Vince Palamara

As usual, you make good (counter) arguments, Pat. Ok- why did Humes say "occipital"?

From Pat Speer:

"The line I've highlighted is not remotely true."

Care to elaborate?

Here's the line:

HOWEVER, the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, WITHOUT any communication between them, miraculously all placed the large gaping head wound at the BACK of JFK's head. What a frickin' coincidence, eh, Pat?

All? If you've been following the thread on Groden's new book, you'll see that he's been caught trying to pass off a still shot from Stone's JFK as a previously unseen autopsy photo. His work with the "back of the head" witnesses was almost as misleading.

The flip flops depicted in the picture above show how we should never disregard cognitive science, which has shown how people's recollections can change over time. It's as if Peters, Custer and O'connor were supporters of the Speer theory (left) and the back-of-the-head theory at the same time! (right).

In the above photos, Peters is clearly showing the back of the head to be gone. Both the Peters and the Custer photos are from the very same interview.

I think the problem is that several witnesses ARE both back-of-the-head witnesses and side witnesses, especially O'Connor, Humes, and Custer. What do these three have in common? They are from BETHESDA- this is where Horne thinks there was manipulation/ alteration to make the wound more obtuse/ larger.

It would seem this thread, in entirety, proves two things:

1) Not all the witnesses agreed unanimously and some hyperbole is in effect;

2) the work of Lifton, Horne, and even Livingstone is corroborated.

Instead of "remember the Alamo", REMEMBER HUMES- he ALSO said the wound involved the occipital area in the autopsy report agreed upon by Finck, Boswell, etc

What a monster (of confusion) I have created with this thread LOL!

I decided to wash my hands of any spin, pro or con, and look at the credentials of the witnesses and exactly what they (originally) said and wrote, despite any decades-later waffling and so forth by some (depending on the interviewer's bias [Posner, JAMA], their own fatigue in dealing with this stuff [Jenkins, Baxter, Giesecke, Perry], the confusing autopsy photos [Peters], etc.)

My verdict?

I am back to where I was BEFORE I started pondering all of this...sort of LOL. I DO believe the vast majority of these qualified doctors and nurses, as well as the many Bethesda witnesses (and even some Dealey Plaza witnesses) are correct in their assessment that the wound was occipital-parietal, NOT just occipital and not just parietal, while several DID say/ write things that confound any attempt to make this a unanimous consensus...a consensus, yes, but there HAS been some exaggeration when people say "EVERY doctor said" blah blah blah; a little hyperbole there. I also wonder if the wound expanded in size via tampering (not strict alteration, per se) and/ or skull pieces caving in during transit of the body and so forth(both Livingstone ideas).

Jerrol Custer, whom I interviewed on video twice (11/22/91 for Livingstone ["High Treason 2"] and March 1998 for William Law ["In The Eye of History"]) , is a textbook example of a corrupted and jaded witness...corrupted by a fellow researcher filling his head with silly ideas (the late Tom Wilson) and jaded because he was struggling financially and wanted to "make a big score", to quote him directly. Thus, he began to "remember" things differently. Still, his earlier statements are valuable. One must weigh and consider evidence.

The back/ front issue is silly in this respect: can one argue that Jackie was really sitting in the FRONT seat if one looked at the limo from the other side?? I respect questioning evidence and one's (initial) thoughts on the case, but, alas, the majority of the statements from the WC and HSCA era (and, in some cases, beyond) still hold up. There are simply TOO many statements made by these witnesses to believe that they really meant side or top for the back. Yes, Groden spun the issue a lot. But, as I said earlier, even HUMES wrote in the autopsy report that the wound extended into the OCCIPITAL area! Uh, that is not frontal.

Sorry, Angry Andric LOL

I WILL concede something I have always known- there has been some exaggeration with regard to EVERYONE stating the back of the head was gone, etc. That said, there's an awful lot of smoke there to create a bonfire. Even taking into account Pat's great work:

http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve

I still come away with a fair number of people who said the cerebellum was missing/ disrupted and the occipital/ parietal area was missing AND that the autopsy photos of the back of the head do not add up. The latter day excuses of Giesecke et al should be taken with the same grain of salt used with Grossman and his ilk- could it be that some (a lot?) of these doctors do NOT want to be mixed up in the controversy and want sleeping dogs to lie, DESPITE what they said and wrote in the early days (1963-1964)? Also, the 1992 JAMA article and Posner's interviews need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Even Salyer has gone on the record stating that the autopsy photos are wrong and have been doctored.

McClelland is also quoted in a 1975 Canadian radio documentary (via a short phone call) that he has nothing to add because him and his fellow doctors have been "bugged to death about this"...perhaps some embraced the attention, while others were sick of it?

To quote Pat: "hmmmmm..."

I think Pat is right and WE are right- there has been exaggeration and groupthink, while there is ENOUGH primary source documentation to believe that the right rear of the head was (at least somewhat) missing and the autopsy photos (of the back of the head) do not add up...Pat cleans up a lot of the mess but a fair amount of "dirt" remains. What I really like about the early Parkland statements are the fact that these were written or said before the weight of what they had to convey came into focus (i.e. assassin only from th rear or from the front). The johnny-come-latelys, whether Grossman or Seldin, need to be taken with yet another grain of salt

I am confused LOL- the original statements still contain back-of-the-head evidence

Andric- I am man enough to admit it: Pat's work is brilliant and troubling. You can tell it has struck a nerve with many of us.

The paradox is: Pat still believes there was a conspiracy and shots from the front...a good thing.

The only questions I have are:

a) where EXACTLY was the large defect? Even the Humes autopsy report mentions the occipital area (while a few Parkland doctors claim to have held the head up and so forth)?

what is Pat's take on Crenshaw?

"Killing Kennedy" by H.E.L., pages 22 and 30 [see also "Killing The Truth", p.

652]---claims that, regarding the autopsy photos of the back of JFK’s head,

"my information that the photograph is fraudelent came from Jacqueline

Kennedy through her staff in 1979 and from representatives of the Kennedy

family"; "’This isn’t the way it was!’ This is what Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

told me through her staff…" [?!]

------------------

Dr. Donald Curtis:

9/30/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"1. The wound involving the right posterior lateral surface of the skull appeared to me to be an exit wound or a tangential entrance wound. 2. I am unaware as to the details of the "official story" therefore I am unable to comment on my interpretation." [emphasis added];

--------------------

Dr. Donald Seldin:

8/27/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered…I believe that the official story is accurate in all details." (emphasis added)[!];

---------------------

OR Assistant Supervisor Jane Caroyln Wester:

6 H 121 / testimony (see also “High Treason 2”, p. 79)---“I received a phone call from the emergency room asking us to set up for a craniotomy.”; Specter: "What doctors were in attendance of Governor Connally at that time." "…Dr. Ray, I believe, was there…"[this is the only reference to "Dr. Ray"];

--------------------------------------

Dr Gene Akin:

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---"On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that he was interviewed by the FBI during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the "historic accident" of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the governments obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a "nut." AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL's HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President's forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the Presdient's forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN's comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul's hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI's fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]" (emphasis added in italics)[for important information on SA Specht, see "JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan, pages 40-44: Specht said that he "was assigned to be a kind of custodian of the files pertaining to the Kennedy case", and was the official media spokesman for the Dallas FBI office from 1978 to 1990; in fact, as Sloan writes, he "personally wrote the memorandum that formally closed the Kennedy case from that office's point of view in 1983"!];

------------------

LARRY O'BRIEN:

His book entitled "No Final Victories: A Life in Politics from John F. Kennedy to Watergate" (1974) [see also "Reflections on JFK's Assassiantion" by John B. Jovich (1988), pages 35 and 37]---At Parkland Hospial: "It was chaotic, doctors, nurses running in and out. Medical equipment being wheeled into the room. At one point Jackie and I stepped into the adjoining room where the President's body lay. All I recall is I thought he looked as he always had." (emphasis added);

Dr. William H. Zedlitz, Resident Surgeon

[Zedelitz]:

a) WC reference: 6 H 83;

b) 11/4/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"Dear Mr.

Palamara,

I received your letter concerning my participation in the emergency

treatment of President John F. Kennedy at Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22,

1963. At the time, I was a 2nd year general surgery resident at Parkland

Hospital and had just finished an operation and was starting to dictate

the operative report when I heard the page operator page Dr. Tom Shires

(chairman of the Department of General Surgery) to the emergency room.

Since Dr. Shires was not in town at that time I proceeded to the ER to

see what the problem was. As I stepped off the elevator, a man in a suit

with a gun asked me if I was a doctor. I replied that I was, and he

directed me to trauma room #1. I noticed at that point that the ER was

entirely empty of patients (they had been transported to another area by

the Secret Service). When I entered the trauma room I was surprised to

see two of our staff physicians (Dr. Charles Baxter and Dr. Malcolm

Perry) and one of the 3rd year surgery residents (Dr. James Carrico)

already there. Dr. Carrico had inserted an endotracheal tube into the

President and was trying to ventilate him with oxygen. At first glance

the president seemed to be in extremely serious condition as he was not

responding to any of the stimuli around him, and obviously had a massive

head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right

posterior-lateral) of his cranium. This area was a mass of bloody tissue

with multiple skin, hair, and bony fragments matted together with blood

and brain tissue and covered an area approximately ten by twelve

centimeters in diameter. His left eye also seemed to be bulging from his

eyesocket. At this point, Dr. Carrico indicated that he was unable to

effectively ventilate the patient via the endotracheal tube. Dr. Baxter

and Perry immediately began to perform a tracheostomy. Prior to making

the incision, it was noted that a small (5mm to 7mm) hole in the front

of the neck below the thyroid cartilage was present. This was in the

exact location where the tracheostomy was to be performed. Dr. Baxter

and Perry decided to do the procedure by extending the transverse

incision on either side of this hole so that the tracheostomy tube ended

up being inserted in the site of the former hole. I trust this answers

your questions regarding the location of the head injury and the

appearance of the neck prior to the tracheostomy.

Sincerely,

William H. Zedlitz, M.D., FACS"

c) “Murder In Dealey Plaza” by James Fetzer (2000), page 405

d) Presented at the JFK Lancer conference, Nov. 2003

DR CHARLES CRENSHAW:

WC references to his presence on 11/22/63: 6 H 40 (Baxter), 6 H 31-32

(McClelland), 6 H 80-81 (Salyer), 6 H 141 (Henchcliffe), 6 H 60 (Curtis)+15 H

761: index;

Completely overlooked WC reference to his presence on 11/24/63: 21 H

265(report by Parkland Administrator Charles Price)---"Dr. Charles

Crenshaw was in the corridor and said they had been alerted. He said,

‘You’re not going to put him [Oswald] in the same room the President was in,

are you?’ told him I surely was glad he had thought of it and by all

means, not to.";

January 1964 "Texas State Journal of Medicine" article entitled "Three Patients

at Parkland", p. 72---"Dr.

Jenkins recalls

that the following physicians

were members of the resuscitation team: Drs. Jenkins and Akin…Drs. Gerry

Gustafson, Dale Coln, and Charles Crenshaw, all residents in surgery, who

were prepared to introduce cannulae into the veins via cutdowns or percutaneous

puncture…three

members

of the

staff were performing venous cutdowns,

one

in each lower extremity

and

one

in the left forearm.

These

were

performed

by

Drs.

Coln,

Crenshaw,

and

Gustafson."

DR KEMP CLARK:

"Killing The Truth", p. 702---"Although I [Livingstone] had no interview, Dr. Kemp Clark passed a verbal message to me in his outer office that the picture of the back of the head was inaccurate.";

1/5/94, 1/20/94, and 1/28/94 interviews with David Naro [see COPA 1994

abstract]---"The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I

saw cerebellum. In my opinion, the wound was an exit wound…a large hole

in the back of the President's head…blown out";

Good thread. Pat, you have me rethinking this whole matter of the back-of-the-head position.

WHAT is your take on Crenshaw/ his book?

Nova 1988 (although there is some clever editing---notice when McClelland keeps talking and Cronkite talks over him--- AND Peters did talk about "this little incision"); the KRON program- Jenkins; JAMA 1992; Posner 1993; ARRB 1994-1998

Jenkins, Carrico, Perry, and even Baxter seem to have waffled in these later years...this waffling does NOTHING to diminish what they originally said

The EARLIEST statements of the doctors and nurses are pretty sound (WC...even up to the HSCA era). AFTER that period, especially 1988 onward, there is some inconsistency, here and there.

Thanks. I still like and admire Vince for a lot of reasons. I sincerely think he took the mock trial he "won" in 1986 way too much to heart. Read Jim DiEugenio's book "Reclaiming Parkland"- the antidote to Vince's book. Vince DID receive a nice advance and hefty money for movie rights, although the book itself stiffed and "Parkland" the movie bombed on every level; yik.

Funny story: before my local Borders closed down, they had a funny door stop on the bottom floor: Bugliosi's book!

_{Thanks, Gene: well said!}

_{John- LMAO; you know it}

_{Adding to what Pat said about Bugliosi, McMillan, and Epstein: boy, they DID look stunningly bad on tv. My girlfriend said they looked like they should have been on "Tales From The Crypt"}

Thanks, John

Please do! I like Bob and his book is great, warts and all.

IF it's a (knowing) fake, I would equate Bob with the New England Patriots: a great entity that did not need to cheat, but did anyway

It was shared a lot today on Facebook- people love it, Pat!

Outstanding! The only think I would change, Pat, is your profile pic: you look angry; sort of like "take the darn photo, I don't have all day" haha

The Onslaught: the Media's Response to the 50th Anniversary of the JFK Assassination

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught

I am very disapppointed in Groden for attempting to pass this dummy photo off as a real autopsy photo

Of course! Also, some semantics-- "widespread"? Probably not. Above average- more than just a few isolated incidents? You bet.

Former agent Dan Emmett (PPD, Bush 41-Bush 43) tacitly admitted in his book that this sort of behavior does happen- handsome single (or married) men on the road, away from girlfriends and wives, all the while women also knowing these are the guys close to the seat of power. Ad Henry Kissinger famously said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Does everyone agree that Pat has debunked all the witnesses who said occipital and that they must have all meant temporal LOL?

I like what Jenkins allegedly told Posner: "I never did say occipital!"

Pat, what is your take on all the medical people who specifically called the area that was missing the occipital area?

This thread is a bummer: seems Pat has bebunked all the back-of-the-head witnesses. I am waiting for a thread claiming the smoke on the knoll was cigar smoke...

Dave, what is VERY disturbing about Groden's book on this matter (the "new" autopsy photo) is he claims this came from the confiscated black and white reel of film that was famously exposed to light and thought ruined, adding further that he had to do a lot of work to bring out the image...! I fell for this image because of the pixilated genital area and the throat wound; seemed authentic, along with his description of what he "did" to restore the image.

IF Groden is knowingly pawning this image off as a genuine autopsy photo and knows better, this is VERY disappointing, to put it mildly. Visions of Bruno Magli shoes are coming to my mind (his work on the OJ case)...

Groden's new book, at first glance, is (was?) great, but now there are THREE major items I was excited about that have come under fire:

1) The smoking gun document that makes up a whole chapter- several researchers are saying the documents are bogus;

2) The TSBD witness who claims to have been making change for Oswald when the shooting started that makes up yet another chapter- there is a whole newsgroup thread on another forum that is convincing in its conclusion that Groden was "had" by a con artist [i was all excited, too, because I was going to post "take that, DVP"...so much for that LOL];

3) now the "new" autopsy photo...

I WILL say that I have always been skeptical about some of what Groden claims to "see" in the films and photos. Ultimately, the allure of his work is the great collection of films and photos themselves.

ALSO: Groden doctored several photos of "High Treason" to make it look like he was the only author, totally wiping out Livingstone's contribution; not cool

Dave, continue your nice demeanor when dealing with these issues- you remind me of Richard Trask: a very nice, respectful lone-nutter not out to insult people (from the "other" side)

Wow---so the "new" autopsy photo is just the Oliver Stone replica? That is disappointing...and shady