C6 damage at the high wound site) has to be faked. *And the autopsy measurement of 14 cm (5.5 in) below the bone behind the ear must be wrong, because it matches with the high wound, and cannot be stretched to cover a lower one. * We now have a disappearing back bullet. The clothing pattern and abrasion collar in the skin shows this to be a wound of entry. Where did the bullet go? It didn't penetrate the pleura if it was low. If it didn't penetrate and fell out, we have all kinds of damage to the neck relatively near it, which it did NOT contribute to. Fishy, fishy. All that high damage must now be caused by a SECOND bullet. * So, now all kinds of damage to the neck that cannot be accounted for. And from a bullet coming from the wrong direction. The neck bullet which comes out of the throat. We see JFK react to it early, at Z-224. Fibers show this a wound of exit. Behind this wound in the interior of JFK's body, stretching back over the top of the lung, is a bruised plura and lung apex which is the sort of thing caused by a high velocity bullet pressure wave, and by few other things. It doesn't happen from probing after you're dead, because you need blood pressure for bruises to form. JFK was alive while the top of his right lung was bleeding into it. The bullet which did that, came out of this throat. *Okay, so where then DID IT COME FROM? It bruised the top of this lung and EXITED his throat, but it didn’t just appear inside his neck, out of nowhere. It got into JFK somehow. The only wound in JFK's back it could have entered from, is the high one. Anything else goes right through pleura and chest cavity, and nothing did that. Also, a low back bullet, even if magically crossing pleura and lung without damage to get to the neck, has a problem of who might have fired it from that angle. A secret service man from the trailing car? You want a low back bullet? Fine. We have a throat wound of exit connecting with all kinds of bruised path through the base of the neck created while JFK was alive, but ending at the skin of this upper back/neck, with no place for it to have gotten into the body. Unless you simply move the back wound up, and then all becomes clear. In fact, do the angles correctly, and a backwards-extending line connecting Connally's armpit, JFK's throat, and JFK's back wound (if it is high) not only damages his JFK's upper lung tip by shock in exactly the right place, but it extends right back upwards at a 17 degree angle, until 200 feet away it's about 60 feet off the ground, just about window level in the Texas Book Depository. Golly. Sort of makes you wonder what might have been up there, eh? Also, a bullet exiting Connally's nipple area projected back to entry in his armpit and further projected back to JFK's throat, must continue along this line to exits JFK's back rather high up. In fact, just about over his shoulder blade, where the photos and measurements put it. Amazing. S  B Harris 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No citation was given and the HSCA does not criticise the diagram
No citation was put in for a statement that the diagram of the back wound was criticized by the HSCA. If one can be found then the statement should go back in. The HSCA criticized other things about the autopsy but not the diagram.

RPJ 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Autopsy photo
The autopsy photo added on July 1 is truly shocking and grotesque, more so than I think most Wikipedia users would like to encounter unexpectedly. That is why I had chosen to use a medical artist's drawings for the entry wounds, and a drawing of the skull to show the blowout exit wound. An external link can be provided at the bottom of the article for those who want to view the actual autopsy photos, but inclusion of the photo (whose copyright belongs to the Kennedy family, by the way) in the article is inappropriate when less gory substitutions are available.—Walloon (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this flagrantly ignore the no censorship policy of wikipedia and go against the purpose of the article? You allude to nothing I'm aware of that has anything to do with making this article more suitable, and instead consider what seems like a side issue- the emotional impact of an image. What does how shocking an image is or how you imagine it would be percieved by certain people have to do with the appropriatness of it being in this article? It seems that this move was both detrimental to the article/wikipedia's stated purpose in developing articles, and the censorship policy. If I am missing something, please let me know what it is. Finally, you claim a drawing is a substitute, though offer no reasoning in support of this conclusion. Even if you can establish that the picture does provide an equal or greater amount of information regarding the two wounds you mention, how does that establish it as a substitute for the photo in any way? It seems to me that the photo provides more information that what you mention, so even under the facts you've alleged so far, it doesn't seem like your conclusion is supported. Thanks for your consideration of these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.232.2 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The copyright of the photo would be to the person who took it-- one of the medical photographers at Bethesda. Or it could concievably have been transfered to the U.S. government, as a military photograph. But there is no way it belongs to the Kennedy family unless the government transferred the copyright to them. S  B Harris 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The medical photographers at Bethesda were Navy personal using government camera's and film, as such cannot be copyrighted as government agencies cannot create copyrights or patents. The Kennedy family did own the physical prints and negatives, however these were deeded to the National Archives in 1966. A few of the prints have been copied and published in the HSCA indexes(also public domain btw), and a few comercially produced books.


 * On a related note. I recommend any future editors to this discussion take the time to locate copies of the autopsy photos and the drawings of Kennedy's back and look at them side by side. The "shocking" part is definately not the cleaned up bullethole, but rather it's placement in the photo compared to the drawing.
 * too lazy to register, so no signature for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.73.58 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They look exactly the same to me, except that the drawing leaves out few smaller spots which may be moles or blood flecks, and certainly aren't the primary .28 caliber hole, which is at the base of the neck and closer to the head and larger than any other spot on the back. The only people "shocked" are those who insist that one of the lower spots not on the drawing are the "true" bullet hole, and thus locate it farther toward the feet. But they aren't, so that's that.  S  B Harris 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally reject the substitution of this "Drawing" in place of the actual Autopsy Photo. This is in essence, manipulation of evidence, and appears on the surface, a blatant attempt at conveniently hiding evidence of the JFK murder. The "Drawing" cannot be examined for possible image tampering, nor is it accurate in it's content, the head has been rotated, certain elements in the photo have been removed or are missing (evidence of tampering), whether deliberate or accidental. The "Bullet Hole" itself is a misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostJohn2001 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

cite needed, synthesis?
"In 1963, Texas law required that the autopsy of a person murdered in Texas was to be conducted in Texas, unless the murder occurred in places owned, possessed, or controlled by the U.S. government. Thus, the murder and subsequent medical examination of President Kennedy was legally under the sole jurisdiction of the State of Texas."

The first sentence is an assertion of fact and needs a citation. The second sentence is synthetic if derived from the first, and needs to be removed -- or citation provided if it is an actual legal opinion from a third party or if it is a judgement of a court. User:Pedant (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Additionally, it should be noted that the second sentence's conclusion doesn't follow from the fact stated in the first sentence, so this will need alteration even if a source for all can be found. The issues as I see them are:

1: Cite facts in first sentence and establish that the law applies, i.e. was the plaza controlled by the feds? Was the car? Was the immediate vicinity of Kennedy? Do these facts make the texas law inapplicable? 2: Cite conclusion in second sentence. As it is now, even if synthesis policy is ignored, you'd still need to show that the federal government had neither legal authority superior to Texas in the relevant areas, nor any jurisdiction over the autopsy whatsoever(doubtful). It would seem even if the author's point is correct, that the whole sentence reworked to indicate the state had both authority and the legal prerogative to conduct an autopsy. Just cuz this may be so, doesn't mean any autopsy done is therefore under their sole jurisdiction, it only means that they have the authority to do one, and that they would of course have jurisdiction over that autopsy. If they were denied the ability to excercise their statutory autopsy mandate, by whatever means, they would not automatically gain jursidiction over some other entity that was doing an autopsy, be it a private party or the federal government. Issue 3. Though the language is not cited here, the article claims the feds illegally took the body/preformed an autopsy. The only authority for this proposition is as in the above, which even if cited wouldn't lead to that conclusion, for the same reasons allready given. Just cuz Texas law gives them state law authority/mandates to do an autopsy doesn't mean that to frustrate that law is illegal. Federal law trumps state law when the two conflict, and it seems quite likely that some authority existed for possesing the body and transporting outside the jurisdiction of texas at the very least, if not allowing the feds to outright refuse to allow a texas autopsy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.232.2 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm five or six years late to the party. According to the HSCA, the call belonged to Justice of the Peace Theran Ward:
 * Other than the official record of inquest, which states specifically that Ward did, in fact, view the remains of President Kennedy, there is no record of a formal inquest or other procedure to gather evidence from the body within the territorial jurisdiction of death. Nor does the record indicate whether Ward was consulted prior to removal of the body from Dallas County, Tex, for which the President's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was responsible. If such was the case, the authority to approve an autopsy subject to the wishes of the next of kin in Bethesda was a legal order, and evidence obtained as a result of that procedure undoubtedly would have been admissible in a subsequent criminal procedure. If he was not consulted and chose to make an issue of his responsibilities and their abrogation by authority other than himself, and had criminal litigation ensued, a duly constituted court in the State of Texas might have found legal problems to be associated with the criminal proceeding.
 * I've added a bit indicating that Earl Rose believed it was his call. - Location (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy Photo- Revisited
Excuse me? My son was researching Kennedy's assasination and came up with that absolutely gruesome photo on this page. I suggest you take it off immediately. Most readers, especially younger ones, do NOT want to see such a shocking and vulgar sight. I'm all for lax censorship on foul language, but this is both an insult to Kennedy and the integrity of our readers. If you must show photos, use drawings. Regardless of Wikipedia's "censorship policy", human decency dictates that such a disgusting and grotesque sight should not be shown to such a wide range of audiences. If you feel the need to publicize the images of Kennedy's mutilated head, please do so with a link or disclaimer. I advocate the immediate removal of the actual autopsy photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.105.95 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just removed it from John F. Kennedy assassination. The picture is a bit much. I'm leaving it here (for now) because I think it's somewhat more relevant in this article, but I agree that it probably should go. I would welcome some discussion on the matter first, as long as nobody tries to tell me that WP:CENSOR requires that we display the image. We're the greatest free online encyclopedia in the universe - we can add or remove any image we darn well please, as long as the result is an improved encyclopedia. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This and worse for the JFK autopsy are all over the internets. If you're going to research the subject, you're going to immediately run across the photos, leaked during the 1979 HSCA hearing. I support keeping the photos in this article (on the autopsy), so people wanting to research the assassination (a broader subject) don't see them unless they look here. But if you're going to look at an autopsy article, you're doing to risk seeing an autopsy photo (at least one taken for ID before the autopsy began, which is what this is). The Zapruder film, seen during the Oliver Stone film JFK, is at least this disturbing, as you see the man's head blow up and his scalp fall down and his brains come out. That was in theaters, rated PG-13. What, you want it censored on Wikipedia?? S  B Harris 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the picture should be removed but maybe a warning in the top of the article? I wouldn't have read further if there was a warning near the top of the page. Picture is abit much especially without a warning. D4nnyw14 (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a "show" collapse box that could take care of that. Anybody else think that's the way to handle this? S  B Harris 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that'd be good D4nnyw14 (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was the collapsable box never added?D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because..... you didn't do it? WP:SOFIXIT. S  B Harris 01:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what one is. It was your idea. I'd be happy too if someone could point me in the right direction. D4nnyw14 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Other color photos now on the net can be put here now, also, if you like. S B Harris 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good way of providing access to the photograph. Allow people to make their own choice of whether to view the photo or not. It is the truth, and the truth is important. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument for inclusion of the photo or not, just curious what happened to the collapsable box? The photo is now just sitting there.70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)TF
 * I went ahead and added it in. Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I removed it. Please see WP:NDA and WP:NOTCENSORED. Also see my comments over at Talk:Emmett Till. Sky  Warrior  19:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

lol — usernamekiran (talk)  20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I think it can reasonably be assumed that this particular image is one of the most graphic and obscene image of the autopsy. There are quite a number of other candidates. Does anyone know of a list of them. I also think a list of the existant photos and x-rays needs to be included, so that people can find them. Epideme12 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this photo should be here unless it is in a collapsible box as earlier. This photo isn't "informative," as unless you are a pathologist, it's hard to know, exactly, how to interpret the image. As opposed to, say, the Emmitt Till photos which are part of the story as his family deliberately had an open-coffin funeral to make a political point. It's therefore relevant to show the Till image. Besides, the JFK photo was taken BEFORE the autopsy and before the wounds were cleaned for examination, as opposed to, say, a photo showing the area of blow-out in the skull which would be more relevant as it would show the wound described elsewhere. Additionally, as SBH had earlier indicated, these photos were basically stolen and never intended for publication. Canada Jack (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That head-amd-shoulders shot of JFK in the autopsy table is better, good call Epideme Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Autopsy photo: Citation.
The caption claims: “A picture of JFK's head taken at the beginning of the autopsy”. Do you have any source stating that it has been taken at the beginning of the autopsy? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ARRB removal and revert
I see that someone removed the conclusions of the ARRB and that removal was quickly reverted. I had nothing to do with the changes here, but the text in question is problematic, to say the least.

Horne's conclusions, to put it mildly, are bizarre and hallucinogenic and since they directly contradict the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the HSCA, these rather wild claims should be addressed. For example, much of his notions on what happened to the brain rely on a basic misunderstanding of the sectioning technique used. And he also relies on the testimony of Stringer for some of these conclusions. Trouble is, Stringer's testimony in 1978 is directly at odds with his testimony for the ARRB - and yet Horne bases much of his wild conclusions on this witness' ever-evolving claims. Canada Jack (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going to remove it. It appears as though this is an excerpt from a prepared statement presented at a press conference in 2006, eight years after the ARRB and three years before his self-published book came out. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing the press conference or his book, therefore, the material is not suitable for inclusion... particularly due to WP:REDFLAG. -Location (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally. For example, the "two brain" theory was discussed by him at the ARRB in a 32-page internal memo which was NOT part of the conclusions of the ARRB, which was releasing documents in large part, assessing the difficulty in releasing some of this evidence and examining inter-agency issues, NOT re-investigating the case. IOW, whoever inserted the text is implying that the ARRB came to this and other conclusions in regards to the medical evidence WHICH IT DID NOT. These views are Horne's and his conclusions have been widely challenged. For example, the "two brain" theory in large part rests on the presumption that JFK's brain was interred the day he was buried, yet there were recollections and documentary evidence of sectioning done AFTER the funeral. So, he concludes, there were two brains, the "second" brain prepared to make it seem a shot came from the rear. Others have pointed out that JFK's brain was NOT interred (though it may have been by 1967 by RFK), and much of the testimony of Stringer directly contradicts what he said before the HSCA. (He, after all, testified within 15 years of the events when in front of the HSCA, some 30 years when in front of the ARRB) He suggests Stringer lied to the HSCA - which would make him an unreliable witness - he can't have it both ways. Canada Jack (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The gunshot wound in the back
I am removing the following text from the article:
 * Claims that anyone on the commission "moved the wound" are subject to discussion. Gerald Ford said he renamed the location of the wound, so as "to make things clearer". The Bethesda autopsy noted that JFK was hit in the "upper back."  However, the autopsy doctors, while testifying for the Warren Commission, frequently referred to this wound as a "neck" wound. 


 * 1) The Commission report, as amended by Ford, then found the bullet to have passed through the base of the neck, and not to have been in the back. However, Ford's change is consistent with a bullet hit in the shoulder at the C6 vertebral body, where the HSCA and the photograph placed the wound on the basis of X-damage of the vertebrae and tiny lead fragments in that location.

First of all, the idea that the wound was "moved" by Ford or the Warren Commission is clearly a fringe theory, and there is already an entire article in Wikipedia devoted to fringe material (i.e. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). Quibbling about Ford's edits regarding "back" vs. "neck" vs. "base of neck" prior to the finalized report is all about fringe. Furthermore, the first source is clearly unreliable per Wikipedia guidelines and the second, altered headline and all, doesn't even state what we have Ford saying. - Location (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call, Location. There is no evidence that Ford's erroneous change to "neck" was done in anything other than good faith. The premise that the change of the wording in the summary somehow negates the actual evidence presented within the Warren Report is specious nonsense. One who know his or her anatomy would know that the precise measurement - “14 cm from rt acromion” and “14 cm below tip of rt mastoid process,” among other precise descriptions, indicates a position on the upper right back, just to the left of the shoulder blade. If THAT testimony had been altered, then there'd be a case to be made. The further premise - that researchers would simply go by that summary in understanding the nature of the wounds - is also completely inane.


 * It's another dishonest appeal to "common sense" from the conspiracy crowd which, in the end, makes no sense. The wounds were medically described, descriptions, which to the lay person, were complete gobbledy gook. Ford was no doctor, and he likely saw the Rydberg drawing which erroneously placed the entry wound on the neck. Rydberg went by testimony from the autopsy surgeons who loosely described the entry wound on numerous occasions as to the neck. The autopsy photos, recall, were not viewed by the Commission. Further cynicism is on display from the conspiracy crowd when it is implied to the medically ignorant that a downward trajectory bullet couldn't enter someone's BACK and exit his THROAT, ignoring the fact the front of one's neck is actually below the top of one's back. Further cynicism is on display, counting on the ignorance of the average person, when it is pointed out that Kennedy's throat wound was actually ABOVE the back wound when going by the anatomical position. Trouble is, the "anatomical position" is the body in a rigid, up-right position, akin to a Marine stance. The slightest stoop - which most people routinely exhibit - puts the front wound lower. And JFK was not sitting rigidly upright when struck by the first bullet. Canada Jack (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically the neck (cervical region) starts at C7, the seventh and lowest cervical vertebra, which sits above T1, the first and highest thoracic (thorax = back) vertebra. The bullet actually took a chip off the transverse process of JFK's C7 vertebra. That's the one with the most prominent posterior process that you feel in the back of your own neck (the big lump at the base of your neck where you feel your spine poke out the most). It's quite far down, next to your shoulder blade. But it's a neck vertebra because it has no rib coming out of it. So the bullet went as low as it could go and still be in the neck. The fact that it passed over the top tip of the right lung without puncturing the pleura, also puts it (just barely) anatomically ABOVE the thorax and thorac outlet. JFK had a bruised lung from the shock, but no punctured lung or blood in the lung. Thus, this path is also in the base of the anatomical neck, and above the thorax. So, the hell of it is, for conspiracy theorists, non-doctor Gerald Ford actually got it right. By accident, partly, but he was guided by the exit wound, and his intuition about the anatomical rear entrance turned out to be (technically) correct. Most lay-people would call that rear wound an upper back wound and in the lay usage, it is. But technically and anatomically, it is not. Anything that chips off your lowest neckbone, and passes above your lung and ribs, is in your neck. S  B Harris 00:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool - I'll be darned! Canada Jack (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, see Fringe theories/Noticeboard. - Location (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Redo of "Background" section
While the article covers quite well the findings of the initial autopsy and the subsequent investigations, it fails to adequately describe the background. I plan to do this soon, unless someone else wants to tackle this. Instead of an account of Earl Rose's confrontation with the presidential detail, this section requires a) remarks about the deceased; b) an explanation as to why the new president decided Kennedy's body must accompany him back to Washington; then c) the confrontation with Rose as they moved the body and d) a brief note on the jurisdictional dispute. The "background" section, in other words, is no "background" at all, it is largely a description of the confrontation which ensued when Kennedy's body was removed from the hospital with only a brief mention of Jacquie's wishes. Further, the legal situation was murky at best, not nearly as cut-and-dried as some like to portray it. Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can also add the HSCA's take on it that despite Rose's assertion, once Theran Ward signed off on it Mrs. Kennedy did have the right to have the autopsy in Bethesda. - Location (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rose himself later said that taking Kennedy to Washington was the right call, and he agreed with the findings of the autopsy when he was on one of the investigative panels - Clark or HSCA, can't recall which. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was actually on the HSCA panel that reviewed who had jurisdiction and appears to state in (520) and (521) that is was Theran Ward's call to decide if an autopsy was necessary to determine the cause of death. - Location (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted to add material relevant to point "b" above. Not sure the Esquire quote is necessary, but I was looking for something that tells the reader why Johnson wouldn't leave without Jackie. -Location (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good - might try Robert Caro's "The Passage of Power" (2012), the latest of his Lyndon Johnson biographies. It has a very gripping account of that day, all the more so when you realize how vulnerable Johnson was at that very moment to being at the least removed from the 1964 ticket. Here is the link to the New Yorker (long) excerpt from this exact section (with much on the Bobby Baker scandal unfolding at the same time). There isn't anything on the fracas with Rose when they left with Kennedy's body, but there is a lot on why Johnson decided he had to bring his body back. Canada Jack (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John F. Kennedy autopsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104030316/http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/38/345-7867/pdf/bmj.e4768.full.pdf to http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/38/345-7867/pdf/bmj.e4768.full.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130410175944/http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120429/NEWS03/304290075/Munson-Iowan-more-than-footnote-JFK-lore to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120429/NEWS03/304290075/Munson-Iowan-more-than-footnote-JFK-lore

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark panel
I removed most of the text in the section, which consists almost exclusively of an excessive amount of primary source material. The section contains no summarizing from secondary sources, which is how Wikipedia articles are to be written. The two bulleted sentences at the end of the section are not from the Panel report and appear to be someone's opinion, but no source is shown, so I removed that text as well. The size of the section, due to the large copy-paste of text from the Panel's findings, is also an UNDUE amount of that material for this article. I revised the section with referenced introductory text and a much briefer quotation from the Summary section of the Clark Panel report. DonFB (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)