Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Douglas Caddy

Video: Pat Speer on JFK's fatal head shot and the autopsy

Recommended Posts

I know we've been over all this many times before. Still, it bears repeating. The Parkland medical people did describe a head wound that simply isn't seen in the extant autopsy photos and x-rays. Considering how shoddy JFK's autopsy was, and how questions exist about every aspect of it, imho it's naive to trust any of the official evidence that came out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe there were two shots that hit JFK's head, do you believe one entered near the EOP? Where do you believe the other shot entered?

The autopsy doctors were quite clear that a bullet entered near the EOP. I believe this bullet descended in the neck and exited the throat. The large head wound that the Clark Panel and HSCA Panel claimed could not have been associated with this wound was in my estimation a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. In recent years a number of researchers have suddenly started agreeing with me on this issue. Most of them believe the bullet was fired from the front, while I suspect it was fired from behind. In time, the experts will sort that out. But there can be little doubt, IMO, that this wound was a tangential wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be hearsay, Ray. But the notes of a respected historian granted an exclusive interview with Jackie Kennedy--and quietly released after her death--rank among the most credible sources we have to go by---far more credible, for example, than supposed interviews conducted in the 60's but never reported until the 00's because someone supposedly promised a witness he wouldn't tell anyone else what was said until the witness was dead for 25 years.

I've personally spoken to three people who saw Kennedy's head wound, and one who felt it. In 2004, I spoke to Aubrey Rike, and he said he never saw Kennedy's wounds but felt the hole in the skull on Kennedy's wrapped head...on what he thought was the back of the head. I have spoken to Robert McClelland; while I didn't ask him the details he has spoken at two conferences in 2009 and 2013 which I have attended, and he described a large wound on the back and top of the head. He also claimed, strangely, that there was nothing about this wound that suggested the shot came from the front, and that his suspicion the shot came from the front came from his study of the Zapruder film. I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. And I spoke to William Newman a few weeks back, and he confirmed his many previous accounts of seeing a large gaping wound by Kennedy's right ear. Now, to me, this suggests that there was no large gaping hole on the far back of Kennedy's head--where so many conspiracy theorists wish to believe the wound was located.

Pat,

I understand you believe Kennedy was shot twice in the head. Do you have an opinion as to where those two shots came from?

Thanks,

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

I don't believe Kennedy was dead when he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.

As he emerges, he raises his hands, a sign he is alive.

If at that point a bullet had been fired into the region of his EOP and exited from his throat would not he have been dead and unresponsive? Such a bullet would have done grievous damage to his brain. In your estimation, is JFK's raising of his hands merely reflexive post-mortem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat

Thanks for sharing where you believe the wounds were, as I believe this is the first time I have seen you state your beliefs.

Do you believe this tangential wound to begin in the region of the right temple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Mr. Speer has invested a lot of time and study into the head wound. Still I must disagree with his analysis.

Looking at the overwhelming preponderance and agreement of the eye-witness testimony of those who saw JFK's wounds, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that Kennedy had a large wound in the back of his head. Attached is a small sampling of available eye-witness depictions of JFK's head wound. There are many more witnesses to this wound. (Including the commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada (see Kurtz, The Assassinaiton Debates)). For a visual of many witnesses pointing to a read-of-head wound, see Groden's The Killing of a President.

And for any naive reader who sees Mr. Von Pein's post, Mr. Von Pein relies on the thoroughly discredited autopsy photos (see for instance the ARRB Testimony of FBI agents Sibert or O'Neill. I assume that Mr. Von Pein is familiar with this testimony. What does he say about that?) As well, both Humes and Boswell, while never convicted, clearly lied and evaded repeatedly under oath about JFK's autopsy. (see Horne, Inside the ARRB) So I believe it misguided to base any opinion about the wounds on the words of the autopsy doctors.

The hole in the back of JFK's head is the bedrock foundation of proof of the manipulation and falsification of evidence in the JFK murder. While the waters are muddied here and there by medical personnel who, like Humes, went along to get along, or like Parkland Drs. Perry and Carrico in the 1992 JAMA article, changed thier stories under pressure, as stated above the overwhelming preponderance and consistancy of the eyewitness testimony is proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt of the wound in the back of Kennedy's head and the falsification of his autopsy.

Of course, veteran researchers all know this. But for anyone new to the study, don't be misled by fake evidence.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for any naive reader who sees Mr. Von Pein's post, Mr. Von Pein relies on the thoroughly discredited autopsy photos.

This is laughable. The autopsy photos and X-rays have most certainly not been "thoroughly discredited". Far from it, in fact. Unless you want to believe that all 20 or so members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel were complete idiots (or liars). Because that Panel said this....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

-- HSCA Volume 7; Page 41

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

And why on Earth anyone would think the statements of James Sibert and Francis O'Neill could possibly trump the above conclusion of the HSCA's Photo Panel is anyone's guess. Sibert and O'Neill weren't photographic experts. They were FBI agents. Nothing they have said over the years invalidates these words....

"...the autopsy photographs and X-rays...had not been altered in any manner."

Naturally, many conspiracy theorists think it's perfectly acceptable to take the above words and just toss them into the trash. But would a reasonable person do such a silly thing?

BTW....

2005 Interview With James W. Sibert

1979 Interview With Francis X. O'Neill

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends which one thinks is likely.

Could the photos be fake or altered?

Could the Parkland doctors initial comments be incorrect.

I know which is more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, I have to chuckle at your belief in the HSCA medical panel, the chair of which was Michael Baden. Reading Baden's HSCA testimony is in fact a delight. Particularly the part where he admits the panel's conclusions were based on assumptions having nothing to do with the condition of JFK's body.

Baden: "I think that if another bullet were found in the car, the pathology panel members would have to give that a great deal

of consideration before reading [sic] its final conclusions...We are taking into account in our evaluation the Zapruder film..."
Baden, as researchers know, gave the Warren Report, the autopsy, and every other aspect of the Official Story the benefit of the doubt. Why wouldn't he "validate" purported autopsy photos and x-rays. It's quite clear Baden did not see his role to include rocking the boat.
History has a special place for work such as that of the HSCA FPP. It's called the dust bin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh heartily at Mr. Tidd's silly suggestion that Dr. Michael Baden "validated" the photographs and X-rays. (I guess Jon thinks Baden was part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel.)

But Baden wasn't part of the 20+ people who authenticated the autopsy photographs and X-rays for the House Select Committee. Baden was part of the Forensic Pathology Panel. And I said nothing at all in my previous post about the "medical panel" (FPP). That's a whole other kettle of fish.

But, conspiracy theorists will look for any excuse to bash Dr. Baden and Company.

Right, Jon G. Tidd?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone believe the ARRB testimony of Sibert and O'Neill over the HSCA panel?

Because they were 18" away from Kennedy's body in the morgue. Who from the HSCA panel saw anything first hand?

Sibert and O'Neill were not CTers, far from it Yet when faced with the autopsy photos under oath, they refused to perjure themselves and admitted that the photos did not match the actual wounds. It is just the fact, whether Mr. Von Pein wants to admit it or not. You can see for yourself Sibert's depiction of the wound in the back of the head in my previous post.

No one will ever convince Mr. Von Pein. That is fine; it is certainly not my goal. I write for the next generation and new people to the case. Kennedy had a hole in the back of his head that was made to disappear in the official record. Even the two FBI agents on the scene, who badly wanted to believe Oswald acted alone, said this under oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would lose his job if he agreed with you, Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy had a hole in the back of his head that was made to disappear in the official record.

And, of course, your above comment means you have no choice but to believe that the Zapruder Film has been altered, too. Because the Z-Film is perfectly consistent with all of the autopsy photos and X-rays, as well as being perfectly in-sync and consistent with the observations of three of the closest witnesses on Elm Street who were just a few feet away from the RIGHT SIDE of President Kennedy's head when they saw his head burst open in front of their eyes.

Try finding a first-day statement from any Dealey Plaza witness who said they saw the BACK of JFK's head blown out. I doubt you'll be able to find one. You'll be able to find plenty of Parkland Hospital witnesses who incorrectly placed the large exit wound in the rear of Kennedy's head, but you won't find any Dealey Plaza witnesses who said that. And the Zapruder Film, of course, is proving for all time where the large exit wound was located---it's just exactly where the autopsy pictures show it to be--in the right/front/top portion of the head....

Where-Was-The-Head-Wound.png

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would lose his job if he agreed with you, Al.

Not to mention the loss of my lunch.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...