John Canal, a retired USAF SMSgt and long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination, has acquired proof that The Clark Panel willingly lied about what the autopsy evidence was telling them. The Clark Panel was commissioned in February of 1968 by Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General of United States, to conduct an independent review of the autopsy evidence.
At this time there was a climate of skepticism about the conclusions of the Warren Commission, that had so assiduously argued for Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin who had shot the president. John Canal maintains that The Clark Panel had a set agenda to simply reinforce the government’s thesis, that there was no conspiracy, and that a lone nut had killed the president without confederates.
Furthermore, John Canal has clarified just how injurious The Clark Panel Report was to future investigations. This report prejudiced the next two major studies of the autopsy evidence. Those were the Rockefeller and House Select Committee on Assassinations, who simply parroted what the Clark forensic pathologists had reported. The Clark Report had the kind of clout to preserve the scenario that the shots came from the back of the motorcade exclusively.
JFK - Special Edition ...
Best Price: $2.18
(as of 10:49 UTC - Details)
An original independent examination of the autopsy evidence was never conducted by the Rockefeller and HSCA panels. John Canal is particularly troubled by the way that these forensic pathologists were obviously hypnotized and under the spell of Russell S. Fisher, M.D. Russell Fisher was chiefly responsible for The Clark Report, and was widely admired by his colleagues.
These forensic experts were incapable or unwilling to question the findings of Doctor Fisher, a God of Forensic Pathology. John Canal has come up with this phrase that aptly captures the authority and respect that Fisher commanded.
On the Trail of the JF...
Best Price: $3.16
Buy New $34.95
(as of 04:50 UTC - Details)
Moreover, John Canal notes major problems with the formation of The Clark Panel, in terms of the overlapping backgrounds of the four medical experts, who comprise this new review of JFK autopsy evidence. That is, a lack of possible independence is implied. Canal characterizes the problem (a conflict of interest) in his press release in just this way:
But Clark did more than just criticize Garrison. He commissioned a team of four forensic experts, including three forensic pathologists and one forensic radiologist, to re-examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays that he would later deny Garrison’s subpoena to examine. The lead expert on that team was forensic pathologist, Doctor Russell Fisher of Baltimore. Doctor Fisher was highly credentialed and had been President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences from 1960–1961.
What may be somewhat disturbing is that the record suggests Fisher may have been handpicked " by Clark to ensure Clark’s agenda (debunking Garrison’s multiple gunmen theory) was kept intact. Certainly it seems inappropriate from a conflict of interest standpoint that Clark and Fisher met at least once with one another prior " to Fisher’s examination of the autopsy photos and X-rays. And regarding possible conflicts of interest, it seems appropriate to point out these facts:
1). One of the other forensic pathologists on Clark’s team was Doctor Alan Moritz, who was none other than Fisher’s professor at Harvard, 2) The team’s forensic radiologist was Doctor Russell Morgan, who taught at John’s Hopkins University in Baltimore, where Fisher had his office, and 3) The third forensic pathologist was Doctor William Carnes, who received his residency training in Baltimore hospitals and served on the faculty at none other than John’s Hopkins University.
Considering those associations, begs the question, Did the team members offer totally "independent" and objective opinions with respect to what they observed during their examination of the autopsy photos and X-Rays?"
*Note: In A Tribute to the Late Russell S. Fisher, by Werner U. Spitz, M.D. (also on the Clark Panel) I found further blind worship. One line that rings with irony is: This was my first lesson: in the office, if you want something fixed in a hurry, you had better fix it yourself. " And fix it he did, the autopsy report that is. One of Spitz’s lines is simply silly. Forensic pathology can be taught to anyone, just as you can teach a bear to dance in a circus. " Just imagine dancing bears in the autopsy room of our 35th president!
JFK and the Unspeakabl...
Best Price: $3.21
Buy New $2.26
(as of 03:25 UTC - Details)
Ramsey Clark, who took the oath of office as Attorney General of the United States on March 2, 1967, had nothing but contempt for Jim Garrison. I believe that history has exonerated many of Garrison’s more zealous allegations of conspiracy. Why would Ramsey Clark be so intimidated by Jim Garrison’s cries of federal involvement (CIA) in the assassination? Because Clark had to tow the line, he was the status quo. He was the government.
The main motive for establishing the Clark Panel was to discredit Jim Garrison, to squelch rumors of conspiracy once and for all. This never happened. As the ’60s progressed, conspiracy theories simply multiplied and flourished. Clark writes with scorn in his book Crime in America: Three years after the assassination, Garrison launched a sensational, if bizarre, series of public charges of conspiracy reaching into the federal government."
JFK. Analysis of a Sho...
Best Price: $14.42
(as of 05:45 UTC - Details)
The Clark Panel Report was made public on January 16, 1969, when it was deposited with the Washington, D.C., District Court. An underlying motive of its delayed publication, was that Jim Garrison’s trial, which was trying to prove a conspiracy existed to kill JFK, would commence on January 29, 1969, only 13 days after The Clark Panel Report was made public.
John Canal asserts that the real motive of this "concocted report" was to attempt to undermine the growing popularity of Jim Garrison’s allegations of multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza. Let me share with you the two startling conclusions that John Canal has reached, that are included in his press release. I received this press release by email from my editor (Judyth Piazza) at NewsBlaze. John Canal writes:
1. "The Clark Panel wrongly, and probably intentionally – undoubtedly motivated by Jim Garrison’s investigation of the case and prosecution of Clay Shaw – refuted the descriptions of the eyewitnesses, including the autopsy surgeons, regarding JFK’s head wounds which appeared to be consistent with Garrison’s multiple gunmen scenario."
*(Below I will link for you Jim Garrison’s Opening Argument made at the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, which began on January 29, 1969. I believe myself that Shaw was connected with the CIA and involved in the assassination plot, but Ramsey Clark wrote: Conceding that Shaw was not in Dallas on the day of the assassination, Garrison brought all of his powers to bear unfairly against Shaw. Note: The first public showing of the Zapruder Film was at Clay Shaw’s trial.) JGK
2. The experts who served on the Rockefeller and HSCA panels simply rubber-stamped " the wrongful findings of Doctor Fisher and his team regarding President Kennedy’s head wounds. I base that conclusion on the fact that many of the forensic experts who served on the 1975 Rockefeller Commission and the 1977 HSCA panels had either worked, trained, or written books with Doctor Fisher, and the fact that it would have been extremely difficult for any forensic expert to disagree with the findings of Doctor Fisher "after all he had been the President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and, in his time, arguably this country’s most highly regarded forensic pathologist. (John Canal)
The Kennedy Detail: JF...
Best Price: $1.49
Buy New $13.74
(as of 02:40 UTC - Details)
Publishing of The Clark Panel Report altered the course of history permanently. I have been a student and researcher of the JFK assassination for some 35 years. I had heard of The Clark Panel before, but never put all that much stock in it. Yet, if we factor in what John Canal is asserting here, that say, the HSCA’s forensic experts simply took at face value what Dr. Fisher wrote in his report, a most disturbing zeitgeist dawns on us.
Simply put, the Clark Report concludes that all the shots came from the rear. This reaffirms what the original Humes/Boswell autopsy had concluded, but it goes against what many of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza saw and what the Dallas doctors clearly saw when they struggled to save the life of a moribund president. John Canal aptly states the conundrum in his press release.
By the end of that fateful day in Dallas, nearly 47 years ago, dozens of medically trained eyewitnesses, who tried to save President Kennedy’s life at Parkland Hospital, described his wounds as being consistent with him being shot from the front. These observations were ominous to say the least because, considering it was known early on that shots had been fired from the President’s rear, that would mean multiple shooters had gunned down JFK and there had been an assassination conspiracy.
For many that frightening possibility was not tempered by the autopsy that was performed later that night at Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland. Indeed, even though the three autopsy doctors concluded all the shots that struck JFK had been fired from above and to the rear, which suggested he had been gunned down by a lone assassin, they did in fact describe wounds that seemed more consistent with a multiple gunmen than a lone assassin scenario.
After receiving a copy by email of John Canal’s press release, and his newsworthy findings in the lengthy saga of the JFK assassination investigation, I emailed John and agreed to write a story that would unveil what he had discovered. We had a conversation over the internet and John recommended some items for me to study, that I might get up to speed on what he has spent the last ten years laboring over. That is to say, John Canal has narrowed his focus on the medical aspects of the assassination.
July 6, 2010
