Daniel Gallup

7 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Yes, I remember that. I just went back and looked at Costella's individual frames of the Z film.

Toni Foster is blurred in the film until frames 309 and 310, then blurred again in 311. That definitely indicates a stop though very brief, in 309 and 310, with movement again before the head shot in 313.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

 

 

 

 

 

http://jfklancer.com/pdf/toni.pdf  for the interview.  

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Daniel,

I don't believe the back of Kennedy's head is blacked out in the Moorman photo we are talking about. Because apparently this photo was sent on the wire services to news outlets not long after the assassination. Seems there would not have been time for chicanery.

But then, perhaps this Moorman shot was taken before the gunshot to the head. In which case there would be no need for blacking out.

 

Or it might be peculiar to this version.  Why?  I don't know.

On 5/16/2020 at 5:45 AM, David Lifton said:

REVISED/EDIGED, 5/16/2020 - 7:15 AM PST

Sandy: I was not aware of your post until now (5/16/20: 430 AM PST)  Best Evidence describes my discovery of the images in the Moorman photo in Chapter 1.  What is not included in the book (first published in Jan 1981) --because I discovered it years later-- is the image located on JFK's right shoulder, and which (for purposes of description) I have described as a "shoulder patch."  In fact, that's a fragment of scalp and bone from the right rear portion of JFK's head, caught in flight by Moorman's camera, as she snapped her photo.  Pulled downward (by gravity), that fragment then fell (or "descended") into the rear seat of the limo, and is (apparently)  the one described by SS Agent Clint Hill when he wrote (in his report, and then later testified  to that same effect): that the "back" of JFK's head was "missing" and that it was "lying in the rear seat of the car." (Approx., from memory).  

Now lets turn to 1965 (approx - date uncertain), and my discovery of important photo corroboration, and what I will now describe is how I came into possession of an important photo negative, which bears on the question of the authenticity (and relevance) of that image (of the "shoulder patch").

Around 1965 (or perhaps July 1966, in connection with my temporary residence in San Francisco, when I drafted "The Case for Three Assassins" [which was punished in January 1967 as a Ramparts Magazine cover story],   I was living in San Francisco, and was working out of Ramparts' offices located at 301 Broadway.  While there-- I decided to visit the office of Associated Press.  My purpose--or at least one purpose--was to see what photos (i.e.,what prints)  they might have (on file)  of the Moorman photo -- because I was aware that her original had been copied (on 11/22, in the afternoon, as I recall) and transmitted via wire by both wire services--i.e., by both AP and UPI.  

To my considerable surprise, the AP office had wire service prints-- and negatives--of lots of photos; and one of them was of the Moorman photo.  (In other words, they had the wire-service negative of the Moorman photograph, as received over the wire-service photo machine).  This wire service negative, having been created by the wire-service telephoto machine, had horizontal scan lines -- that is, it consisted (on magnification) of horizontal scan lines; but, (my reaction was) "so what?"  The scan lines weren't even visible unless you enlarged the photograph to a fairly high magnification.  In any event, the basic content (i.e., the basic image)  was clearly visible--- and there, on JFK's shoulder, was the image of that "shoulder patch."  The person in charge --call him the "supervisor"--noted my intense interest, and said words to the effect that if wanted that negative I could have it. Because (get this) he said that there were a whole bunch of these negatives, they did not save them, and if I didn't want it, they were just going to discard them. 

When I was studying the image, probably using a magnifying glass, the person in charge said something like: "We don't save that stuff, so if you want it you can have it. Its yours."  (Really!  That's what he said.)  Obviously, I accepted the offer, and that's how I came to possess the San Francisco wire-service negative of the AP Wire photo designated "DN-22," a negative created (in San Francisco) when the Moorman photo was first transmitted -- nationally-- on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.  The shoulder patch --which I don't believe I was aware of at the time-- was right there on the negative, but so were the various images of "the men" behind the wall,  which was my main focus.  These were the images that had so excited me and started me down the path of my original research -- as described in Chapter 1 of B.E.

So that's how I came into possession of San Francisco (AP) wire service negative labeled "DN-22" of the Moorman photo.  

Again, I don't (presently) recall what year it was that I first became aware -- on the image of the  Moorman photo  -- of what I (later) came to call the "shoulder patch," but  its significance has only increased with the passage of time.  

WHAT I BELIEVE TODAY:

Today, I believe Kennedy was struck in the head twice from the front-- once in the left temple (per the statement by Dr Robert McClelland, that JFK died "of a gunshot wound of the left temple).  ); and once in the right temple (or on the right side).  (See Chapter 2 of B.E.)  Because the car-stop occurred (and some 30 frames, or more, on the Z film, have been eliminated, to "eliminate" the car stop  (as I discussed in my essay, "Pig on a Leash", published around 2003) its obvious (to me, anyway)  that the Zapruder film has been altered (and thats a whole other subject).  I bring up that subject (of Z film alteration)  because that (doctored) film record is the only one (or at least the most important one) that provides a detailed pictorial record of the Kennedy head wounding during those crucial few seconds (Z-232 on out to 330).  And what does it show? Basically, that the back of the head has been "blacked out"  (rather obvious in frames 309 - 330, approx)--another manifestation of film alteration.  But, setting aside the actual imagery as shown on individual Z frames, and now considering the frames as a sequence,  it also shows the rapid backward movement of the head after the impact of the fatal shot (i.e., the "head snap") --a subject I discussed at length in B.E. (Chapter 2).  Of course, its the (backward) "head-snap" which attracted so much public attention, starting with the 1975 Geraldo Rivera broadcast (on his TV show)  which --IMHO--played such an major role in leading to the several re-investigations of the Kennedy case.

Somewhere in my personal records may be one or more memos I wrote when (years later) I discovered the image of the "shoulder patch."   That discovery looms more and more-- with the passage of time --to any complete and thorough "micro-study" of the JFK assassination.  (DSL, 5/16/20; 5:45 AM PST; Revised, 7 AM PST).

Back in the mid 80s Dr. Bernard Kenton, a good a friend of David Lifton's,  gave me a copy of the Moorman photo of very high quality.  I have long believed from the photo that there is brain/scalp matter at Kennedy's right shoulder, and  part of the back of Kennedy's  head has been blacked out, as is also evident in the extant Z-film.

On 5/16/2020 at 7:42 AM, Ron Ecker said:

David,

Thanks. Then all I can say is, if the car stopped it's remarkable that so little was made of it. But I guess that would have been a major reason to alter the Z film, to remove the stop to protect William Greer and the Secret Service. Of course what they couldn't remove was the head snap, so enter - what was it? - a "neuromuscular reaction."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is also the interview of Toni Foster, the "running woman,"  by Debra in the summer 2000 edition of the KAC.  Toni is adamant about the limo-stop.  And I do mean adamant.

On 5/9/2020 at 12:54 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Chris, also, there were some witnesses that said the limo stopped:

1) Jean Hill (who stood to the immediate left of the limousine with her friend Mary Moorman during the assassination), in her Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, stated that the limousine stopped for an instant;
(2) Hugh Betzner (standing behind the limousine during the assassination), in his Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, said twice that the limousine stopped during the assassination;
(3) Roy Truly, Oswald’s boss at the TSBD, later stated that the limousine swerved to the left and stopped during the assassination;
(4) DPD officer Bobby W. Hargis—riding escort to the immediate left rear of the limousine—in an interview never published by a local newspaper, but whose text was later found and written about by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain, stated that the limousine stopped during the assassination; and
(5) In numerous interviews over many years, Bill Newman (standing to the immediate right of the limousine during the assassination with his wife and two children) has repeatedly and consistently recalled that there was a very brief, but definite car stop by the limousine during the assassination

 

Don't forget Toni Foster, the running woman.  Debra had an excellent interview with her in the KAC around 2000, the summer I think.  She is an excellent witness to the limo stop,

Let's hope David Lifton finishes his Magnum Opus soon.  If the finished work is as good as the effort he has put into it, it will be the crowning achievement of a life time.  Godspeed, David!

One more reason to reject the authenticity of the Z-film. "People were jumping out of the car in front of me [the Secret Service followup car] and running to the president‘s car." (Ralph Yarborough) That's something that would be done to a stopped limo, and there is plenty of other evidence that the limo did indeed stop. What happened during that time was probably critical to knowing how the President was murdered, and that's why the limo stop no longer appears in the extant film .

Hi Daniel,

Good to see you back hereabouts.

On the subject of Yarborough's observations about the Secret Service detail's movements on Elm, it's worth noting that he has powerfully supported by the long-ignored testimony of the motorcycle escort. There is a quite outstanding & readily accessible collection of these testimonies in Larry Rivera & Jim Fetzers' The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews/

Paul

Thanks Paul -- I've been away a long time working on a book on Differential Equations and frankly, detached from the JFK controversy just to keep on track with that project. My conviction is that the limo stop and what occurred during that time is central to understanding how Kennedy was murdered. As to whether or not shots were fired in the car, it seems the eye-witnesses at the scene seemed to think that something like a shot occurred. I am not competent to say, but await the research of others who have spent a great deal of time with this problem, and publish the results of their work.

One more reason to reject the authenticity of the Z-film. "People were jumping out of the car in front of me [the Secret Service followup car] and running to the president‘s car." (Ralph Yarborough) That's something that would be done to a stopped limo, and there is plenty of other evidence that the limo did indeed stop. What happened during that time was probably critical to knowing how the President was murdered, and that's why the limo stop no longer appears in the extant film .

I really find Tink a compelling guy

amazing? compelling? How?

Pat, it my recollection that Jenkins said the brain stem was neatly severed in two places, which led him to believe the brain had been removed prior to autopsy. I can't recall where I read this any longer. If he said this, and the brain had been removed, them OConnor and Jenkins are talking about two different events. Jenkins has no specific recollection of a shipping casket either.

Pat, your are right, the official record indicates an entrance wound was noted early. But I would argue the official record isn't worth the paper it's printed. Both in Best Evidence and In the Eye of History, James Curtis Jenkins gives a very different picture of discussions of the head wounding. See page 611 BE, and 73, ITEOH. Jenkins was interviewed by LIfton in 1979, and is quite specific that no conclusions were drawn that night. Jenkins is one of those important pieces of the puzzle that does not fit with the official record. We must also question the origin of the late arriving fragments. Due to the condition of the body as stated by the personnel from Parkland, I would say the fragments were torn from Kennedy's head in the process of removing the brain before the official autopsy. (Jenkins also claims the brain was removed prior to autopsy). That may be why, when the shipping casket and body bag was opened, O'Connor said there were no brains in the cranial vault.

No, I have just taken the time to read all the Parkland statements about the wound. They were there, and made some rather astonishing comments. You, Andric, are guessing they were mistaken. The burden is on you to explain why all those who saw the wound consistently said it had the appearance of an entry wound. I'm waiting.

Dr. Perry told Dr. Clark that a bullet entered Kennedy's neck from the front, because Clark comments to the New York Times a few days after the assassination that the bullet entered Kennedy's neck," ranged downward, and did not exit." That's a lot of information to be gleaned from a bullet that, according to this new theory, supposedly struck Kennedy's skull , failed to deform in the least, and left a small spherical wound which all who saw it noted it had the characteristics of an entry wound. There are other things wrong with the reasoning given above. 1. We don't know if a small bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the head near the EOP. Evidence of this entrance wound did not appear until after or around midnight when bones were brought into the morgue and represented as having come from Dallas. Until then the doctors made no determination as to the location of the entrance wound. But the bones brought in around midnight represented a great loss of bone at the top of the skull. No such wounding was observed at Parkland. So the origin of this lower entrance wound is suspect. 2. We don't know when Kennedy was shot in the back around the level of T3. If the wound is authentic, and there is reason to doubt this, then its timing still remains a mystery. Certainly Robert Groden puts that shot well after the throat shot based on his analysis of the Z-film. 3. I have never thought Kennedy reaches for his throat after Connally was injured. That's a new one for me. But then, I do not place any confidence in the extant film, any more than I place confidence in the extant autopsy sitting in the National Archives. Not after Horne's Magnum Opus.

I don't think so. Perry was not alone in this assessment. Their comments indicated they were quite familiar with gunshot wounding. I doubt the relevance of the particular study you cite from page 55 of that "first study."

I might have added, a good reference to the earliest reports of Kennedy's wounding would be Best Evidence itself. And that includes the interviews like that of Dr. Peters referenced above in David Lifton's post. Another example: DAvid was the first to get Perry to give a size of the trach incision: 2-3 cm. Shameful attempts to avoid the implications of this sizing have been made, but the truth is the truth, and it is to David's great credit that he took the initiative to get to Perry before he himself understood the implications of his recollections. Which leads me to a final thought: It has been claimed by James DiEugenio (The Assassinations) and Vince Palamara (2005 review of Best Evidence on Amazon) that Lifton has been debunked (to use Palamara's term). Oh really? By whom and when? For Palamara it was Harrison Livingston, of all people. Even DiEugenio jumps on the Livingston bandwagon in his review of Kaleidoscope exactly where corroborating evidence of the early entrance of Kennedy's body at Bethesda comes in the form of the Boyajian report. Can't trust that report, says Livingston, with Dieugenio cheering, as if his nemesis, David Lifton, has finally been banished from the realm. The arguments Livingston makes, with DiEugnio's applause, are on par with later attempts to deny Perry really made a "2-3 cm" trach incision. When the historical record jars one's viewpoint, best to jettison the historical record-- at least that seems to be standard operating procedure in these cases.

" I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." She later described the condition of Kennedy’s head upon arrival at the hospital. White’s notes relate: "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

A couple of people have said that the Parkland doctors standing behind JFK's head had "the best view" of all. Wrong. Actually, the best view was Jackie's. Unlike the Parkland doctors, she had the advantage of seeing JFK's head in an upright position. Any deviation of the upright position (0 degrees) increases the chance of error in locating the wound. Anyways, two questions need to be answered by back-of-the-head theorists if they wish to count Jackie as their ally in this debate.

1) What was so not beautiful about JFK's head behind his forehead?

2) As for the top of JFK's head, why was Jackie trying to "keep it in"? (rhetorical question).

JFK's head as described by Jackie sounds a lot like it was supposed to look like after pre-autopsy surgery was complete (See Lifton, D.) The big problem. She described what she saw in the car.

Andric, you may be referring to a different quote from Jackie than I have. From her WC testimony: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." This testimony accords well with Clint Hill. May I ask the source of your quote? Thanks in advance , Daniel

"11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles"

This is consistent with what William Manchester wrote in his book based on his (many) interviews with Jackie: "The Death of a President, 1967": ""He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there anymore." Link

Jackie, who died in 1994, had 27 years to correct Manchester, in case you argue that Manchester misrepresented the content of her interviews.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence that she told White the same thing, unless you will argue that White and Manchester engaged in a sinister plan to pretend she thought the wound was at top of her head.

Another thing: you argued that Jackie was clueless about holding down the top of his head, because one cannot hold down that which isn't there; but then you go on to argue that it was the back of JFK's head she tried to hold on to. But wait a minute. How could she hold down the back of his head if it is not there?

Thanks for the citation Andric. Much appreciated. But I believe you misrepresent what I said. Jackie was "clueless...???!!??", and I believe Jackie's WC testimony is clear and doesn't need my help in understanding.about the condition of the back of the head. Yes, I do believe Manchester is wrong, however. No one at Parkland made any such assertion.

I think it would be interesting to compile a list of the hardback and paperback sales of the most popular books on the assassination. Obviously limited to the most popular since I know there are thousands. Anyone know an easy way to compile this information?

Tim and all,

Please vote for your favorite book on the Assassination of JFK at my website's home page: Best JFK Assassination Book Poll

Scroll down a little and you'll find it on the right side bar.

Greg, what is the purpose of my voting for one from your list of 10 books if my favorite is not on your list of 10? My vote gets relegated to "others" and therefore the input is irrelevant. I don't like putting square pegs into round holes.

On another thread, Daniel Gallup stated:

"Scott, I've stayed out of discussions on the medical evidence for a long time now, having gone back and forth with Pat Speer on all these matters long ago. I basically agree with David Josephs and simply ask: if the chain of possession of Kennedy's body is lost, its worth as evidence in the case is non-existent. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head would be the earliest recollections of those who saw the body in Dallas, and that includes Clilnt Hill, Jackie, and the Dallas doctors and nurses who made contemporaneous notes. A very good reference book would be First on the Scene by Brad Parker, who has collected a number of early affidavits from Parkland on the condition of Kennedy's head. In a similar point of view, I would argue the earliest recorded recollections of personnel at Bethesda (when they were finally allowed to talk) would be the most accurate, before anyone understood the implications of what they saw. Same with the Dealey Plaza witnesses: their testimony gains weight when they are given early, or if it is clear that what they are saying is given before they have knowledge of the "official" story line."

Here are the statements of the witnesses which Daniel claims provide the "only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head wound."

The John F. Kennedy Head Wound: a Timeline

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his left temple, with his only free hand. (Newman was holding one of his children with his right hand.) Subsequent statements would clarify that Newman was talking about Kennedy’s right temple. (Newman continues to claim he saw a large wound at this location, and has never wavered.)

Around this same time, news photographer and assassination eyewitness James Altgens wrote a dispatch for the Associated Press. He declared: "There was a burst of noise - the second one I heard - and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from President Kennedy's car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head.” Now, this is undoubtedly confusing. Newman pointed to his left temple around the same time Altgens said he saw blood on the left side of Kennedy’s head.

Within a few minutes, outside Parkland Hospital, however, Charles Roberts of Newsweek interviewed Senator Ralph Yarborough, who’d arrived at Parkland Hospital just after President Kennedy, and had witnessed his removal from the limousine. In his 1967 book The Truth About the Assassination, Roberts, working from his original notes, recalled that he asked the Senator where Kennedy had been shot, and that a horrified Yarborough responded "I can't tell you," as he unconsciously held "his hand to the right side of his head, where he had seen blood streaming from the President."

At 1:17, approximately 30 minutes after Jay Watson interviewed her husband, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…" (Mrs. Newman has also never wavered from seeing a wound at this location.)

Around this time, Darwin Payne of the Dallas Times-Herald tracked down assassination witness Abraham Zapruder at his office in the Dal-Tex Building. Notes found in the Herald’s archives, almost certainly based on Payne’s interview of Zapruder, and reported in Richard Trask’s Pictures of the Pain, reflect “Abraham Zapruder…heard 3 shots///after first one Pres slumped over grabed stomac…hit in stomac…two more shots///looked like head opened up and everything came out…blood spattered everywhere…side of his face…looked like blobs out of his temple… forehead…” And this wasn’t the only time Zapruder described the wounds shown in his film—before he’d seen his film. Around 2:10, less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. George Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head. (At this time, Kilduff pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound Burkley observed at Parkland Hospital is the same wound, in the same location, later observed at Bethesda. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where the Newmans, Zapruder, and presumably Yarborough had seen a wound.

At 2:16 PM CST, Dr.s Malcolm Perry and William Kemp Clark, two of the Parkland Hospital physicians who'd tried to save President Kennedy, appeared at a press conference. Note that it has been over an hour since they last saw the President’s body. (Their words come from a transcript discovered years later at the Lyndon Johnson Library.)

Dr. Malcolm Perry, who had performed a tracheostomy on the President in an effort to save his life: (When asked if a bullet had passed through Kennedy's head) "That would be conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say...There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the neck wound) "It appeared to be coming at him." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the head wound) "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell...The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."

So, let’s see. Perry seems to think the wound was toward the top of the skull, as it “defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side.” If it was an obvious exit wound on the far back of the skull, as so many have come to believe, it would have suggested a shot from the front.

Well, then, what about Dr. Clark?

Dr. William Kemp Clark, who had examined the President's head wound and pronounced him dead: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound…It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

Okay. Clark seems to think the wound was toward the back of the head, on the right side.

At 3:30 PM CST, Dr.s Perry and Kemp once again spoke to the press, this time on the phone to local reporters unable to attend the official press conference. Connie Kritzberg of The Dallas Times-Herald was one of these reporters. Her article on the President's wounds was published on 11-23. She wrote: “Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital. Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided. The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or tangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. Kemp Clark, 38, chief of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, described the President's wounds. Dr. Clark, asked how long the President lived in the hospital, replied, "I would guess 40 minutes but I was too busy to look at my watch." Dr. Clark said the President's principal wound was on the right rear side of his head…The doctors were asked whether one bullet could have made both wounds or whether there were two bullets. Dr. Clark replied. "The head wound could have been either an exit or a tangential entrance wound." The neurosurgeon described the back of the head wound as: "A large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue." Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat."

Dr. Clark later wrote a report. He signed this at 4:15. Note that this is now three hours after he’d last seen the President. He wrote: “I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination. The previously described lacerated brain was present.” (A 12-1-63 article on the assassination in the Philadelphia Bulletin would make the surprising claim that the bullet striking Kennedy on the back of his head “hit at a shallow angle, ripping off a piece of skull 'perhaps the diameter of a teacup,' said Dr. William Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon." This supported that the wound in Clark’s impression was at the top of the back of the head and that Clark was indeed comfortable with his original claim the wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, even if fired from behind. This probability is borne out, moreover, by the fact Clark would later tell the Warren Commission he accepted that the fatal shot was fired from behind, and would only break his public silence on these matters to complain about conspiracy theorists trying to get him to say the shot came from the front.)

Dr. James Carrico, the first doctor on the scene, completed a similar report at 4:20. He wrote: “Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing.” After describing some medical procedures, he noted further “attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. “ (Carrico had thereby indicated that he’d thought the wound was on the back of the head. He would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos and insist he’d been mistaken about seeing cerebellum.)

At 4:30, Dr. Perry created his own report. He wrote: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.” A few days later, journalist Jimmy Breslin would interview Dr. Perry and quote him as follows: "The occipito-parietal, which is a part of the back of the head, had a huge flap." Well, this is interesting. This flap can be seen in the autopsy photos, only a few inches forward of this location. (Perry would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.)

At 4:30 anesthesiologist Marion Jenkins completed his report. “These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage.” Hmmm. Jenkins had thereby suggested that the wound was on the right back of the head, roughly behind the ear. (Jenkins would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and insist he’d been mistaken about seeing cerebellum.)

Dr. Charles Baxter also submitted a detailed report on Kennedy’s wounds. He wrote: “On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with extensive lacerations and contusions.” He later concluded: “Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.” Although Dr. Baxter’s report supported Dr. Jenkins’ report, it seems likely Dr. Baxter soon realized he’d been mistaken as to the location of the head wound. On 3-24-64, long before anyone was talking about the difference in the wound descriptions of those viewing Kennedy in Parkland and Bethesda, Dr. Baxter testified that he observed a "temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side," and that "the right side of his head had been blown off." Well, heck, this was more consistent with the statements of the Newmans and Zapruder than with his fellow physicians. Dr. Baxter was also asked to read his earlier report into the record. While doing so, however, he read the line "the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing" as the "temporal and parietal bones were missing." It seems clear then he’d decided the wound was too high (and possibly too forward) on the head to involve occipital bone. (Dr. Baxter, no surprise, would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.)

Still, yes, this is strange. Although Dr. Baxter apparently changed his mind over the next few months, the initial reports of these five Parkland doctors suggested the wound was at or behind Kennedy’s right ear. Dr. Clark had suggested it was towards the top of the back of the head, where the occipital and parietal bones converge, and Dr.s Jenkins and Baxter suggested it was a bit lower and more to the side, where the occipital and temporal bones converge. Dr.s Carrico and Perry were more vague.

Should one think the statements of the Parkland doctors on 11-22-63 all suggested the wound was on the back of the head behind the ear, however, one would be wrong.

Dr. Robert McClelland’s report was signed at 4:45. He asserted: “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…The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. “

So yeah, that’s right, Dr. McClelland, who has since become a star “back of the head witness” for those believing the large head wound was low on the back of the head behind the ear, originally claimed the wound was a massive wound…of the left temple. Well, this suggests that he, as James Altgens before him, got his left confused with the President’s left.

And that’s not the only indication McClelland failed to see a “blow-out” wound on the back of Kennedy’s head, as claimed by so many. 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. There, 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." There, he told Dudman "I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." There, he told Dudman "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front."

And, should one refuse to believe McClelland would change his impressions at a later date, to fit what the other doctors were saying, there’s this… The January 1964 issue of the Texas State Journal of Medicine featured an article entitled Three Patients at Parkland. It 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."

It’s highly unlikely such a change would have been made without McClelland’s permission. It seems likely then that McClelland first wrote that the wound was of the left temple, and then realized he’d got it backwards, and began telling people it was on the right side, and then only over time began swearing it was on the far back of the head.

So what of the other witnesses to describe the President’s head wound on 11-22?

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who’d been riding in the back seat of the follow-up car just behind Kennedy, jotted down some notes on the flight back from Dallas. He noted in this report that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head."

Secret Service agent George Hickey, who’d been riding next to Bennett, wrote a more detailed report on what transpired in Dallas. In the first of two reports, dated 11-22-63, he noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." He wrote a second report on 11-30-63. There, he observed that after the first shot, Kennedy “was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound from the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.”

Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, also wrote a report on 11-22. He asserted: "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head.”

Well, these statements were a little vague. They do, however, make clear that a bullet did not explode from the left side or middle of the back of Kennedy’s head.

Well, then, who else?

Motorcycle officer James Chaney, who had been riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He related: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Hmmm…Chaney was looking at the back of Kennedy’s head. His thinking Kennedy was struck in the face suggests the explosion he saw was in front of Kennedy’s ear, not behind.

Riding at Chaney’s right was Douglas Jackson. Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me." Jackson then escorted the limousine to Parkland, where he saw the President’s body removed from the limo. He wrote: "I got off my motor, stepped over to the presidential limousine. An agent opened the car door and started to get Mrs. Kennedy out but Mrs. Kennedy said no. It's no need she said and raised up from over Mr. Kennedy. I could see the top of his head was gone, his left eye was bulged out of socket. The agent said "Oh no!" and started crying, pulled his coat off and placed it over Mr. Kennedy's head."

Two days later, on November 24, Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, published an eyewitness account in the New York Sunday News. He wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood.”

Over the next week, a number of other reports were written.

On 11-27-63, Secret Service agent Paul Landis wrote the first of two reports on the assassination. He noted: "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." His 11-30 report concurred: “It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound.” Well, this is an interesting use of words. Split open. One might gather from this that this split involved the back of the head. But, if so, one would have to assume it involved the top of the back of the head.

Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine and the follow-up car, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple.”

Sitting directly behind Kennedy at the time of the shooting was Secret Service agent Emory Roberts. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

An even more important witness broke her silence on 11-29-63. On this day, Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy granted an interview to Presidential historian Theodore White, and briefly discussed her husband’s wounds. (White’s notes on this interview were released on 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles) Mrs. Kennedy related: “his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white—he was holding out his hand—and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” She later described the immediate aftermath of the shots: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." She later described the condition of Kennedy’s head upon arrival at the hospital. White’s notes relate: "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

Okay, so there are now 5 witnesses—Burkley, McClelland, Jackson, Jacks, and Mrs. Kennedy--who claimed to see a wound on the front or top of Kennedy’s head at Parkland Hospital. Amazingly, that’s the same number as have claimed to see a wound on the back of his head.

The next day, 11-30, yet another important witness chimed in. Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who’d climbed up on the back of the limo as the shots rang out, related: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill’s report returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, he related "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.)

So, that’s it. While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds…

IT IS A MYTH.

Jackie is quite clear in her WC testimony that she held the head down because the wound was in the back of the head. For you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. No one I know doubts that Kennedy was hit in the right temple, as per Newman et al. I 'm not sure why you bring him up, or Kilduff for that matter.. Of course Kennedy's head exploded, leading to any number of observations. But the body at Dallas looked only one way and the testimony there is rather consistent of an avulsive wound in the right rear occipital/parietal region. It seems, based on the quotes you provide, that we agree on this as well. So what's the beef? Testimony to cerebellum indicates that wound extended down into the occiput. You make a strong case that the wound was in the right rear, and so I have to agree with you But,and this is shameful: your using Baxter and Jenkins and their evolutionary description of the wounding. Of course over time there is pressure for them to change their minds. Conclusion: It's hard to find in all your verbiage any serious objection to the right-rear occipital-parietal avulsive wound.

There is testimony of an entrance wound in the left temple; this is well known and has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the back of the head. What you offer, and I think this very important, is Admiral Burkley's claim that the wounds at Parkland were no different from the way they appeared at Bethesda. Presumably, if Burkley is to be believed, the top of the head was missing at Parkland, then, and Perry's trach incision was 7-8 cm. Remember HUmes said the area of wounding was devoid of bone and scalp. And Pat you are telling me this was observed at Parkland? I can find no attestation of this in the Parkland testimony of 11/22/63. Nor have you presented any such either. The missing bone and scalp was at the back of the head, the right - rear, not "chiefly parietal." Burkley comes off rather badly, I would say, with his claim, and why he made it is another matter, and itself a subject of further study.

" I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." She later described the condition of Kennedy’s head upon arrival at the hospital. White’s notes relate: "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

A couple of people have said that the Parkland doctors standing behind JFK's head had "the best view" of all. Wrong. Actually, the best view was Jackie's. Unlike the Parkland doctors, she had the advantage of seeing JFK's head in an upright position. Any deviation of the upright position (0 degrees) increases the chance of error in locating the wound. Anyways, two questions need to be answered by back-of-the-head theorists if they wish to count Jackie as their ally in this debate.

1) What was so not beautiful about JFK's head behind his forehead?

2) As for the top of JFK's head, why was Jackie trying to "keep it in"? (rhetorical question).

JFK's head as described by Jackie sounds a lot like it was supposed to look like after pre-autopsy surgery was complete (See Lifton, D.) The big problem. She described what she saw in the car.

Andric, you may be referring to a different quote from Jackie than I have. From her WC testimony: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." This testimony accords well with Clint Hill. May I ask the source of your quote? Thanks in advance , Daniel

The lateral xray shows the entire right FRONT gone... The anterior... even more of the right side to the front is gone... which matches none of the Fox images...

Based on who's interpretation? That certainly wasn't the interpretation of the HSCA based on the photos and X-rays.

Ryberg is certainly not the only evidence from the autopsy that suggests an exit point... although "point" is a misnomer... "exit area blown out" is more accurate

I clearly stated above that I wasn't referring to the area of missing scalp (i.e. the area of blow out) but to the beveling on the skull which would indicate the exact point the bullet impacted.

Yet you dont address the 6:40-8pm Bethesda time other than to dismiss the casket changes and work done by HUMES on the body...

What do you think was happening while xrays are being developed yet JFK had just arrived out front

What is your source for the 6:40 time?

"anterior to the right ear" is the end of that injury's description... isn't anterior TO THE FRONT.. ? So the tear in the skull/scalp from IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT EAR extends to a point ABOVE THE Little bump on the EAR. In the image I posted, the letter a) is just above the tragus with a line extending from the TP-margin,which is even further forward, BACK to the point above the tragus...

It's describing the start point and end point of the scalp tear. It starts at the right inferior (lower) temporo-parietal edge of the area of missing scalp and goes forward to the right ear and ends just above the tragus

In F7 this appears as the cracked bone flap in front of the ear.. in F3 it is completely covered up and the scalp is shown as intact...

Unfortunately the photos and x-rays disagree with the eye witness accounts at both Bethesda and Parkland.

Scott, I've stayed out of discussions on the medical evidence for a long time now, having gone back and forth with Pat Speer on all these matters long ago. I basically agree with David Josephs and simply ask: if the chain of possession of Kennedy's body is lost, its worth as evidence in the case is non-existent. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head would be the earliest recollections of those who saw the body in Dallas, and that includes Clilnt Hill, Jackie, and the Dallas doctors and nurses who made contemporaneous notes. A very good reference book would be First on the Scene by Brad Parker, who has collected a number of early affidavits from Parkland on the condition of Kennedy's head. In a similar point of view, I would argue the earliest recorded recollections of personnel at Bethesda (when they were finally allowed to talk) would be the most accurate, before anyone understood the implications of what they saw. Same with the Dealey Plaza witnesses: their testimony gains weight when they are given early, or if it is clear that what they are saying is given before they have knowledge of the "official" story line.

I noticed on CTKA that James DiEugenio humbly put his book Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Ed., as one of the ten best books ever written on the Kennedy Assassination. It may indeed be a very good book, but the revelations unearthed In Best Evidence, especially Paul O'Connor, are so significant, and DiEugenio's conspicuous ignoring of this contribution and others contained in Best Evidence so blatant, that it is no wonder the case remains such an unsolved mess. What Lifton did was to interview individuals before they understood the significance of what they had to say. This of course includes the medical evidence but also the Z-film interviews conducted in 1971, before the film ever became public. Debra Conway did the same thing with Toni Foster, whose testimony to the limo stop was so certain and matter-of-fact, because she had no idea it contradicted the official version. Anyway, that is why David Lifton's work is so historically important. One has only one chance to interview someone before they understand the significance of what they have to say, and are tempted to change or have their testimony twisted, or are simply ignored because their view doesn't "fit." Given the governmental malfeasance in this case-- all the fraudulent evidence--those first responses are all the more important.

Betzner's contemporaneous affidavit on the activities around the Kennedy limo so contradict the extant films it is as if Betzner and the films belong in two different universes. Like Toni Foster and others, his remark on the limo stop is so matter-of-fact that they make Fiester's psycho-babble explanation look patently ridiculous. It would seem the films were altered to hide both the limo stop and whatever was happening in and around the limo during that time.

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Hugh William Betzner, Jr., Address 5922 Velasco, Dallas, Age 22 , Phone No. TA 7-9761
Deposes and says:
I was standing on Houston Street near the intersection of Elm Street. I took a picture of President Kennedy's car as it passed along Houston Street. I have an old camera. I looked down real quick and rolled the film to take the next picture. I then ran down to the corner of Elm andHouston [sic] Streets, this being the southwest corner. I was standing back from the corner and had to take the pictures through some of the crowd. I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy's car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I was running trying to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car.My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. I also saw a man in either the President's car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those cars pull out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car. Then the President's car sped on under the underpass. Police and a lot of spectators started running up the hill on the opposite side of the street from me to a fence of wood. I assumed that was where the shot was fired from at that time. I kept watching the crowd. Then I came around the monument over to Main Street. I walked down toward where the President's car had stopped. I saw a Police Officer and some men in plain clothes. I don't know who they were. These Police Officers and the men in plain clothes were digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet. I walked back around the monument over to Elm Street where they were digging in the dirt. I went on across the street and up the embankment to where the fence is located. By this time almost all of the people had left. There were quite a few people down on the street and crowded around a motorcycle. I was looking around the fence as the rumor had spread that that was where the shot had come from. I started figuring where I was when I had taken the third picture and it seemed to me that the fence row would have been in the picture. I saw a group of men who looked like they might be officers and one of them turned out to be Deputy Sheriff Boone. I told him about the picture I had taken. Deputy Sheriff Boone contacted superiors and was told to bring me over to the Sheriff's Office. Deputy Sheriff Boone took my camera and asked me to wait. I waited in the Sheriff's Office and some time later, an hour or two, he brought my camera back and told me that as soon as they got through with the film and they were dry that they would give me the film. A little later he came in and gave me the negatives and told me that they were interested in a couple of pictures and implied that the negatives was all I was going to get back. To the best of my knowledge, this is all I know about this incident. /s/ Hugh William Betzner, Jr.

For Toni Foster's interview, we have Debra Conway to thank KAC 2000. It is a must read.

Daniel, thanks, I'm aware of the limo stop witnesses but i still hold a degree of scepticism as to whether it came to a complete halt. For the record, I don't believe the Nix film, et al, was altered to remove a complete stop either.

Robert, thanks also. I don't believe Chaney ever got in front of JFK to be able to turn back and see him, although in Altgens 6 he looks closer to the back of the limo than the bikes on the offside. I think it's a case of perspective.

Pat/ Robin, thanks for the photos and quotes. As before, I agree. I don't doubt that Chaney spoke with the occupants of the lead car, I just think the timing of the event has been blurred, possibly to make the DPD/SS look more on top of things than they actually were.

You're welcome. You raise a good point: the alteration of the Nix film. That's an area that should be studied further. Regards, Daniel

He didn't race ahead of the limo before the underpass, that's for sure. Chaney stopped with Jackson and Hargis, as seen in the Nix film. He's probably one of the bikes we can see trailing the cars in the Daniels clip. The motorcade then stopped at the Stemmons on-ramp, as witnessed by DPD's Earl Brown stationed on the Stemmons rail bridge.... communications between the lead car/ Chaney more than likely took place there.

Calli, the limo stop is specifically mentioned, not the "motorcade stop" by a number of police officer and bystanders who were in a position to see. Robin Unger, the Nix film itself is not beyond suspicion, and your parading it out as if it settles the matter is an utter waste of time. The issue is and always will be "fraud in the evidence."

Daniel - why would massive forward splatter indicate a shot from the front?

The way the bones were reported to have been sprung open toward the back would indicate a great deal of brain, blood and bone exited the rear. That is the forward splatter from a shot from the front. In the extant Z-film there is no such splatter -- an impossible situation given the magnitude of the loss of brain in the back of the head.