10 Webster Ave. Apt. 1-2 Somerville, MA 02143 August 10, 1995 Randy Robertson, M.D. Southern Hills Medical Center Department of Radiology 391 Wallace Road Nashville, Tennessee 37027 Dear Randy, Within the past couple of weeks, Lenny has provided me with a copy of your critical response to Dr. Mantik's recent finding that the autopsy X-rays are authentic after all. We both fully support your efforts to inform the research community that the authenticity of the autopsy material has been conclusively established and we each have some suggestions which we hope will help you to edit and strengthen your response, before you distribute it out to a wider audience. In particular, we noticed some punctuation and grammatical errors which can be easily corrected, and would like to suggest some possible rephrasing. I also have several disagreements with some of your points, which I've argued in brief in the comments below. Where I think something is obvious or a matter of style, I've simply highlighted the word(s) and marked in the correction or suggested improvement on the enclosed (blue) copy of your commentary. Where there is a specific point I'd like to raise, I've placed a letter in the left margin next to the line where the text is highlighted. In the comments below I'll address each item by letter with a brief explanation or suggested wording. I trust it will be obvious when I'm merely suggesting alternative wording and when I'm contesting a particular interpretation. A. This point could be made more strongly. It is a very important point which needs more emphasis. "Should hopefully sway" sounds too weak to me. Consider this wording: ". . . should be sufficient to convince those critics who have persisted dogmatically . . .." B. I dislike the usage of the word "government." It may turn off your wider audience, which already is distrustful of government investigations. Instead, you might say something such as, ". . . as previous investigations have shown." C. Instead of "reconfirmnation of the authenticity of the skull radiographs," try "recent corroboration that the skull radiographs are authentic, . . .." Change "that" to "for." Change "involved in" to "analyzing." Change "might" to "may." Change "should" to "to." D. I think the word "must" sounds too obligatory. Maybe you could say "should." E. Italicize the word "not." Change the word "as" to "because." Somehow you need to insert wording which points out that the occipital bone was complete and intact, even if it was fractured and disrupted. Consider: ". . . is present in its entirety, albeit fractured and disrupted, . . ." F. "Dr. Lawrence Angel, a consultant to the HSCA," G. "on frame 313 of the Zapruder film" Also, you need to explain that the bone can not be clearly discerned, but is a blur. H. "its" - possessive, no need for an apostrophe. I. Replace "seeing" with "seen." Or perhaps "may be visualized as"? J. Change "not addressed . . ." to "not even considered . . .." Change ". . .who instead mistakenly concluded that" to ". . . which contended that." It begs the question to state that they were mistaken. It is possible that a piece of bone could be ejected towards the front of the limo, yet still end up in the rear seat. If that piece rose high enough, above the windshield, it could be blown back by the wind or aerodynamic drag. If you've ever thrown a piece of bread up to seagulls flying stationary in front of a boat, you know that there is a height at which the piece of bread stops going forward and is blown back towards you. K. "its" - possessive L. You need to argue this point rather than simply state it as fact. M. "You can prove . . ." is too informal. Try "it can be shown . . .." N. "This does not do well for . . ." is too colloquial. Try, "This disproves . . .." O. "Indicates" not "indicate" - singular subject needs singular verb. I prefer "X-rays" to "x-rays." Further occurences I simply highlighted in case you decide to change them. P. "fit into" Q. Too many negatives. It sounds as thought you are disagreeing with what you had just stated in the previous sentence. Instead of "indicates directly that this is not the case" try, "confirms directly that this is the case." R. If the autopsy photos are genuine, there is not a break in the scalp on the back of the head, so there is no exit point for a rear skull fragment. S. Either Jackie or Clint Hill closed up the scalp to hold the head together during the ride to Parkland Hospital, so the head was not in the same condition as seen in Dealey Plaza as when it was seen at Parkland Hospital. T. Fuzzy wording. You've lost me here. Are you trying to describe the piece of scalp with attached bone which is seen hanging down in the Zapruder film? Perhaps you could say, ". . . show the flap reflected forward, . . .." U. It might be better to say "physical evidence." Consider this word: " . . . by such a pervasive climate of suspicion wherein the authenticity of all the physical evidence is continually being questioned." V. Fuzzy wording. Findings in[?] materials? Perhaps you could say, "findings that should be derived from these materials." W. Again, it might turn off your audience to use the word "government." Perhaps you could say, "the official investigations."? X. Instead of "We are now in the position to do so." you might say, "We're now in the best position we've yet achieved to do so." Y. Change "damage of the skull. . ." to "damage to the skull." Change "matches" to "is corroborated by . . .." Z. Fuzzy wording. Try: Boswell measured and wrote, "10X17 cm 'missing'." 2 AA. I thought Boswell's autopsy diagram was based on actual measurements done on the head rather than interpretation of the X-rays. Don't you mean "in comparison with" rather than "in reproducing"? BB. "no metal fragments visible on the X-ray"? There could be dust-like lead fragments not visible on the X-ray. Also, I think Lattimer and/or Wecht had noted the presence of some fragments just barely to the left of midline. CC. There could be a tangential wound, but, given the angle from the HSCA gunman to JFK's head, the trajectory could not be described as tangential. DD. You are assuming a fact not in evidence. There could be minute fragments in the left hemisphere which did not show up on the X-ray. Damage to the left hemisphere could remain unseen from the top view of the brain if the disruption was inches below the surface. Also, your wording, "no significant damage" seems to imply that there was some damage to the left side of the brain. Did you really want to leave that impression? EE. It is not common, but it is possible that a bullet can enter one side of the head, bounce off the inside of the skull on the opposite side of the head, and come to rest in the same side in which it had entered. FF. "should" GG. Remember to hyphenate phrases like "back-of-the head." ". . . by utilizing . . ." instead of ". . . by using . . ." HH. Instead of " . . . it should be seen . . .", try ". . . it should be visible on the autopsy photos (as they presently exist), . . ." I think you need to diagram this. II. Not "as of." Try "as depicting." JJ. "co-conspirator" KK. Do you mean an "oral history"? LL. Change "on" to "as to." MM. We can't rely on the reported heresay of one corpsman to prove that Burkley could not have been thinking about one bullet hitting JFK's back and another hitting his throat. NN. Replace the wording, "If his answer was . . ." with these phrases: "If he had said that he thought there were two bullets . . ." "If he had said that he thought there was one bullet . . ." "If he had said that he thought there were four bullets . . ." "If he really knew that there were three bullets . . ." OO. Not two exit wounds in the rear of the head. Only one exit wound in the rear of the head. Change "was known the night . . ." to "was known on the night . . .." PP. Change "bone which . . ." to "bone, a finding which . . .." QQ. I am not convinced on this point. RR. Change "corresponding to a line . . ." to "corresponding with another line . . ." 3 SS. I agree, but the word "lie" is too strong. Try, "discrepancy" or "deceit." TT. "its" - possessive UU. This sounds too obligatory. Try, "I therefore conclude . . .." VV. The autopsy photos do not show an entrance wound near the EOP. WW. Not the only way. Many fragmented pieces of the skull could remain in the head, but fall apart when the scalp is reflected. Didn't someone describe that as having taken place? XX. "allow" YY. Change "majority" to "preponderance." Change ",if not mandates," to ",nay compels the conclusion,". ZZ. Fuzzy wording. That could also apply to a bullet entering from the front. You might say, ". . . a bullet entering near the EOP." I disagree with this point. The transverse fracture line could be caused by a bullet entering the front of the head. One possible cause is increased inter-cranial pressure from the impact of the bullet. Another possible cause is the compression wave travelling around to the other side of the skull. Another possible cause is the explosion of the tip of an exploding bullet producing an additional shockwave. AAA. There are alternative solutions available. See the example of the lightbulb test done by Doc Edgerton. BBB. There are three vertical lines going down to the transverse line. Then there are three vertical lines below the transverse line which line up perfectly with the three vertical lines above the transverse line. Calculate the odds that these three vertical lines would line up perfectly with the three higher vertical lines if such a line-up were due solely to chance. CCC. Change "an entering bullet" to "a bullet entering near the EOP . . .." DDD. Change "hard" to "difficult." EEE. Logic problem. Just because an object exhibits features which we would expect to be produced by one cause does not mean that this cause is the only cause which could possibly have produced the effect. FFF. I would caution against placing too much reliance on Dale Meyer's analysis. He makes the faulty assumption that there was a distinct point of exit from which he can derive a straight line to the entrance wound and then extend backwards a straight line trajectory, which he then notes does not intersect the "sniper's nest". Much like the analysis in Howard Donahue's book Mortal Error. GGG. Change "much controversy has existed over the . . ." to "there's been a great deal of controversy with respect to the . . .." Change "shot" to "head shot, fired . . .." 4 HHH. Part of the apparent double head motion is an illusion due to inaccurate measurements and the blur of Z-313. JFK's forward movement was not due to a shot. All the occupants of the rear compartment of the limo moved forward by a comparable degree due to the sudden deceleration of the limo. Conservation of momentum. III. Fuzzy wording. Do you mean the WC or HSCA or both? Try this wording: ". . . which was provided by the Warren Commission and the H.S.C.A." Then change "failures" to "defects." Change "analysis" to "analyses." Change "reconstruct" to "reconstruction." JJJ. Change "exit wound . . ." to "part of an exit wound . . .." Change "as coming. . ." to "as supposedly coming . . .." KKK. Change the word "movies" to "films." You need to substantiate this observation. Moving to the rear is not the same as exiting from the rear of the head. LLL. Fuzzy wording. You seem to be implying that there were two nearly simultaneous shots from the front, one of which missed, while the other struck the head immediately after a shot from the rear hit JFK's head. Try this wording: "Fortuitously for the H.S.C.A.'s theory, they assumed that a second shot, which they said was fired at JFK's head from the right front, missed the skull entirely and played no role in the . . . earwitnesses have attested to . . .." MMM. "right front" NNN. Change "to" to "completing." Change "the" to "JFK's." OOO. Change ". . . is the only option." to " . . . remains the only logical option." Just because you are unaware of alternative possibilities does not mean that your solution is the only one possible. PPP. Consider this wording for the next sentence: "The preponderance of the evidence I've enumerated in the preceding pages indicates that it is the only correct analysis." QQQ. Change ". . . consideration." to ". . . scientific consideration." The big question is how could there appear to be a hole in the rear of the skull visible on the A-P X-ray if there is really no bone in that location? One possible solution: could that hole actually be in the front of the skull, but a different caliber? Well, I hope that some of these suggestions have been helpful. Although I disagree with a few of your interpretations, we (not only Lenny and I, but also Lee Mintz and Tony White) remain very impressed with your work and efforts. I sincerely hope that your reconciliation with Dr. Mantik, and hopefully with Dr. Aguilar, will be an example to the rest of the research community and that we can focus on the meaning and interpretation of the physical evidence rather than continue to squabble over the authenticity of the physical evidence. W. Anthony Marsh