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

[Pat Speer]

Larry, I largely agree with you about debating the trajectories and locations of shooters. As for the wounds, the unusual, botched nature of the autopsy colors everything in the record.

My concern here is that minimizing the testimony of the Parkland medical personnel, in terms of a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, is just another way of ignoring eyewitness testimony in favor of the "official" record. Whether it's the witnesses who reported that the limo stopped or almost stopped, or the observations of the doctors at Parkland, dismissing them means another unnecessary concession to the forces that so strongly desire a "lone nut" conclusion in this case.

Really, if researchers downplay the testimony of eyewitnesses, what are we left with? The "official" record, tarnished and unbelievable as it is, points towards a lone assassin, much as the tainted "evidence" found on the sixth floor and supposedly in Oswald's possession, or connected to him through the Paines, points towards him as that assassin.

Declaring that shots came only from behind makes a mockery of all the initial reports about an entrance wound to the throat, and ignores the fact that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from in front. It dilutes the case for conspiracy and is really only a short jump in logic away from agreeing with the discredited conclusions of the Warren Commission.

I have a huge problem with the highlighted section, Don. The official record NEVER pointed towards a lone assassin. The official conclusions did. That is why the WC LIED about the back wound location. That is why the Clark Panel and HSCA LIED about the location of the entrance wound on the back of the head. The autopsy report, photos, x-rays, and Z-film ALWAYS suggested more than one shooter. And the "research" community's failure to study this evidence, and to instead chase after its tail with claims that everything was altered, plays into the hands of the cover-up.

[Paul Brancato]

I am not sure about the evidence you present that seems to be so controversial, but I definitely agree with your last sentence. The evidence definitely points to multiple shooters. So - who in your opinion did it? The reason I ask, and I ask often, is it is the only way I know to put extensive research like yours into some perspective. Perhaps on some older posts you've shared your theories in that regard.

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Hancock, I have read two of your books and appreciate your thoughtful approach, your thorough research, and your willingness to share your opinions here.

The issue here is not necessarily the exact location or appearance of the wounds (which obviously at this time we will never know completely and exactly for sure), or how they may have looked different here or there. The issue here, in my opinion, is the veracity of the autopsy photos and other autopsy materials and whether already at 7:00 CST the fix was in to the extent of falsifying the autopsy; and who ordered it.

To me the last word on this are the two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill. These men were true Lone Nutters who believed Oswald acted alone. Yet their personal integrity trumped all when placed under oath.

From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB: (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)

Mr. Gunn: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]

Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?

A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...

From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:

Q: Okay. If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]

Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?

A: Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures. I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.

Remember, these two men were 18" from the body in the Bethesda morgue. They left the morgue around midnight thinking they had seen the entire autopsy, yet there is evidence that work continued on into the early morning.

Mr. Speer, I have read your material on the location of the head wounds. Overall, I applaud your efforts to try to think "out of the box" so to speak. But given that, I have to disagree with your analysis. I think you try too hard to fit things into your hypothesis. While I really don't have time for a page by page analysis of your work, here are some general comments:

You rely a great deal on the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Newman's, etc. Yet from my reading of their remarks/testimony for the most part they say the saw Kennedy struck in the temple. It is you who then makes the leap to say that means there was a large wound in the temple area; in my opinion you put words in their mouths. I would make the further comment that these witnesses had a fleeting look at the wound.

In my opinion, you put significantly too much stock in the veracity of Humes and Boswell and the autopsy report. Personally, I find them to be evasive at best and purposely misleading at worst. Humes in particular is dismissive of any questioning at all. Humes burned his autopsy notes and the first draft! Humes refused to draw his recollection of the wounds for the ARRB! Are these the actions of a man with nothing to hide?

You look at some of the witnesses that I mentioned, those in Groden's The Killing of a President. You make a great issue as to whether these witnesses remember the head wound as above or below the ear; and you disqualify many of them as "back of the head" witnesses based on their memory of the wound as being above the ear. But the issue to me is not how high on the head or how low these witnesses place the wound. The issue is whether the wound that they remember is compatible with the existing autopsy photo of the back of the head; and high on the head or not, these witness place the wound far enough toward the back of the head to be completely at odds with the back of the head autopsy photos.

Mr. Speer, you question why if the conspirators were going to forge photos, etc., why would they make forgeries that still leave one with evidence of conspiracy. I think the answer to that is available time and technology. They did the best they could, hoping that no one would see the fakes for 75 years, when they would all be dead and gone.

I agree that the waters are muddied by testimony of people who 1) had something to hide; 2) went along to get along; 3) thought they were performing their patriotic duty; 4) were intimidated; or had some other reason. But again, by the sheer preponderance and consistency of the eyewitnesses to Kennedy's wound: JFK had a big hole in the back of his head and the autopsy was faked to cover it up.

Let me make a little analogy. 100 people see a car disappear over a cliff along the ocean. They are all interviewed by the police and the press. 30 report that the car was black. 60 report that the car was blue. And 10 claim it was a different color altogether. The police identify the driver and claim his car was black. Some friends of this driver, however, get suspicious and write a book claiming he was really kidnapped and murdered in a different country, and that a sky blue car was sent over the cliff to fake his death.

At this time some photos are released from a traffic camera. These show a black car driving up toward the cliff. 50 of those who said the car was blue then recant and say "Well I guess I was mistaken, it must have been black." The friends of the purported driver, however, are not to be swayed, and take to claiming that 1) the photos are fakes, and 2) those switching their stories have caved in to "official pressure." They then take to treating the few who haven't changed their stories as heroes.

Then some wiseacre comes along and actually studies the statements of those claiming the car was blue. It turns out that many of them said the car was "navy blue" or "dark blue," and that only a handful of them ever said the car was "sky blue" before an article came out on the theory the car was "sky blue." He then does a recount and finds that as many or more witnesses said the car was dark blue or black than ever said the car was sky blue. He presents this info to the friends of the driver, and says he thinks maybe the car was black after all.

So what do they do? Do they accept that the car was black, or at the very least change their theory that the car was sky blue, to be that the car was dark blue? No, they stick to their theory, and insist that many of the witnesses claiming the car was black don't count because they saw the car as it sped by, and were not trained witnesses. ANYTHING but admit that their "sky blue" theory was wrong.

If you've read chapters 18c and 18d, Al, you should know what I am talking about. The "research" community has been all over me ever since I challenged the orthodox position that the Parkland witnesses' original impressions were golden, and that the bulk of them turned cowardly later in life. And yet, they blindly accept that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, even though the Parkland witnesses...BEFORE they supposedly turned cowardly...overwhelmingly pointed to a wound location inconsistent with the bone's being occipital bone.

So which is it...are their recollections golden or not?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Pat, If the Harper bone fragment is Parietal bone i.e. from the right side of he President's head, (which I assume is your position), can you explain how it was found, 25' to the left and rear of where the limo was, when the head shot occurred?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Don Jeffries]

Pat,

I probably should have worded that sentence differently. I certainly don't want to infer that I believe the evidence anywhere points towards a lone assassin. But the "official" record is all the defenders of the myth have. By dismissing so many witnesses as "mistaken," we are left to argue over what is in the record, much of it missing and all of it distorted.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

You are completely mistaken about the Parkland doctors. If one reads their medical reports in Appendix VIII of the WCR, all written within hours of the assassination, it is quite clear that the majority of the doctors who describe the large head wound in any detail refer to it as involving the occipital bone or being in the right rear of the skull.

[Paul Brancato]

Pat - please do a non expert like me a favor and write a brief summary of what you think happened according to your view of the evidence? How many shots? Where from? And if possible who the shooters might have been.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, If the Harper bone fragment is Parietal bone i.e. from the right side of he President's head, (which I assume is your position), can you explain how it was found, 25' to the left and rear of where the limo was, when the head shot occurred?

David Mantik and I presented divergent views on the Harper fragment last year, at the Wecht conference in Pittsburgh. He went first. I was grateful that he readily conceded some of the points I was tired of arguing. Including this one...

Billy Harper found the fragment on the 23rd, the day after the assassination. He told the FBI he found the fragment to the rear of where the President was shot. The problem, as we now know, was that he had no idea where the President was when shot. It seems certain, moreover, that he based his appraisal of Kennedy's position on the large stack of flowers people placed on the grass across from the grassy knoll steps. (This stack can be seen in photographs of the day.)

And how do we know this? Well, Harper was tracked down at least twice that I know of, and asked to mark a plat of Dealey Plaza showing where he found the fragment. Both times he marked the map 25 feet or so to the south and east of the limo's position as it passed by the steps. This was roughly 80-100 feet in front of Kennedy at Z-313. And this makes perfect sense, when you think of it. Z-313 shows a large bone fragment shooting upward and forward of Kennedy's head. The Harper fragment was far and away the largest bone fragment found outside the limo. It seems obvious it is the fragment in the Z-film.

Not to Mantik, of course. He proposed that the fragment exploded out the back of Kennedy's head, but was then kicked around or picked up and dropped by someone further down Elm.

And that's too bad. When one studies wound ballistics, one finds that large skull pieces don't normally explode upwards from the head and land 80-100 feet away, and that this anomaly more than suggests the head wound was not a through and through wound of a nearly intact bullet, as proposed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

[Pat Speer]

Pat - please do a non expert like me a favor and write a brief summary of what you think happened according to your view of the evidence? How many shots? Where from? And if possible who the shooters might have been.

Paul, there's no mystery as to what I suspect happened. At the bottom of my every post is a link to my website, where there is an online book, with a different link to each chapter. One of these chapters is called Conclusions and Confusions. You'll find it there.

Thanks for your interest.

[Pat Speer]

Pat

You are completely mistaken about the Parkland doctors. If one reads their medical reports in Appendix VIII of the WCR, all written within hours of the assassination, it is quite clear that the majority of the doctors who describe the large head wound in any detail refer to it as involving the occipital bone or being in the right rear of the skull.

None of that is under dispute, Robert. Most of them indicated that they thought the wound was toward the back of the head, and some of them said they saw cerebellum. The problem is that the Harper fragment is a large fragment, and that almost all of it is one bone. IF it was occipital bone, as so many would like to pretend, it would represent a huge hole on the MIDDLE of the back of the head, almost entirely BELOW the level of the ears, in a location almost entirely hidden while Kennedy was lying on his back. None of the Parkland doctors described such a wound on 11-22, and none of them depicted a wound in this location to Groden, or anyone else, years later.

The Harper fragment was not occipital bone...so where did it come from? The top and right side? Where there is a large gap in the autopsy photos and x-rays? OR...the rear parietal, at the TOP of the back of the head. I've been waiting for years now for someone to argue that the fragment was rear parietal, but outside Don Thomas, no one seems up to it.

[Al Fordiani]

Black cars, blue cars, sky blue cars?

Mr. Speer, as you admit to Mr. Prudhomme, the very first impressions of the Parkland doctors, made before the autopsy, before anyone knew that there was going to be controversy were basically unanimous in that JFK had a major wound in the back of the head:

From (as Mr. Prudhomme points out) WCR Appendix VIII:

Dr. Clark (Summary): "...large wound in the right occipito-parietal region...considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."

Dr. Carrico: "...wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue...attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue..."

Dr. Perry: "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..."

Dr. Baxter: "...the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.."

Dr. Clark (initial report): "...large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone..."

So are their recollections "golden"? Here we have the wound described within hours of the shooting, by absolutely qualified doctors, who everyone admits were up-close, first-hand, they-were-there-and-touched-the-body witnesses, before any autopsy was performed, before any controversy erupted. And what do they describe? The wound is clearly posterior. How can anyone dispute that? Personally, I don't see how anyone can.

So I ask: Where is this large, clearly posterior wound with missing bone and oozing cerebellum in the autopsy photos?

We have two choices to answer that question.

Either the Parkland doctors were grossly incompetent or imagined this avulsed occipital wound missing bone and scalp oozing cerebellar tissue; they mistook a large parietal and frontal wound for an occipital one or just made it up. Seriously, how can that be?

Or the autopsy photos are fakes. As unpalatable or unbelievable as that may be to some, especially when backed up by the sworn testimony of Lone Nutters Sibert and O'Neill, I know which explanation makes more sense to me.

I doubt that I will change the mind of Mr. Speer. He, like many others, is so invested in his hypothesis that it seems that he will not let go of it. So be it. But black cars, blue cars, Harper fragments, Newman testimony, whatever, I just don't think that any other conclusion can be drawn other than the autopsy photos and findings are fraudulent.

So for me, now the question is who ordered the deception and how did they get everyone to go along.

[Pat Speer]

Black cars, blue cars, sky blue cars?

Mr. Speer, as you admit to Mr. Prudhomme, the very first impressions of the Parkland doctors, made before the autopsy, before anyone knew that there was going to be controversy were basically unanimous in that JFK had a major wound in the back of the head:

From (as Mr. Prudhomme points out) WCR Appendix VIII:

Dr. Clark (Summary): "...large wound in the right occipito-parietal region...considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."

Dr. Carrico: "...wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue...attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue..."

Dr. Perry: "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..."

Dr. Baxter: "...the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.."

Dr. Clark (initial report): "...large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone..."

So are their recollections "golden"? Here we have the wound described within hours of the shooting, by absolutely qualified doctors, who everyone admits were up-close, first-hand, they-were-there-and-touched-the-body witnesses, before any autopsy was performed, before any controversy erupted. And what do they describe? The wound is clearly posterior. How can anyone dispute that? Personally, I don't see how anyone can.

So I ask: Where is this large, clearly posterior wound with missing bone and oozing cerebellum in the autopsy photos?

We have two choices to answer that question.

Either the Parkland doctors were grossly incompetent or imagined this avulsed occipital wound missing bone and scalp oozing cerebellar tissue; they mistook a large parietal and frontal wound for an occipital one or just made it up. Seriously, how can that be?

Or the autopsy photos are fakes. As unpalatable or unbelievable as that may be to some, especially when backed up by the sworn testimony of Lone Nutters Sibert and O'Neill, I know which explanation makes more sense to me.

I doubt that I will change the mind of Mr. Speer. He, like many others, is so invested in his hypothesis that it seems that he will not let go of it. So be it. But black cars, blue cars, Harper fragments, Newman testimony, whatever, I just don't think that any other conclusion can be drawn other than the autopsy photos and findings are fraudulent.

So for me, now the question is who ordered the deception and how did they get everyone to go along.

You have it 100% backwards. When I first started studying the case I assumed as you that the Parkland witnesses could not be mistaken. But then I looked at the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and realized that THEIR recollections supported the authenticity of the Z-film, autopsy photos, and x-rays. I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described. I then spoke to a number of cognitive psychologists who assured me it was possible for the Parkland witnesses to have been mistaken. If I recall, it was then and only then that I realized the majority of Parkland witnesses had nevertheless deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. So, really, there's no there there.

[Ray Mitcham]

I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described.

Which ones would they be, then, Pat?

(I don't want any "later" statements which showed some of the surgeons toeing the line-)

Edited December 12, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Pat Speer]

I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described.

Which ones would they be, then, Pat?

(I don't want any "later" statements which showed some of the surgeons toeing the line-)

In Chapter 18d I present a number of rarely-cited Parkland witnesses whose statements do not support that the wound was as shown in the McClelland drawing.

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 in the occipital bone 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."

This brings us to Zelditz... When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Dr. William Zelditz reported that he arrived in Trauma Room One just before the tracheotomy was performed and noted "a massive head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right posterior-lateral) of the cranium." He said the wound covered an area approximately 10-12 centimeters in diameter. Well, this is too big to be the wound in the McClelland drawing, but it appears to be close enough. Zelditz spoke in public at the 2003 Lancer Conference in Dallas, however, and further detailed his observations. He said Kennedy was supine (flat on his back) when he (Zelditz) came in the room. He then said the head wound was "massive--the entire posterior and right side of the head was nothing but matted hair and clots, and pieces of bone and tissue, and it was a mess. I gently palpated the area and it felt like somebody had boiled an egg and then dropped it. And then picked it up. The bones were just in crinkly pieces." He was asked about this again and added: "There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." Well, this is not the gaping hole behind the ear depicted in the McClelland drawing. Zelditz was then asked to depict the location of Kennedy's head wound on his own head. He placed his hand on the back of his head, with his fingers stretching from above his right ear on back to just below the top of his ear. He then admitted that beyond this area one "couldn't really tell the depth of it, or the extent of it." He was then asked if he had to rotate Kennedy's head to get a good look at the wound, and responded "No, no, there was enough of it there." He was then asked if he'd placed his hand under the head to palpate the skull, and said "No, it was in the back, and to the side." When then asked if he'd felt the extent of the wound, he admitted "No, I didn't see all of the wound. I couldn't see all of it because he was laying on that." (He then pointed to the back of his head)." He was then asked about the wound again. He put his hand back where the wound is in the McClelland drawing, and responded "It wasn't strictly straight back." He then moved his hand up to the top of his head with his fingers stretching above his right ear, and continued "It was top, back, and side." When then asked if the skull in this area was gone, he replied "It was in pieces." When then asked if the shattered skull in this area was still attached to the scalp, he continued "I could not tell. It was covered with blood and hair and other stuff. I could feel the bones but they felt like they were (he wiggled his fingers) loose." He expanded "The bony fragments that were there were loose. And there was a spongy mass in the center of that, most obvious without bone, so I guess part of the bone was gone, but still there were fragments of bone still there." When then asked the million dollar question if he felt the autopsy photos showing the back of the head to be intact were altered, he clarified "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing.

And what about 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."

Edited December 13, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pretty sad, Pat. The only doctor on that entire list that played a significant part was Dr. Baxter, and he claimed to see cerebellum. How could he have seen cerebellum if the large head wound was ahead of the ear, and high up? The tiny cerebellum is behind the brainstem in the rear part of the skull, and as low in the skull as any part of the brain can get.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme