James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

[Cory Santos]

Question, how did he know the exact location of the throat wound this early?  Was the exact location of the wound public knowledge yet?

How did he know about the bullet and the windshield?  Read who he was and his connections.   Then read page two of the memo.  He blames LBJ.  This two months after Dallas.  Why did the WC not have him testify?  Did Garrison ever talk to him?

Edited December 3, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

McClelland did not fill out a death certificate. But he has said an awful lot of stuff at odds with what most CTs presume he has said. And in this regard, he's not unlike Jenkins, who moved the large head wound to the back of the head for his book.

From Chapter 18d at patspeer.com.

The McClelland Dilemma

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of  Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.
Asst. Prof. of Surgery
Southwestern Med.
School of Univ of Tex.
Dallas, Texas

(Note: in this, his earliest statement on the assassination, Dr. McClelland reveals that he was easily confused and prone to speculation. First of all, he gets himself all turned around and mistakenly says there was a wound in the left temple. He says nothing of a wound on the back of the head or behind the ear. As but one head wound was noted at Parkland, and as no competent doctor would mention a wound he did not see while failing to mention the one he did, it seems probable McClelland meant to say this wound was of the right temple, not left.

Now, hold it right there, some might be thinking. How do we know McClelland didn't see a small wound on the left temple? Well, first, there are his subsequent statements. And second, there are the words of Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who told Harrison Livingstone in 1993: "When we prepared the body, I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this, I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head." Well, there it is. NO small entrance wound was noted by the doctors or nurses at Parkland.

 

In light of the fact many conspiracy theorists cite McClelland as the most reliable of the Parkland witnesses, McClelland's next statements are even more intriguing. McClelland was the prime source for the 12-18-63 article by Richard Dudman published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in which the Secret Service's visit to the Parkland doctors, and its attempt to get them to agree Kennedy's throat wound was an exit, was first revealed. And yet McClelland told Dudman that after being told of the wound on Kennedy's back "he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Navy Hospital’s explanation of the course of the bullets." And yet he told Dudman "I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." And yet he told Dudman "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front." Repeat...NO reason to suspect any shots came from the front... That's right...in the very article most conspiracy theorists believe first exposed the government's cover-up of Kennedy's wounds, Dr. McClelland, the man they consider the most credible of the Parkland witnesses, spelled out--and made CRYSTAL CLEAR--that he did not think the large head wound he observed was an exit wound on the far back of the head.

This is confirmed yet again by the first article on the wounds published in a medical journal. Three Patients at Parkland, published in the January 1964 Texas State Journal of Medicine, was based upon the Parkland doctors' 11-22 reports, and repeated their descriptions of Kennedy's wounds and treatment word for word. Well, almost. In one of its few deviations, it changed Dr. McClelland's initial claim Kennedy was pronounced dead "at 12:55" to his being "pronounced dead at 1:00." This was an obvious correction of an innocent mistake. In what one can only assume was another correction of an innocent mistake, moreover, it re-routed Dr. McClelland's initial claim "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" to the more acceptable "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head." Right side of the head. Not back of the head. While some might wish to believe the writer and/or editor of this article took it upon himself to make this change without consulting Dr. McClelland, and that he'd changed it to fit the "official" story, the fact of the matter is there was NO official story on the head wounds at this point, beyond the descriptions of the wound in the reports of McClelland's colleagues published elsewhere in the article. And these, in sum, described a wound on the back of the head. It seems likely, then, that McClelland himself was responsible for this change.

In any event, on March 21, 1964, Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission. In contrast to his earlier statements, he now claimed: “As I took the position at the head of the table that l 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 ... the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and 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.” 

Note that McClelland specifies both that he was at the head of the table helping out with the tracheotomy when he examined Kennedy's head wound, and that this put him in position to closely examine the wound. Here is Figure PR10.1, "Position for Tracheotomy", from the textbook Emergency Medicine (edited by Harold May, 1984):

 

This closely mirrors the position on the slide above. Note that in order to expose the neck the head is tilted sharply backwards in the tracheotomy position. So how in the heck could McClelland 1) closely examine a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head while Kennedy was in such a position and he (McClelland) was standing at the head of the table? and 2) claim his standing at the head of the table put him in "such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound"?

McClelland's words only make sense if the wound he was observing was on the front half of Kennedy's head. It seems likely then that McClelland, as Clark, was confused by the rotation of Kennedy’s head. 

And it seems just as likely McClelland is not the man many if not most conspiracy theorists assume him to be. Notes on a 12-1-71 interview of McClelland by researcher Harold Weisberg reveal that McClelland "volunteered at some length about Garrison's men, describing Garrison as a psychopath, and seemed proud that he had talked them out of calling him as a witness...McC was quite bitter about Garrison and Lane, but he was without complaint about Specter and the Warren Commission..."

So there it is. Dr. Robert McClelland--whom many conspiracy theorists believe an unshakeable truth-teller--was a supporter of the Warren Commission's for years and years after the assassination--to such an extent even that he refused to cooperate with Jim Garrison's attempts to re-open the case. Well, is it any wonder then that McClelland, while continuing to insist he saw a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, repeatedly defended the legitimacy of the autopsy photos? And that he told the producers of the television show Nova in 1988 that "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly?"

And is it any wonder then that in both his Nova appearance and ARRB testimony McClelland ventured that the back of the head photo depicts sagging scalp pulled over a large occipito-parietal wound? Now this is strange indeed. Scalp overlying explosive wounds to the skull does not stretch and sag, it tears. No such tears were noted on the back of Kennedy's head at autopsy, and none are shown in the autopsy photos whose legitimacy McClelland defends. 

And it's not as if NOVA was the end of McClelland's strange ride...in which he defended the authenticity of the autopsy photos, while describing wounds at odds with the autopsy photos. A May 19, 1992 Newsday article by Steve Wick for which Dr. Humes was interviewed--and in which Humes claimed there was no conspiracy and all the shots came from the rear--also featured some quotes from McClelland, in which he similarly argued those claiming there was an exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head were mistaken. McClelland told Newsday: "I saw the wound more closely than anybody...There was a massive wound on the back rear portion of his head. There's no way you can tell, based on a wound that size, which way he was shot."

I mean, McClelland is as erratic as can be. Where he once assured journalists suspecting shots came from the front that "there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front," and where he later told researchers he'd created a drawing in which an exit wound behind Kennedy's right ear was depicted, he now tells crowds --such at that at the 2013 Wecht conference--that 1) "the whole right side of his skull was gone;" 2) the appearance of this wound--and not its location--suggested it was an exit wound; 3) it was Kennedy's response to this shot in the Zapruder film that convinced him the shot came from the front...and 4) he'd never been pressured into lying about Kennedy's wounds! The man's recollections are just not reliable.

He made this sketch noting the large rear exit.  Front entrance wound at the throat. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

McClelland always insisted that there was a large hole on the back of the head and that he saw cerebellar tissue oozing from it.

No, he didn't. The historical record is all we have, Sandy, and it is quite clear in that McClelland initially said the wound was of the temple, and that there was nothing about it to suggest the shot came from the front. Like it or not, this is a major blow to the widespread belief there was a "blow-out" wound low on the back of Kennedy's head.

 

I think that the following is what Pat is referring to, which I copied from his original post on this topic above:
 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
ADMISSION NOTE
DATE AND HOUR   Nov. 22, 1963   4:45 P.M.   DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of  Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.
Asst. Prof. of Surgery
Southwestern Med.
School of Univ of Tex.
Dallas, Texas

It appears that Pat believes that the bolded parts indicate that that McClellan is saying that the blowout is at the temple. (McClelland wrote "left temple" but probably meant "right temple.")

It appears that Pat believes this large temple wound is synonymous with the right-side top-of-head blowout as described in the autopsy report. Pat can correct me if I am wrong about this.

I don't read it that way at all. Just look at the second bolded sentence:

The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.

What I get from reading this is that Kennedy got shot in the temple and it caused massive head and brain injury. No mention of a huge hole at all.

But McClellan DID mention the huge wound in his WC testimony, and he said it was at the back of the head:

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 and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, 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. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

The drawing Cory posted corroborates the points I make here. Note that McClelland didn't actually see the entrance wound at the temple. So either he postulated that it must have been there (to explain the rear exit), or perhaps somebody else saw it and word of it got back to McClelland.
 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Question, how did he know the exact location of the throat wound this early?  Was the exact location of the wound public knowledge yet?

How did he know about the bullet and the windshield?  Read who he was and his connections.   Then read page two of the memo.  He blames LBJ.  This two months after Dallas.  Why did the WC not have him testify?  Did Garrison ever talk to him?

 

I found the full document (2 pages) at the Harold Weisberg Collection (see page 18):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=26&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjfjOfivYPfAhVN1qwKHeuCCqMQFjAZegQIJhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjfk.hood.edu%2FCollection%2FFBI%20Records%20Files%2F44-24016%2F44-24016%20Volume%2042%2F44-24016%20Volume%2042B.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Dx-7o2D4yXRqkooNy3VHn

which makes me wonder if it really is a new release. (Weisberg died in 2002 and yet I saw some 2009 additions to the collection, so I guess it is possible.)

The document doesn't give me much confidence in its credibility. But I do wonder how Potito go ahold of much of the information so early.

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

If there was an en entry wound in the right temple and an exit wound in the right occipital region close to the midline, how can we see the massive outburst of tissue and blood upwards in a straight line in Z313? There should have been also a damage in the right central region of the head else all the material could only be expelled towards the back. If the wounds are only those two (right temple - right occipital close to midline), the Z313 could only show what it shows after if it had been altered.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Nonsense, Cliff. For years, I thought the back of the head photo was faked in some way to hide that there was a wound low on the back of the head. I did so UNTIL I began researching the case full-time and realized the irrefutable fact that many if not most of the conspiracy theorists to write about the medical evidence have grossly misrepresented the statements and/or credibility of the so-called Parkland witnesses, and have pretended these witnesses supported the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing, when they actually did not.

On page 6 in the above thread Pat wrote:

<quote on, emphasis added>

The question, Cliff, is whether or not the autopsy photos would be admitted into evidence.

And the answer is a clear YES!

Should the photos have been entered into evidence by the prosecution (which would be a questionable move seeing as the photos make a clear case for more than one shooter), of course, the defense would be granted the opportunity to present witnesses whose recollections conflicted with the photos.

But how many would do that? How many of those on your list would ever have testified that the wounds in the photos were in the wrong place, and that they thought the photos were faked? Very few. Maybe none.

Which is but one of the reasons why I studied the case under the assumption the medical evidence was legit... And came to realize how clearly the evidence suggests there was more than one shooter...

<quote off>

On page 8 in the above thread Pat wrote:

<quote on, emphasis added>

To sum up, Chesser/Mantik and others have made the argument the autopsy materials are fake, or have been altered, and that this proves conspiracy.

This is a wobbly and misguided stance, IMO, because it opens the door for other better qualified experts to say no, they are legit.

I, on the other hand, took a look at these materials (plus the Z-film, and eyewitness statements) under the assumption they are legit, and found they don't indicate what the government said they indicated... And that they actually suggest Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter...

I have based many of my arguments, moreover, on the textbooks written by the government's experts.

While I am constantly updating and improving my arguments, for that matter, it grows increasingly clear that my approach, if not my arguments, will win the day.

<quote off>

On page 9 in the same thread Pat wrote:

<quote on, emphasis added>

It's really quite simple, Cliff.

The government's evidence, if taken as legitimate, and actually studied, is clear evidence for a conspiracy.

As I find it beyond bizarre that the government would fake evidence showing a conspiracy, and then turn around and have experts embarrass themselves by pretending the evidence doesn't show conspiracy, I assume the evidence to be authentic.

<quote off>

And that's from just one thread.

Pat, you've been pimping this garbage since 2003.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

From the introduction on Pat Speer's website:

Since it makes no sense for conspirators trying to cover up a conspiracy to fake evidence which indicates a conspiracy, I decided to disregard the opinions expressed in the many books I'd read, from Weisberg to Groden to Lifton to Mantik, and determine for myself if the autopsy photos now available on the internet represent solid evidence for a solo assassin firing from behind. </q>

This is the root fallacy of Pat's support for the authenticity of the Fox 5 "back-of-the-head" photo.

He assumes the cover up specialists would be infallible and not inadvertently fake a photo inconsistent with the SBT.

Just because Fox 5 doesn't support the SBT doesn't make it authentic, Pat.

JFK was shot in the back at T3.  That's where the clothing defects are; that's where the Death Certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, and the FBI report on the autopsy put it; that's where another dozen eye witnesses put it.

Physical evidence, properly prepared documents, and consensus witness testimony trump Pat Speer's long held fact-free assumptions.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

He made this sketch noting the large rear exit.  Front entrance wound at the throat. 

Thanks for helping me make my point about McClelland, Cory.

Here's McClelland in 1988, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, depicting the location of the large head wound. It was on the top right side of the head, and barely overlaps, if it does indeed overlap, with the wound location depicted in his more recent drawings. The man is inconsistent, at best.

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Cory Santos]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks for helping me make my point about McClelland, Cory.

Here's McClelland in 1988, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, depicting the location of the large head wound. It was on the top right side of the head, and barely overlaps, if it does indeed overlap, with the wound location depicted in his more recent drawings. The man is inconsistent, at best.

 

Or a poor artist. I think the drawing is entirely consistent especially when he notes he did not see the front head and back wound.  You haven’t addressed the throat as an entry wound.   Are you suggesting that he could not understand an exit vs entrance as to the throat which he did see?

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Or a poor artist. I think the drawing is entirely consistent especially when he notes he did not see the front head and back wound.  You haven’t addressed the throat as an entry wound.   Are you suggesting that he could not understand an exit vs entrance as to the throat which he did see?

What? In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, he depicts the wound as residing at the top right side of his head above his ear. The drawings, however, depict the wound at the level of the ear on the far back of the head.

That's apples and oranges, dogs and cats, The White House and The Statue of Liberty. That's about as inconsistent as one can be.

As far as the throat wound...I write about this in detail on my website. The Parkland doctors all thought the wound looked like an entrance. But emergency room doctors are trained to withhold judgement on these things, as there are circumstances in which an exit can look like an entrance.

[Cliff Varnell]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What? In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, he depicts the wound as residing at the top right side of his head above his ear. The drawings, however, depict the wound at the level of the ear on the far back of the head.

That's apples and oranges, dogs and cats, The White House and The Statue of Liberty. That's about as inconsistent as one can be.

As far as the throat wound...I write about this in detail on my website. The Parkland doctors all thought the wound looked like an entrance. But emergency room doctors are trained to withhold judgement on these things, as there are circumstances in which an exit can look like an entrance.

Not the case with Kennedy.

The T3 back wound was too low to have caused the fracture of the right T1 Transverse Process and leave an air-pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 TPs.

That damage could only have been caused by a shot to the throat from the front.

Pat Speer is committing academic malpractice with his odious theories.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What? In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, he depicts the wound as residing at the top right side of his head above his ear. The drawings, however, depict the wound at the level of the ear on the far back of the head.

That's apples and oranges, dogs and cats, The White House and The Statue of Liberty. That's about as inconsistent as one can be.

As far as the throat wound...I write about this in detail on my website. The Parkland doctors all thought the wound looked like an entrance. But emergency room doctors are trained to withhold judgement on these things, as there are circumstances in which an exit can look like an entrance.

No way.  The drawing I provided does not show an ear.  Take a look at it again.  I understood you were comparing the drawing I provided, done early on I believe, with his picture you attached.  If not, please show the documents you are referencing.

As for the throat, yes, they are consistent that it is an entrance wound.

If I consistently lie to you, that does not make it true.

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Properly prepared documents, and consensus witness testimony trump Pat Speer's long held fact-free assumptions.

 

 

It's appropriate that you use the word trump in that sentence, seeing as it is an alternative fact made up to support an untenable position.

It is a fact fact that doctors as a rule defer to the findings of pathologists, and that pathologists as a rule rely upon autopsy photos, and that autopsy photos are considered legit if the man ordering them (Humes) and/or the man taking them (Stringer) say they represent the body as they recall seeing it.

It is also a fact fact that no court of law in the history of the country has ever held up a report written by a sometimes observer of an autopsy (such as Burkley) over that of the doctors actually performing the autopsy.

 

 

As far as my "assumptions"

I read Rush to Judgment in the 80's, and became a "conspiracy theorist".

I watched Stone's JFK a few times when it came out, and pretty much believed it.

I bought The Killing of the President in '93 or so.

Years passed. I then stumbled across a CD-Rom with the Zapruder film, the Warren Report and Crossfire on it. This re-ignited my interest.

This led me, then, to read High Treason 1 and 2, and Best Evidence.

I was at this time (2003 or so) a dyed-in-the-wool CT, who thought a lot of the evidence was fake.

But which evidence? Groden thought the photos were faked. Lifton thought the body had been altered.

There was no consensus. I then read Case Closed and spent a few weeks wondering if it was really just Oswald, after all.

I started spending a lot of time online, reading articles on McAdams site and following the arguments on websites such as aaj, Lancer, and this one.

I had a strong feeling there was something wrong with the official story, but was uncertain whether the medical evidence was fake or not.

This led me then--after being a CT for the better part of 20 years or more--to take a step back, and wonder..."supposin' the evidence is legit--what does it actually show--NOT what people claim it shows? What does it actually truly show? According to the textbooks and medical journals? I then spent roughly three years FULL TIME and another five years or so part-time reading every bit of testimony related to the medical evidence, and every relevant article I could find online, or at the UCLA Bio-med Library that could help shed a light on what happened.

And this led me to conclude...that it's not really that complicated. The eyewitness evidence, medical evidence and photographic evidence clearly suggests there was more than one shooter. Proves it, even.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks for helping me make my point about McClelland, Cory.

Here's McClelland in 1988, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, depicting the location of the large head wound. It was on the top right side of the head, and barely overlaps, if it does indeed overlap, with the wound location depicted in his more recent drawings. The man is inconsistent, at best.

 

I've seen these before and what I still see is in his diagram is the exit wound depicted on the back of the head.  In the picture his fingers start at the top of the head and rundown the rear sided of it and his hand and thumb cover the back of the head, not the top of it.

[Ron Bulman]

So Jenkins says about a 3" hole in the back of the head.  McClelland said about 4 X 5".  Crenshaw compared it to his fist.  Another doctor to a tennis ball and another to a grapefruit.  A big enough hole the basically intact brain "almost fell out" in Humes hands without having to detach it.  Yet 1/3 to 1/2 of it was missing in Dallas, Cerebrum and Cerebellum hanging out of the hole.  Jenkins saw a small wound in the hairline of the right temple slightly in front of and above the ear.  Burkley told Humes to stop investigating it.  McClelland said he saw a entry wound in the left tempe.  In his diagram it's supposed to be just to the right of center in the hairline but he says he didn't see it (was he told of it by another doctor?).  If he did see it facing JFK from the front it would have been to his left if it was in the right temple.  Then Jenkins saw the mortician cover the small wound he'd seen in the right temple hairline with wax.