Forensic pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings works for the Massachusetts Office of the Medical Examiner. He’s a bonafide Expert.
So is Dr. Cyril Wecht, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science. From the two videos embedded below, you can see they have, let’s just say, a slight disagreement.
Fig. 1 Dr. Cummings explanation of the fatal head shot.
Fig. 2. Dr. Wecht’s explanation of President John Kennedy’s bullet wounds.
Okay.. So we have one expert who believes that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot came from the rear, and low to the head. Dr. Wecht believes that President Kennedy suffered three distinct gunshot wounds. The first struck him in the back, and exited from the front of his neck. The second was the fatal head shot. The third was from a bullet that entered fairly close to where Dr. Cummings described.
They obviously disagree with each other concerning whether or not this low shot from the rear was the one that splattered Jack’s brains all over the Lincoln. At the same time, they do agree that this shot existed. If so, the type of structural damage to the brain could find explanation in Wecht’s summary.
In a 2014 piece for The Huffington Post , Dr. Cummings outlined his motivation for looking into the JFK assassination. When his seven-year-old son asked him why the JFK assassination mattered, he concluded:
Doesn’t everyone want the truth? (Stupid question, forget I asked it.)
Whether you talk to those who cling to the Warren Commission’s findings or those standing behind a conspiracy hypotheses, you’ll get a remarkably consistent answer to the above question. Our side wants the truth. The other side is delusional, ignorant, misinformed or misguided. This kind of simple reduction gives rise to many different interpretations of evidence and fact, and thus becomes an example of Victor Turner’s (University of Chicago) theory of social drama.
For Dr. Cummings, the arch nemesis of truth seems to be, well, the Internet. As he wrote in the above article:
Many of us have to acknowledge that we do not have the expertise to discern the intricacies of many forensic issues surrounding scientific inquiries into criminal matters. That’s why we rely on such experts as Drs. Cummings and Wecht. Of course, when the experts disagree, which one of them do we believe?
Unfortunately, it’s usually the one that disrupts least our world view.
Then again, how can experts disagree? Especially if their findings are based in science?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: despite it’s virtues and the power that it gives us, science falls within the wheelhouse of scientists, fellow human beings who have many of the same biases, prejudices and foibles as the society they live in. Like in any other social drama, those applying the objective arts (to coin a term) are prone to paradigm shifts, disagreements, schools of thought, and so forth.
Dr. Cummings’s apparent distaste for the “endless assassination conspiracy theories” is understandable. We’ve seen a number of unlikely narratives over the years (e.g., JFK shot from an open manhole, by his driver William Greer, by a reckless Secret Service Special Agent, from Jackie, Senator Cruz’s dad et cetera). And by now we’ve all seen baseless claims about the reality of such events as the Sandy Hook massacre. And we can all see that there is a decidedly right-wing ideological tint to these stories that could irk just about anyone, whether she be progressive, liberal, or even moderately conservative. At the same time, this train of thought – the rush or compulsion to disprove/debunk “conspiracy theories” – is itself a bias.
Would that necessarily taint Dr. Cummings’s findings? I’m afraid the answer to that would be maybe, and not necessarily. While I doubt that the good doctor has intentionally or unintentionally engaged in confirmation bias, or (gasp!) is in on the cover-up, I still can’t pit my expertise over his, for I have none.
Would Dr. Wecht be prone to bias? Again, maybe, and not necessarily. He seems to be a firm believer in the multi-shooter hypothesis, so again confirmation bias might still be an issue. And Dr. Wecht has, over the years, weighed in on myriad controversial and/or unpopular cases. It doesn’t seem the man’s shy about stating his opinion. But Wecht’s hardly a crank. Usually, nutters, dilettantes and the incompetent don’t become the head of their professional societies, especially those that are science-based.
Could I have a bias? Perhaps. I’ll be the first to say that I don’t believe the Warren Commission findings, or for that matter those of the House Select Committee on Assassination. But it’s not because I want to believe one thing over the other. It doesn’t benefit or excite or comfort me to believe that those I elect into public office could be victim to a coup d’état if their actions cross powerful agendas. So I could accept evidence of a single shooter if (1) the chain of custody of that evidence is verified, (2) the explanation squares at least to an appreciable measure to all (or most) aspects of the event, and (3) the evidence is relevant to the central question.
I’m afraid that no evidence has been presented that satisfies any of these requirements. Let’s start with the first one. Dr. Cummings claims that he had better information because he got it from an institutional/official source.
In some respects, I agree that you try to get the best evidence you can. But in the JFK assassination, we have a case where institutional/official actors have most likely doctored evidence that has been contradicted by other experts (Dallas Police, Parkland doctors, Secret Service, etc.) who were on or near the scene at or around the time (and that’s not mentioning the numerous lay witnesses). The examples are many, but to name just a few we can talk about the suppression and manipulation of such witnesses as Warren Reynolds and Acquilla Clemmons, the disrupted chain of custody of evidence with respect to the shell casings and bullets found at the JD Tippet slayng, the Manlicher-Carcano or for that matter CE 389, the legendary “magic bullet.”*
Moreover, one scientific expert, Dr. Vincent Guinn (Chemistry, University of California, Irvine) testified before the HSCA that he could tell that Oswald, and Oswald alone shot President Kennedy and Governor John Connally because each batch of bullets is chemically, metallurgically distinctive, unique. And the bullets found at the scene matched Oswald’s batch. In substantial part based on this evidence, the HSCA ruled out any Grassy Knoll shooters. Yet, a 2007 study conducted under the auspices of the University of Texas (pdf) concluded that there were no significant deviations between one batch of Manlicher-Carcano bullets and another.** The implications of this are significant. As they begin:
Are Dr. Spiegelman et al saying there were shooters on the Grassy Knoll? Hardly. What they are saying is that the finding that ruled them out was based on faulty science. It’s not that Dr. Guinn was corrupt, or dishonest, or right-wing, or “in on it,” or for that matter incompetent, but rather he was simply interpreting the subject using the best science the 1970s had to offer. But, like everything else, chemistry and metallurgy have come a far way since the 1970s.
Then we have to look at the issue of circumstance and relevance. If Dr. Cummings wants to prove that President Kennedy was shot from behind, then he won’t find much disagreement with the bulk of conspiracy hypotheses. In fact, the majority of them stress the narrative of triangulated cross-fire, with one team specifically in the Schoolbook Depository. But how well does that line up with Oswald as a lone assassin? Considering DPD Officer Marion Baker’s placement of Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within ninety seconds of the event, not very well. Nor does the lack of a positive nitrate test on his cheek, or the lack of latent Oswald prints on the murder weapon as processed by the FBI, or the confessions by alleged co-conspirators James Files, E. Howard Hunt and Chauncy Holt, nor the doctored Life Magazine photo, or the....
I could go on and on (and I often do), but you get the drift, right? Singling out one aspect in order to “kill” a conspiracy theory has all the earmarks of setting up a strawman, and hacking him to the ground.
I, for one, don’t find much truth in strawmen.
Yet, Dr. Cummings work could serve as a plank to future analyses of the JFK assassination, no matter if they ultimate support the Warren Commission or conspiracists. I'll assume his science is valid and accurate. It's the offered conclusion that seem shaky to me.
______________
*From the HSCA’s report:
Clemmons refused to acknowledge Lee Oswald as Tippet’s assailant, and received initial affirmation from Reynolds, who changed his story only after suffering a superficial shot to the head, and an aborted kidnaping attempt on his ten-year-old daughter. As for the “near-pristine” CE 389, there’s very little to confirm it’s origins.
At the present, I don't have the time right now to go into depth about this, but the actual physical evidence with respect to President Kennedy's head as it exists in the National Archives has always been a source of controversy. The actual brain material went missing, and many witnesses, among them Lt. Cmdr. William Pitzer, the officer in charge of photographing the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, claimed that the photographic evidence of Jack's head wound had been tampered with. So it coould very well be the case that even at the National Archives we have second-hand, or misleading artifacts. That is, unless one is actually working with Kennedy's body, I'm afraid all available information would require some leap of faith as to its accuracy and relevance.
**Cliff Spiegelman, William Tobin, William James, Simon Sheather, Stuart Wexler and D. Max Roundhill. 2007. “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?” The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 1 (2):287-301.
So is Dr. Cyril Wecht, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science. From the two videos embedded below, you can see they have, let’s just say, a slight disagreement.
Fig. 1 Dr. Cummings explanation of the fatal head shot.
Fig. 2. Dr. Wecht’s explanation of President John Kennedy’s bullet wounds.
Okay.. So we have one expert who believes that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot came from the rear, and low to the head. Dr. Wecht believes that President Kennedy suffered three distinct gunshot wounds. The first struck him in the back, and exited from the front of his neck. The second was the fatal head shot. The third was from a bullet that entered fairly close to where Dr. Cummings described.
They obviously disagree with each other concerning whether or not this low shot from the rear was the one that splattered Jack’s brains all over the Lincoln. At the same time, they do agree that this shot existed. If so, the type of structural damage to the brain could find explanation in Wecht’s summary.
In a 2014 piece for The Huffington Post , Dr. Cummings outlined his motivation for looking into the JFK assassination. When his seven-year-old son asked him why the JFK assassination mattered, he concluded:
The answer: The truth always matters, no matter how long it’s been. The truth is important, and you always tell the truth. That’s what I told my son.
Doesn’t everyone want the truth? (Stupid question, forget I asked it.)
Whether you talk to those who cling to the Warren Commission’s findings or those standing behind a conspiracy hypotheses, you’ll get a remarkably consistent answer to the above question. Our side wants the truth. The other side is delusional, ignorant, misinformed or misguided. This kind of simple reduction gives rise to many different interpretations of evidence and fact, and thus becomes an example of Victor Turner’s (University of Chicago) theory of social drama.
For Dr. Cummings, the arch nemesis of truth seems to be, well, the Internet. As he wrote in the above article:
I realized that much of the controversy surrounding the president’s death is the result of the faulty application of forensic science. Today, with information available on the Internet, anyone can claim to be an expert. Pseudoscience runs rampant and people seem to have lost respect for actual research and standards of proof. Anyone with a website can pass him or herself off as an expert, often without any real education, experience or knowledge. The sanctity of the scientific method is paramount to arriving at honest conclusions and deriving the truth. It’s by ignoring this process that apparent inconsistencies have bred the endless assassination conspiracy theories.
Many of us have to acknowledge that we do not have the expertise to discern the intricacies of many forensic issues surrounding scientific inquiries into criminal matters. That’s why we rely on such experts as Drs. Cummings and Wecht. Of course, when the experts disagree, which one of them do we believe?
Unfortunately, it’s usually the one that disrupts least our world view.
Then again, how can experts disagree? Especially if their findings are based in science?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: despite it’s virtues and the power that it gives us, science falls within the wheelhouse of scientists, fellow human beings who have many of the same biases, prejudices and foibles as the society they live in. Like in any other social drama, those applying the objective arts (to coin a term) are prone to paradigm shifts, disagreements, schools of thought, and so forth.
Dr. Cummings’s apparent distaste for the “endless assassination conspiracy theories” is understandable. We’ve seen a number of unlikely narratives over the years (e.g., JFK shot from an open manhole, by his driver William Greer, by a reckless Secret Service Special Agent, from Jackie, Senator Cruz’s dad et cetera). And by now we’ve all seen baseless claims about the reality of such events as the Sandy Hook massacre. And we can all see that there is a decidedly right-wing ideological tint to these stories that could irk just about anyone, whether she be progressive, liberal, or even moderately conservative. At the same time, this train of thought – the rush or compulsion to disprove/debunk “conspiracy theories” – is itself a bias.
Would that necessarily taint Dr. Cummings’s findings? I’m afraid the answer to that would be maybe, and not necessarily. While I doubt that the good doctor has intentionally or unintentionally engaged in confirmation bias, or (gasp!) is in on the cover-up, I still can’t pit my expertise over his, for I have none.
Would Dr. Wecht be prone to bias? Again, maybe, and not necessarily. He seems to be a firm believer in the multi-shooter hypothesis, so again confirmation bias might still be an issue. And Dr. Wecht has, over the years, weighed in on myriad controversial and/or unpopular cases. It doesn’t seem the man’s shy about stating his opinion. But Wecht’s hardly a crank. Usually, nutters, dilettantes and the incompetent don’t become the head of their professional societies, especially those that are science-based.
Could I have a bias? Perhaps. I’ll be the first to say that I don’t believe the Warren Commission findings, or for that matter those of the House Select Committee on Assassination. But it’s not because I want to believe one thing over the other. It doesn’t benefit or excite or comfort me to believe that those I elect into public office could be victim to a coup d’état if their actions cross powerful agendas. So I could accept evidence of a single shooter if (1) the chain of custody of that evidence is verified, (2) the explanation squares at least to an appreciable measure to all (or most) aspects of the event, and (3) the evidence is relevant to the central question.
I’m afraid that no evidence has been presented that satisfies any of these requirements. Let’s start with the first one. Dr. Cummings claims that he had better information because he got it from an institutional/official source.
I was privileged to have the opportunity to visit the National Archives and examine the original medical evidence. My visit underscored the fact that Internet research isn’t enough — nothing can replace viewing the actual artifacts. It’s through a return to these basics that the scientific method works best.
In some respects, I agree that you try to get the best evidence you can. But in the JFK assassination, we have a case where institutional/official actors have most likely doctored evidence that has been contradicted by other experts (Dallas Police, Parkland doctors, Secret Service, etc.) who were on or near the scene at or around the time (and that’s not mentioning the numerous lay witnesses). The examples are many, but to name just a few we can talk about the suppression and manipulation of such witnesses as Warren Reynolds and Acquilla Clemmons, the disrupted chain of custody of evidence with respect to the shell casings and bullets found at the JD Tippet slayng, the Manlicher-Carcano or for that matter CE 389, the legendary “magic bullet.”*
Moreover, one scientific expert, Dr. Vincent Guinn (Chemistry, University of California, Irvine) testified before the HSCA that he could tell that Oswald, and Oswald alone shot President Kennedy and Governor John Connally because each batch of bullets is chemically, metallurgically distinctive, unique. And the bullets found at the scene matched Oswald’s batch. In substantial part based on this evidence, the HSCA ruled out any Grassy Knoll shooters. Yet, a 2007 study conducted under the auspices of the University of Texas (pdf) concluded that there were no significant deviations between one batch of Manlicher-Carcano bullets and another.** The implications of this are significant. As they begin:
The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) traumatized the nation. In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed.
Are Dr. Spiegelman et al saying there were shooters on the Grassy Knoll? Hardly. What they are saying is that the finding that ruled them out was based on faulty science. It’s not that Dr. Guinn was corrupt, or dishonest, or right-wing, or “in on it,” or for that matter incompetent, but rather he was simply interpreting the subject using the best science the 1970s had to offer. But, like everything else, chemistry and metallurgy have come a far way since the 1970s.
Then we have to look at the issue of circumstance and relevance. If Dr. Cummings wants to prove that President Kennedy was shot from behind, then he won’t find much disagreement with the bulk of conspiracy hypotheses. In fact, the majority of them stress the narrative of triangulated cross-fire, with one team specifically in the Schoolbook Depository. But how well does that line up with Oswald as a lone assassin? Considering DPD Officer Marion Baker’s placement of Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within ninety seconds of the event, not very well. Nor does the lack of a positive nitrate test on his cheek, or the lack of latent Oswald prints on the murder weapon as processed by the FBI, or the confessions by alleged co-conspirators James Files, E. Howard Hunt and Chauncy Holt, nor the doctored Life Magazine photo, or the....
I could go on and on (and I often do), but you get the drift, right? Singling out one aspect in order to “kill” a conspiracy theory has all the earmarks of setting up a strawman, and hacking him to the ground.
I, for one, don’t find much truth in strawmen.
Yet, Dr. Cummings work could serve as a plank to future analyses of the JFK assassination, no matter if they ultimate support the Warren Commission or conspiracists. I'll assume his science is valid and accurate. It's the offered conclusion that seem shaky to me.
______________
*From the HSCA’s report:
Due to the inconsistent markings on the recovered bullets and on all the test-fired bullets, the panel concluded that the CE 602 through CE 605 bullets [The bullets in Tippit's body] could not be conclusively identified or eliminated as having been fired from the CE 143 revolver. (See figs. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35A, 35B, 35C, and 35D.)
Clemmons refused to acknowledge Lee Oswald as Tippet’s assailant, and received initial affirmation from Reynolds, who changed his story only after suffering a superficial shot to the head, and an aborted kidnaping attempt on his ten-year-old daughter. As for the “near-pristine” CE 389, there’s very little to confirm it’s origins.
At the present, I don't have the time right now to go into depth about this, but the actual physical evidence with respect to President Kennedy's head as it exists in the National Archives has always been a source of controversy. The actual brain material went missing, and many witnesses, among them Lt. Cmdr. William Pitzer, the officer in charge of photographing the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, claimed that the photographic evidence of Jack's head wound had been tampered with. So it coould very well be the case that even at the National Archives we have second-hand, or misleading artifacts. That is, unless one is actually working with Kennedy's body, I'm afraid all available information would require some leap of faith as to its accuracy and relevance.
**Cliff Spiegelman, William Tobin, William James, Simon Sheather, Stuart Wexler and D. Max Roundhill. 2007. “Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?” The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 1 (2):287-301.
