Pat Speer- I am confused (so what else is new?)...re: JFK head wound

[Robert Prudhomme]

The Dealey Plaza witnesses were all in a state of shock. Also, how many of them got more than a second or two to observe the head wound?

P.S. The Babushka Lady saw matter coming from the back of JFK's head.

[Pat Speer]

The Dealey Plaza witnesses were all in a state of shock. Also, how many of them got more than a second or two to observe the head wound?

P.S. The Babushka Lady saw matter coming from the back of JFK's head.

Wait. You're saying that eyewitnesses to an event, who remember something in a uniform manner, can't be trusted?

Oh, the irony.

I've been trying to steer you to chapters 18c and 18d, which were written for those who think like you, Robert. It describes not only why I believe the Parkland witnesses are "wrong", it shows that the whole idea that there are Parkland witnesses, who recall Kennedy's wounds in a uniform manner, is a MYTH.

From Chapter 18d:

"Well, hold on right there," some must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake, and confuse a wound high on the head above the ear with a wound on the back of the head oozing cerebellum?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important that we establish that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple. As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the "right temporal area," and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. While Dr. Giesecke testified before the Commission that the wound was on the left side of the head, he also claimed that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the brow-line to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others. In fact, he later admitted to Vincent Palamara that although he "did not examine the President's head and should never have said anything about the wounds," he had nevertheless concluded "all entrance wounds were from the rear."

And then there's the Johnny-come-latelys--doctors only marginally involved in Kennedy's treatment whose statements regarding the head wound location came many years later... While Dr. Don Curtis did in fact testify before the Warren Commission his recollection as to the head wound location was not recorded till many years later, when he at first told researcher Brad Parker the "McClelland" drawing was "essentially" correct, and then specified to researcher Vincent Palamara that the wound was on the "posterior lateral surface of the skull," the side of the head. Dr. William Midgett's story is similar. While his presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head oozing cerebellum that so many claim as the one true wound.

The wound described by Dr. Donald Seldin was also not the one true wound purported by Lifton and others. When contacted by researcher Vince Palamara in 1998, Seldin is reported to have claimed that the bullet exploded the skull, and that the "frontal, parietal, and temporal bones were shattered." He did not mention the occipital bone. While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit), he was nevertheless most adamant that his recollections not be used to spread doubts. He is reported to have told Palamara "I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

And then there's Grossman... While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in 1981 with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear. Although this supports my conclusions regarding the wound locations, I nevertheless suspect Dr. Grossman is full of hooey. It just smells to high heaven that the only Parkland doctor claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was a doctor no one else remembered even being there, who failed to come forward for 17 years or more.

There's also this: while Dr. Grossman reportedly told the ARRB in 1997 that the entrance wound he saw was "a circular puncture in the occipital region...approximately 2 cm in diameter, near the EOP, centerline, or perhaps just right of center, through which he could see brain tissue which he believed was cerebellum" (which is in the same location as, but much larger than, the wound described in the autopsy report), a November 22, 2003 article by Frank D. Roylance in the Baltimore Sun based upon an interview with Grossman reported that "Grossman and Clark saw a small wound about an inch in diameter on the upper part of the back of his head, just to the right of the midline...filled with damaged brain tissue" (which would appear to be a reference to the supposed cowlick entrance). So, did Grossman move the location of the entrance wound he and he alone "saw" to kiss up to those holding the wound was in the cowlick? I don't know but it's just hard to believe anything he says...

And that's not the end of the Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Should one choose to look beyond Grossman, one can find Sharon Calloway. Calloway, an x-ray intern at Parkland on the day of the shooting, performed an oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum on 1-27-02, and claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head in the hallway before he was moved into Trauma Room One. She claimed: "The top of his head was gone... One of the doctors came down the hall shaking his head and he said it looked like someone had dropped a ripe watermelon on the floor. This is what the top of his head looked like. And we could see that. We could see his head. It wasn't draped yet."

And should one still refuse to believe that there was no large exit wound low on the back of Kennedy's head and that the rotation of Kennedy on the hospital stretcher led to confusion about his head wound location, one should know that, no matter the explanation, such confusions occur. In the early 1990's, now Associate Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana created a video of six people passing basketballs back and forth, while moving around in a circle. Simons played this video to unsuspecting subjects, asking them how many passes were made, or whether the women in the video made more passes than the men. No matter. The passing was just a distraction. During the middle of the short video-taped passing demonstration, a man in a gorilla suit walked into frame and stood in the middle of the basketball players. What Simons really wanted to know was if anyone counting the number of passes would notice this man in the gorilla suit. He got his answer, which continues to confound people to this day. He found that, upon first viewing, only about 50% of those looking straight at--no, actually studying--a video of a man in a gorilla suit, had any recollection of seeing him, when their attention was drawn to unrelated details. One can view this video, here. http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

The application of Simons' experiment to the Kennedy case should be obvious. From the failure of so many to note the gorilla in the room one can easily extrapolate that the team trying to save Kennedy's life was so focused on trying to save his life that the exact location of his head wound was only a fuzzy afterthought...subject to confusion...

Well, what about the cerebellum, then? Some of the key witnesses said they thought they saw cerebellum. The rotation of Kennedy's body wouldn't lead his badly damaged cerebrum to suddenly appear to be cerebellum, would it?

Well, actually, macerated cerebrum does give the appearance of cerebellum. And, not only that, it seems reasonable to assume the doctors saw cerebellum in part because they were expecting to see cerebellum--no, not because they thought the wound was LOW on the back of Kennedy's head--but because they thought the bullet causing Kennedy's neck wound had deflected upwards and exploded out the top of the back of his head. Such a trajectory--and this could hardly be a coincidence--leads through the cerebellum...

And there's also this... As the testimony of the Parkland witnesses, coming months after Dr. Clark claimed he'd seen cerebellum, reflected a greater degree of cerebellum sightings than the original statements of these very same witnesses, and as the location of the wound described by the witnesses coming forward in the 80's, which came after the publication of the so-called McClelland drawing showing an occipital wound, were centered on the occipital bone to a greater degree than the wound described previously, it's reasonable to assume that social pressures, "groupthink," if you will, was in part responsible for so many of these witnesses thinking Kennedy's large head wound was further back on his skull than as shown in the autopsy photos.

A study reported in the July 2011 issue of Science Magazine supports this probability. In this study, participants were 1) shown an eyewitness-style documentary in groups of five, 2) brought back individually three days later and asked questions about what they'd observed, 3) brought back four days later and shown the answers of those tested at the same time as them, 4) asked the questions again, 5) brought back again 7 days later and told that the answers of the others they'd been shown the week before had been random answers, and may or may not have been the actual answers of those with whom they'd originally viewed the documentary, and 6) asked the same questions again, after being told to rely on their original memories. The participants were then debriefed, with the results of those suspicious they were being manipulated thrown out.

The results were impressive. While some of the answers of others shown the participants a week after viewing the documentary were 100% wrong, and not even the real answers given by the others, 68.3% of the participants answered these questions in accordance with how they'd been told the others had responded, even though they'd answered these questions correctly only four days before. That this wasn't simply a failure of memory is proven by a control test, in which only 15.5% of those getting an answer right three days after viewing the documentary got it wrong 14 days after viewing the documentary. This suggests that over 50% of the participants changed their answers to fit in with the crowd.

That this wasn't just a change of answer, but an actual change of memory, for many of those tested, moreover, was demonstrated by the results of the final test. 40.8% of the participants who got a question correct, and then changed it to fit in with the crowd, stood by their incorrect answer after being told the answers of others they'd been shown had been randomly generated, and that they were now to rely exclusively upon their original memories. Disturbingly, this suggests that the memories of a significant percentage of the public can be changed, permanently, by being told what their peers remember, even if what they're told is something they at one time knew was untrue.

Memories are fragile. The recollections of the Parkland witnesses, co-workers who undoubtedly discussed what they saw with other co-workers, most if not all of whom would have been familiar with Dr. Clark's description of the wound, are just not as reliable as many would like us to believe.

And should this explanation not suffice, and should one still refuse to believe that the excitement of a trauma room can lead to mistakes in bullet wound identification (and/or that trauma room physicians are not properly trained to judge the direction of bullet wounds) one should know that Wake Forest University indirectly studied this from 1987-1992, by comparing the reports of trauma specialists with the corresponding reports of forensic pathologists. This study, as described in an April 28, 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, with multiple gunshot wound victims, trauma specialists mistakenly identified the number of shots or the direction of fire 74% of the time, and that, even with single shot victims with through and through wounds, they were mistaken 37% of the time. Doctors make mistakes. Lots of 'em...

[Ray Mitcham]

Of the 8 attending Parkland doctors who made notes, only four described the location of a head wound. Those people were Drs. Clark, Perry (MD57), Baxter (MD97), and Jenkins (MD96). Of these four, three described damage to the cerebellum. It was visible extruding from the open wound.

In addition to his own notes Dr. Kemp Clark also prepared a typewritten consensus product the weekend of the assassination, an overview of the events in Trauma Room One (MD37).

"There is a large wound in the right occipital - parietal region, there is considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebrum and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."

Dr. Clark was the head of neurosurgery at Parkland. He did examine President Kennedy's wounds up close and was the doctor who pronounced him dead. Drs. Clark and McClelland were at the head of the gurney and had the best view of President Kennedy's head wound. Both testified to the Warren Commission.

Dr. Clark -

"I then examined the wounds in the back of President's head. This is a large gaping wound in the right posterior part with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."

Dr. McClelland

"As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described to help out with the tracheotomy I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered apparently by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp. It seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."(MD 38)

These experienced doctors obviously couldn't tell the difference between cerebellum and macerated cerebrum, and couldn't tell where the wound was.

With referene to Pat's story about the gorilla in the room, more important is the elephant in the room which is the evidence of the Parkland doctors which says the wound was in the Parietal/occipital area NOT the top of the head.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Pat Speer:

"Well, actually, macerated cerebrum does give the appearance of cerebellum."

LOL!!! Where did you come up with this gem, Pat? Is this some kind of nonsense from John McAdams' websites? This is almost as good as you not knowing that the centre portion of the occipital bone extends above the level of the ears. I noticed you seemed to ignore my pointing out that little factoid, didn't you? Seriously, though, cerebrum and cerebellum look nothing like each other, regardless of how much you macerate them. You either know, as I pointed out earlier, absolutely nothing about anatomy or you are deliberately attempting to mislead readers.

"And, not only that, it seems reasonable to assume that doctors saw cerebellum in part because they were expecting to see cerebellum--no, not because they thought the wound was LOW on the back of Kennedy's head--but because they thought the bullet causing Kennedy's neck wound had deflected upwards and exploded out the top of the back of his head. Such a trajectory--and this could hardly be a coincidence--leads through the cerebellum."

What a complete joke this is, Pat. This is the sort of bizarre logic one would expect of Gerald Posner.

[Pat Speer]

The bit about cerebellum comes from Assassination Science, Robert.

I just wrote a detailed response to your silliness. It was eaten by the internet.

So, here's some food for thought, that will hopefully make it clear that my thoughts on this issue have not been shaped by a lack of information, but by ALL the information.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 18c:

Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together," an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's notes, released to the public in May 1995 and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” Now, this would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy.

But that's not all she had to say. According to White's notes, she also said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." White's notes then detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said the wound was at the "top" of her husband's head--not once but twice...

And that wasn't the last time she described the wound in such a manner. In her interview with White Mrs. Kennedy worried that the history of her husband's Presidency would be written by the likes of AP correspondent "Merriman Smith, that bitter man," who, irony of all ironies, would soon thereafter win a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the assassination. This no doubt contributed to her subsequent decision to hire an historian of her own, William Manchester, to write an authorized book on the assassination. She was interviewed by Manchester on 4-7-64, 5-4-64, 5-7-64, 5-8-64, and 7-20-64. While Manchester's notes on these interviews have never been released, it's clear she told him, as White, that the fatal wound was at the top of Kennedy's head. In late 1966, she had a falling out with Manchester over his use of these interviews. His book could not be released without her approval. This, then, led to her reading a draft of his book, The Death of a President, and giving it her personal approval. Here is how the final draft described her husband's death: "The First Lady, in her last act as First Lady, leaned solicitously toward the President. His face was quizzical. She had seen that expression so often, when he was puzzling over a difficult press conference question. Now, in a gesture of infinite grace, he raised his right hand, as though to brush back his tousled chestnut hair. But the motion faltered. The hand fell back empty. He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there any more."

So...was Jackie lying, or mistaken? Or we are to believe, instead, that White and Manchester lied about what she told them?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Would you care to expand on "the bit about cerebellum comes from Assassination Science"? That sentence hardly qualifies your statement about cerebellum resembling macerated cerebrum, which, of course, it does not. If you really wish to embarrass yourself on medical evidence, be my guest. I'm more than willing to accommodate you.

P.S. Manchester also quotes William Greer (limo driver) apologizing to Jackie at Parkland Hospital. He is quoted by Manchester as saying, "I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it! Oh Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it, I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!"

If we are going to quote everything Manchester wrote as 100% factual, we need to examine this quote from Greer. While many witnesses saw the limousine swerve to the left (and stop) there is no evidence of this in the Zapruder film, nor does the WC support this belief.

Is Manchester misquoting Greer? Or lying?

P.P.S. And just what was the "it" Greer wished he had seen it time? And how would swerving be an effective way of avoiding "it"?

[David Josephs]

What are we missing here Pat ??

McClelland mistaken again in this photo along with everyone else? (yes, I know there are Bethesda witnesses in this mix... and THEY also place the wound in the same spot)

Since the bones were hinged OUT, is it not conceivable that one or more of these bones would hinge UP requiring holding it down from the TOP of the head? One does not hold NOTHING over a hole in the skull... the only things left to HOLD on JFK's skull was the TOP/FRONT of the head.. the BACK was gone.... just not according to the autopsy report and xrays...

[Vince Palamara]

What about Dr, Mantik and the white patch? Or Mantik stating that the one Fox photo of the open head wound IS the right rear of the head?

The (color) photo of the back of the head with the ruler and hands seems so fake- it is very hard to believe that, at the very least, this was a manipulated image: "genuine" photo but manipulated scalp to cover back of head. The blood stain in the cowlick is no wound

Edited December 16, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[Vince Palamara]

Sam Kinney told me (it's on tape- no second-hand neighbor revelations LOL) that the right rear of JFK's head blew out and he had THE piece of the back of JFK's head in his hands on the C-130. He put in a phone patch to Dr. Burkley...it went to Tommy Mills...and who knows what became of it.

[David Josephs]

Sam Kinney told me (it's on tape- no second-hand neighbor revelations LOL) that the right rear of JFK's head blew out and he had THE piece of the back of JFK's head in his hands on the C-130. He put in a phone patch to Dr. Burkley...it went to Tommy Mills...and who knows what became of it.

Or the piece BORING recants on the very next day after revealing it... the piece found in the SS follow-up car... that also disappears to History

[Vince Palamara]

yesssss!

[Vince Palamara]

As I have often said, Boring is interesting.

[David Josephs]

You should provide the link to that article Vince...

One of the very best - and opened the door to the SS for me at least....

Any thoughts on DILLION's involvement?

[Cliff Varnell]

What about Dr, Mantik and the white patch? Or Mantik stating that the one Fox photo of the open head wound IS the right rear of the head?

The (color) photo of the back of the head with the ruler and hands seems so fake- it is very hard to believe that, at the very least, this was a manipulated image: "genuine" photo but manipulated scalp to cover back of head. The blood stain in the cowlick is no wound

Phony back wound as well with it's inferior abrasion ring consistent with shot from below...

A bad fake at that!

[Pat Speer]

Would you care to expand on "the bit about cerebellum comes from Assassination Science"? That sentence hardly qualifies your statement about cerebellum resembling macerated cerebrum, which, of course, it does not. If you really wish to embarrass yourself on medical evidence, be my guest. I'm more than willing to accommodate you.

P.S. Manchester also quotes William Greer (limo driver) apologizing to Jackie at Parkland Hospital. He is quoted by Manchester as saying, "I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it! Oh Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it, I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!"

If we are going to quote everything Manchester wrote as 100% factual, we need to examine this quote from Greer. While many witnesses saw the limousine swerve to the left (and stop) there is no evidence of this in the Zapruder film, nor does the WC support this belief.

Is Manchester misquoting Greer? Or lying?

P.P.S. And just what was the "it" Greer wished he had seen it time? And how would swerving be an effective way of avoiding "it"?

Nice dodge, Robert. You completely avoided White--the first person Jackie spoke to on the record--and went straight to Manchester, whose notes are still sealed away. Manchester interviewed Jackie on 4-7-64, 5-4-64, 5-7-64, 5-8-64, and 7-20-64. He interviewed William Greer on 11-19-64. It seems likely any quotes involving the two of them came from one of those interviews. As far as Greer's claiming he wished he'd seen "it," the it seems obvious--that someone was shooting at them.

The cerebellum/macerated cerebrum stuff comes from public statements by Dr.s Charles Carrico and Pepper Jenkins, and has been confirmed by Fetzer's friend Dr. Livingston in his book Assassination Science. Dr. Livingston presumed they would know better and that they would never make such a mistake, but who is he, or YOU, to tell these men they couldn't possibly make such a mistake?

It's kind of like your sister calling a deer a moose. You wouldn't think she'd make such a mistake, but if she tells you that the photographs of her at Yellowstone are accurate and that she really saw a deer, and not a moose, who are YOU to tell her she was wrong, and that the photographs must be fakes?