Micah Mileto

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Robinson would later say that he saw more than one small holes in the front of the head.

 

From Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2:

 

[...p. 284-285, Chapter 14. New Evidence: The 1991 Dallas Conference]

 

There may very well have been a puncture to the left temple, because the mortician told me the head was penetrated in several places by shrapnel,2 which he filled with wax, but the Dallas doctors later strongly retracted the observation of an entry wound in the temple.

 

[...p. 290]

 

Malcolm Kilduff, acting White House press secretary, points to the spot on the autopsy photographs that could be an entry hole, just above the corner of the right eyebrow. Tom Wilson’s computer study of that spot, visible on the Groden Right Superior autopsy photograph, indicates that it is in fact a hole through the skull. One of the morticians, Tom Robinson, told the author how he filled a penetrating hole in the same area with wax. “I didn’t have to do anything more to it,” he said. Robinson thought it was one of a few very small penetrating skull wounds and exits from “shrapnel.”

 

[...p. 579-581, Chapter 28. What Really Happened]

 

On August 17, 1991, just two days after speaking with Joe Hagen, president of Gawler’s Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy’s body for his coffin, I interviewed his assistant, Tom Robinson.

 

[...]

 

“The body had been cleaned up before we got it. The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up.”

 

I asked him if any of the frontal bone or bone behind any part of the face, forehead, or front top of the head underlying the scalp was damaged.

 

“It may have been fractured [and I couldn’t see that], but it was perfectly intact. I don’t think any of it had been removed or replaced before we got it. The face was perfect. It would have fallen in without the frontal bone.”

 

“There was one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it.”

 

“What side was it on?”

 

“I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was on the right side.” In another interview he told me that the skull was penetrated in two or three more places by shrapnel, which he filled with wax. These places were near the eyes.10

 

There was only one significant hole of any kind in the head beside small puncture wounds, and that was the large defect. He said that it was in the very back of the head and could not be seen with the head on the pillow. The scalp back there was badly mangled and “some of it was missing.”

 

[…]

 

His face was perfect and did require work of any kind, and the frontal bone underlying it was intact, but slightly fractured.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 14]

 

2. Interview with Tom Robinson, October 6, 1991.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 28]

 

10. Interview of October 6, 1991.

 

On 5/26/1992, Robinson was interviewed by private investigator Joe West. West’s personal notes read:

 

Wounds:

 

• large gaping hole in back of head. Patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

 

• smaller wound in right temple.
 

Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

 

• (approx 2) Small shrapnel wounds in face.
 

Packed with wax.

 

(Link 1 [link 2] [link 3, Journal News, 12/28/2013])

 

Crescent shaped what? Scalp or skull? Either one doesn’t sound like it could be the result of an ordinary round bullet entrance. Joe West is not alive now to confirm what he meant by the double prime " symbol. 3 centimeters? 3 inches? In Robinson’s 1/12/1977 statement, he said the temple wound he saw was "Very small, a quarter of an inch" (ARRB MD 63 [text] [audio]).

 

From a report on Robinson’s 6/21/1996 interview by the Assassination Records Review Board:

 

-Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage caused by pathologists):

Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

 

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President);

 

-he described a “blow-out” which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

 

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President’s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President’s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President’s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)

 

[…]

 

Fox Autopsy Photographs:

 

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox photos:

 

-Right Superior Profile (corresponds to B & W #s 5 and 6): He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo’s poor quality.

 

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said: “You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing.” When asked by ARRB where the hole in the back of the head was in relation to this photograph, Robinson responded by placing his fingers in a circle just above the white spot in the hairline in the photograph, and said “The hole was right here, where I said it was in my drawing, but it just doesn’t show up in this photo.”

 

(ARRB MD 180)

 

Diagram marked by Robinson: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md88.pdf

 

Robinson pointed to the large gaping area on the other side of a bone flap on the autopsy photos as the wound he was describing. But, he did draw a comparatively smaller triangular mark on the diagram. Robinson’s earlier statements also indicate a SMALL-sized wound: "a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up", "Very small, a quarter of an inch", "he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it" (ARRB MD 63, 1/12/1977 HSCA interview [text] [audio]), "a small laceration", "one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it" (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 284-285, 578-581).

On 12/29/2023 at 3:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

Only one head wound was noted by the Newmans, Burkley, and Kilduff, and they were all pointing out the location of that wound. 

And please please don't post images like the one above, as it is deliberately deceptive.

1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos.

2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location. 

From Kilduff's 3/15/1976 oral history for the JFK Library “the left side of his head was a bloody mass”

 

Michigan City News-Dispatch, 10/26/1977, Kilduff: “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat”

 

On 4/17/1991, Malcolm Kilduff talked to Harrison Livingstone. When Livingstone said “As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear”, Kilduff confusingly replied “Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side. What splatter there was”. Kilduff may have meant “left” to mean the anatomical right, as he also said “...the left part of his forehead looked like—when I got over to the car—looked like two pounds of ground beef”, “The blow-out was in the left front. The Zapruder film shows that. Frames 313, 314, 315” (High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, 1992, p. 447, Chapter 21. The Presidential Party, Malcolm Kilduff).

 

Gary Mack posted a comment to alt.assassination.jfk on 12/29/1999, regarding the Parkland press conference of 11/22/1963 (Link):

 

The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter, Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.

 

A post by Gary Mack on 1/3/2000 reads (Link):

 

Kilduff does, in fact, credit Burkley for the information, according to the soundtrack of the film. On his recent visit to Dallas, Kilduff told me he got his information from Perry. I suspect his conversation was with Burkley, the president's physician, as it would have been more appropriate than talking to Perry, a stranger. Still, he could have spoken with both.

 

Gary Mack posted a comment to alt.assassination.jfk on 12/29/1999, regarding the Parkland press conference of 11/22/1963 (Link):

 

The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter, Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.

 

A post by Gary Mack on 1/3/2000 reads (Link):

 

Kilduff does, in fact, credit Burkley for the information, according to the soundtrack of the film. On his recent visit to Dallas, Kilduff told me he got his information from Perry. I suspect his conversation was with Burkley, the president's physician, as it would have been more appropriate than talking to Perry, a stranger. Still, he could have spoken with both.

 

For some, this information may rekindle the suspicion that the Associated Press was telling the truth when it reported “...Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head” (Associated Press, United Press International and Dow Jones teletype reports of the Kennedy assassination, Sheet 10; Tri-City Herald, 11/22/1963, Bullet Entered Front Of Head; Oakland Tribune, 11/22/1963, Front Of Head; Surgeon Describes The Wound; Lancaster New Era, 11/22/1963, Doctors Took Prompt Action; The Hammond Times, 11/22/1963, Doctors Tell Of Trying To Save J.F.K.; Albuquerque Tribune, 11/22/1963, Treatment Described [link 2]; Associated Press, Charlotte News, 11/22/1963, President Kennedy Slain; Assassin Eludes Dragnet; AP, Telegraph-Herald, 11/22/1963, Physician Says Bullet Entered Front of Head; Newsday, 11/22/1963, Kennedy Slain: Shot by Dallas Assassin; Johnson Is New President; Great Falls Tribune, 11/23/1963, President’s Wound in Head, Neck; Hartford Courant, 11/23/1963, Surgeon Tells Of Efforts to Save President).

 

As it is written on your website, patspeer.com:

 

[...Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt, By Way of Illustration]

 

[...] We should consider, as well, Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." (Note: I can't remember where I got this quote from Mack...via an article, a taped interview, or a personal email. If you know the answer, please remind me. As it stands, I've tracked down a 12-29-99 post from Mack on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in which he claims Kilduff told him but a month before that he didn't intend to specify the wound by the temple as an entrance or an exit in the 11-22-63 press conference, and that he was merely pointing out the location of the wound.)

 

Also, Crenshaw did not exactly say that he saw a small head wound. He is on the record saying that he thought the large head wound was caused by a tangential wound, and that there was only a spot of blood on his left temple that might've looked like a wound at a glance. Crenshaw died in 2001, however in 2013 his former co-writer Jens Hansen (who was implicated in not only taking unacceptable creative liberties with Crenshaw's original story, but also losing a 11/23/1963 journal and a 1990 manuscript that Crenshaw claimed he made but didn't copy), says in the afterword of the 50th anniversary reskin, title changed from "JFK: Conspiracy of Silence" to "JFK Has Been Shot":

 

Dr. Crenshaw also saw three small wounds on the right side of the president’s face, but the horrendous brain damage, by comparison, caused these minor injuries to be ignored. When President Kennedy was embalmed, Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, confirmed a small wound in the temple and two other small wounds in the face. It is believed by some researchers that one of the bullets shot at the president struck the ground in front or to the side of the limousine, causing chipped cement fragments to act as shrapnel and hit the right side of President Kennedy’s face. These wounds were packed with wax.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11933#relPageId=18

 

Is there a higher quality version of the photo from this unpublished article?

This is a low-quality scan found in the files of the FBI, from an unpublished and undated draft of an article meant to be published in Liberty magazine, before it went out of business following the publication of it's last issue dated 7/15/1964. Both the 7/17/1964 issue and the unpublished article focus on photographer Norman Similas, a witness who was implied by Vincent Bugliosi to have lied about seeing LBJ attend a convention for the carbonated soda industry, because Johnson "wasn't even in town that day". But we know that Johnson attended this convention on 11/19/1963, and newspaper reports state that he gave a speech where said that sodapop was good for the economy and needed to be taxed less (Coca-Cola, anyone?). In the two articles from Liberty Magazine on Similas, Similas claims that while he was photographing LBJ, Johnson jokingly turned to him, put his hand partway in his coat and said "should I pose like Napolean?".

This might be an important photo to find because, if we are to use the logic that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination, one would probably need to believe that he was thinking about it at that very moment.

 

 

Link to part 1: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11933#relPageId=12

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

The book is fiction, it involves time travel for cripes' sake.  Get over yourselves.

 

This beef goes back to when King was featured in the media to claim that he believed in a lone gunman after studying the subject very well.

As many readers have pointed out, he doesn't know enough about researching real-life events, places, and things, let alone a time period. King probably doesn't/didn't have enough time of care to finely detail such things. Why does one of the child characters of IT have the catchphrase "can't be careful on a skateboard" despite that portion of the book taking place in the 1950's, when skateboarding was only becoming popularized in the 70's?

30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

 

Who is this Kirkpatrick lady? Were you quoting her as a joke to summarize the kind of thing Kissinger would say?

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Human rights are a matter of budget. A poor people's revolution is not likely to have much of a budget for extra human rights.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I seem to remember that the opposite happened, that Lifton told KRON they needed to talk to Stringer, and that when they did, he told them it was on the top or whatever and they decided to cut it out of their news piece on the back of the head witnesses. 

“Vero Beach Press-Journal”, 11/14/93: article by Craig Colgan---As Gary Aguilar has reported, “Craig Colgan reported Stringer’s surprise when he heard, and positively identified, his own tape-recorded voice making the above statements to Lifton in 1972. He insisted in the interview with Colgan that he did not recall his ever claiming that the wound was in the rear. [?] The wound he recalled was to the right side of the head [this is the identical about-face Stringer did with Livingstone after the first interview!]. ABC’s “Prime Time Live” associate producer, Jacqueline Hall-Kallas, sent a film crew to interview Stringer for a 1988 San Francisco KRON-TV interview [“JFK: An Unsolved Murder”, 11/18/88, with Sylvia Chase, later of “20/20” fame] after Stringer, in a pre-filming interview told Hall-Kallas that the wound was as he described it to Lifton. Colgan reported, “When the camera crew arrived, Stringer’s story had changed [another about-face]”, said Stanhope Gould, a producer who also is currently at ABC and who conducted the 1988 on-camera interview with Stringer…”we wouldn’t have sent a camera crew all the way across the country on our budget if we thought he would reverse himself”, Gould said…”(In the telephone pre-interview) he corroborated what he told David Lifton, that the wounds were not as the official version said they were,” Hall-Kallas said.”; 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Precisely. IF Stringer was unafraid to claim he signed an inventory saying no photos were missing because he was under pressure, he would also have been unafraid to say he was under a similar pressure not to say the brain photos were phonies. And yet he never made that claim. He was 78 when speaking to the ARRB, and had no recollection of even speaking to the HSCA, let alone being shown the photos at that time. 

More to the point, moreover, he told the ARRB the back of the head photo was legit. So why are those claiming he supports a conspiracy PRETENDING his claims about the photos support a back of the head blow-out, when he specifically said the opposite? 

It's just more fun, isn't it? 

Wasn't there a story about Stringer being interviewed, and saying the hold was in the back of the head, but only when the cameras started filming him did he instantly change to saying it was on the top of the head?

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

What? You must be aware that Ramsey Clark and John Stringer admitted that they were pressured into signing that inventory, because of the lack of any photographs of the interior chest.

 

A 12/1/1971 interview of Dr. McClelland by Harold Weisberg was included in Weisberg’s 1975 book Post Mortem (Link):

[...Epilogue, p. 376-377]

 

From Carrico’s office in Room 208, I went to the sixth floor, where Drs. Robert N. McClelland and Perry have offices opposite each other. McClelland was in, Perry was then not. McClelland was pleasant, greeting me cordially. I asked him about his contemporaneous statement, that “the cause of death” was “a gunshot wound of the left temple” (R527) He does remember it and began an apology by saying “it was a total mistake on my part”. His explanation is that “Ginger”, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, called the spot to his attention. McClelland seemed genuinely disturbed about this. He was bitter that the New Orleans assistant district attorneys had asked him about it and self-satisfied with how he talked them out of calling him as a witness – by telling them he would swear it had been a “total mistake”.

 

I asked him why he never corrected this alleged mistake, especially when he was deposed and Specter, having avoided it with obvious care, asked him instead if there was anything he had said that he wanted to change or anything he wanted to add (6H39).

 

McClelland had no answer. So I asked him how he know it was, in fact, a “total mistake”. He then shifted to this position: “I don’t know that it wasn’t and I don’t know that it was”. We both realized this was a far cry from his opening, “it was a total mistake,” for almost immediately, and without vigorous questioning, he was admitting openly and without leading questions that it might not have been any mistake. A bit embarrassed, he formulated still another position, “I presume it was a wrong assumption.”

 

He was anxious to complain about Garrison and his assistants, and I listened to a long, bitter and irrelevant diatribe, which seemed to satisfy him. When he ran down, I asked how he would or could now account for such an error, if error it was. He then conjectured it was a spot of splattered blood. Perhaps an experienced surgeon and professor of surgery cannot tell the difference between a bullet hole of entrance to which he attributed the crime of the century and a spot of blood. I found it not easy to believe. So I asked him how he came to realize that perhaps he was in error. That it turns out, was not anything he had seen or of which he had personal knowledge, but the autopsy report taken around and shown by the federal agents! It was not in the autopsy report so it was not true, regardless of his own professional observation and opinion.

 

There was another obvious question and I asked it: Had he, Jenkins, or anyone else wiped this alleged spot to see if it was no more than a spot of blood or to see if it was a bullet hole when all knew there would be an inquest which would have to establish the cause of death? His answer was simple, direct and unequivocal: “No.”

 

I reminded him that Jenkins also had testified to the existence of this left-temple wound. McClelland had no explanation.

 

Jenkins was not available. His second reference to this under oath was remarkably detailed and precise in locating the alleged wound in the left temple (6H51). This followed immediately upon an off-the-record “discussion” with Specter, the content of which Specter described as “on a couple of matters which I am now going to put on the record” (6H50). With regard to Jenkins’ professional belief and observation of the carefully described and oriented left-temple wound, Jenkins testified, “you have answered that for me”. This is one way of conducting an “investigation” with the lawyer telling the expert witness what to say and believe.

 

Thus it is clear, regardless of whether the doctors’ observations were correct or in error, on what could have been a vital element of the evidence, the only doctors who have personal knowledge have no basis for denying their immediate, competent, professional and unsolicited observation, that there had been a left-temple wound of entrance and that it was the likely cause of death. Instead, they were told by Specter and federal agents what to say and believe and what not to say or believe.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 9:58 PM, David Von Pein said:

Just look at the autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy's own body, Pat.

Why are you ignoring those photos of the actual victim in favor of a CD case?

 

What's wrong with the new 3D model study on the Zapruder film?

On 12/2/2023 at 8:59 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, Micah, I read your post and I know you are right. There were a few doctors who thought that there was a small wound near the left temple. And Dr. Jenkins was one of them!

I didn't bring it up because I wanted to keep my proof simple.

My proof still holds with this more detailed information. The difference is that Jenkins didn't accidentally point to the left temple when McClelland asked him where the wound was. He INTENTIONALLY pointed to the left temple! Because he did believe there was a small wound there.

So what McClelland said about Jenkins is (still) 100% true. But Jenkins lied when he said that McClelland misinterpreted Jenkins finger being on the left temple.

By the time Jenkins said what he did about McClelland merely thinking that Jenkins was pointing to the left temple, he was aware that the autopsy photos didn't show a blowout wound on the back of the head. And he did a 180 on his beliefs. He even lied about his earlier statement that the wound included occipital bone.

 

One thing I am not sure if I know is the number of interviews Dr. Jenkins gave in 1979.

On 7/30/1979, Jenkins was interviewed by Harrison Livingstone, and according to a transcription from the audio tape, Jenkins said (Link):

 

[...6:32]

 

Livingstone: “Well, Dr. McClelland said I think in the left temple, he found a–“

 

Dr. Jenkins: “No. Let’s get that straight [laughs]. Dr. McClelland walked in, I was standing there, and I actually saw it. I had a finger on the temporal artery [unintelligible] and [unintelligible] facing the heart. I didn’t [unintelligible] there because blood was going to drip behind my shoes.”

 

Livingstone: “Oh.”

 

Dr. Jenkins: “On the phone Dr. McClelland said ‘Well where was the wound?’ And I told him I put my finger [unintelligible] where the hole was. That’s the whole background for that. But this guy in New Orleans [Jim Garrison], built his case on it [unintelligible]. So, Dr. McClelland didn’t find a– blood there, he thought I was [unintelligible], underneath the temple area.”

 

[intercom interrupts]

 

Dr. Jenkins [to intercom]: “Please get Dr. [unintelligible].”

 

Livingstone: “Thank you.”

 

Dr. Jenkins: “You know, everybody is comin’ up with so much stuff on this. The Warren Commission I think was right, even if they [unintelligible] to these things, and they did a magnificent job not [unintelligible] access to the autopsy findings.”

 

Livingstone: “Yeah.”

 

Dr. Jenkins: “But that’s somethin’ that’s not popular to hear, and actually a lot of the [unintelligible].”

 

 

The same interview, or a different 1979 interview with Dr. Jenkins was summarized in Livingstone’s 2004 book The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy “As I remembered my meeting with him in 1979, when he had me lie down on a table and demonstrated the wounds (he did this with Ben Bradlee Jr. when my Boston Globe team went to Dallas to check my work), he said that he "thought" there was an entry hole in the left temple, but he was evidently mistaken” (Link).

 

Some of Livingstone interview tapes are stored at the JFK library, and most or all of the JFK library ones seem to have been uploaded to Youtube recently, but only Bart Kamp has access to the last known audio tapes and other records from Livingstone that have not been digitized yet. In terms of lost media from Harrison Livingstone, it may also be worth mentioning that his old website HarrisonELivingstone.com, seems to have some pages which were not archived on the Wayback machine:

 

 

Could there be any more lost media from Livingstone? Anything his family members may have been given or anything donated to a library other than the JFK library? I know that he was at one point considering donating some stuff to the Hood college in Maryland, but maybe de decided against it because that was Weisberg's spot.

Uhh... Hello? Did ya'll read my post which showed evidence that, at the very least, the left temple did have a spot of blood that somewhat looked like a wound? This apparently was not just a case of Jenkins feeling the temple and McClelland thinking he was pointing. So now we have at least 2 seemingly independent explinations for why there was intrique about the left temple area. Jenkins also told the Warren Commission "I thought there was a wound there". Both McClelland and Jenkins' testimony failed to fully address the left temple report - with McClelland, the talk seemed intentionally evasive.

12 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

Really?

Associated Press report, shortly after 2 pm, quoted by WOR Radio, New York, at 2:43 pm, CST (Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder from Within, p.154, n.58): ‘Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head’”

AP, “Treatment Described,” Albuquerque Tribune, 22 November 1963, p.58: “When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head.”

“When asked to specify the nature of the wound, Dr. Perry said that the entrance wound was in the front of the head,” Post-Dispatch News Services, “Priest Who Gave Last Rites ‘Didn’t See Any Sign of Life,’” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 November 1963, p.23A

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11339-why-transcript-1327c-is-a-fraud/

 

Ugh. I'm sorry but I don't think that tread is correct. A few searches of specific quotes on newspapers.com refute your hypothesis IMO.

 

Also, who were the Associated Press reports available physically in Dallas before 3 pm? Just Jack Bell or more?

 

Soon ill post more about the transcript and how it is corroborated by the radio reports.

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So??? Please don't tell me you're gonna cite him as an important witness who proves there was an entrance on the left temple...

I mean, to do that, you will have to claim that let's see the Parkland doctors and nurses who studied the body were wrong, the Bethesda doctors and assistants who studied the body were wrong, and the autopsy photos and x-rays were all faked, right? To hide a hole on the left temple proving someone fired from...where? The South Knoll? Plumlee-land? 

Perhaps we should do some research on common mistakes by doctors. I have by now had dozens of procedures performed in a hospital. A number of these involved my knee, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc. They usually have a doctors' assistant come in and put a mark on the knee wrist arm and shoulder etc before the procedure is to be performed, and have the patient agree to this mark. Why? Because doctors routinely mix up left and right and have to be shown which knee wrist arm and shoulder they are supposed to cut into, lest they cut into the wrong knee wrist arm and shoulder. Being told left or right isn't enough. They have to be shown. 

Since Porto viewed the body on its back, it would not be surprising if he yessiree mixed up right with left. He could very well have mixed up his own right and left while viewing Kennedy with Kennedy's right and left. 

For some reasons we get confused about this stuff all the time. Think of this example. A man is playing catch with his son, and yells out "Throw it to the left" Now, does the son throw it to his own left and his dad's right? Or to his dad's left and his own right? It's a toss-up, but I think most people initially think of their own left, and will only adjust and throw it the other person's left after giving it some consideration. . 

Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel stated that he personally saw a temple wound, and do did Hugh Huggins, although Huggins was a clown. We also have witnesses who, at the very least, indicated that there was a blood clot on the left side which looked like a wound.

 

In 1967, we have Dr. David Stewart, who would relate conversations with Dr. Perry, also claiming to have heard there was a left temple wound (although there is no known record of him stating exactly where he got the left temple information, specifically).

 

Also in 1967, we have Father Huber denying having seen a wound near the left eye, and stated that what he saw must have been a blood clot.

In 1970, we have James Gochenaur apparently claiming that Elmer Moore said that Perry told him there was a small wound near the left eye.

In 1979, Dr. Marion Jenkins told Livingstone that he thought blood on the left side may have influenced McClelland to think there was a wound there.

Along with a 6/23/1990 letter, Dr. McClelland wrote on a copy of his original hospital report “This is my statement to the Secret Service. There was no wound at the left temple as First thought - simply much blood clot in that area” (Link). He also said this to the ARRB in 1997.

In 1992, Perry did reportedly say: The basis for this was an intern seeing blood on Kennedy’s temple, but there was no wound there, Perry said.

 

From Dr. McClelland’s appearance in D Magazine, The Day Kennedy Died by Michael J. Mooney, Nov. 2008: Jenkins had his hands full, but nodded down to Kennedy’s head. He said, “Bob, there’s a wound there.” The head was covered in blood and blood clots, tiny collections of dark red mass. McClelland thought he meant there was a wound at the president’s left temple. Later that gesture would cause some confusion.

Also in 1992, we have Dr. Crenshaw denying that there was a left temple wound but claiming that there was a "blood clot" in that area.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

What??? Where is Porto's 11-22-63 report? Or WC testimony? Or even HSCA testimony? 

Are you really pushing that the best evidence for solving a mystery is not the evidence from the first witnesses, or the evidence from the best witnesses, but from someone who only emerged decades later, whose statements would inevitably have been influenced by the mountains of material dumped on the public's nconsciousness for the past 60 years? 

Not only did Harrison Livingstone appear to cite Dr. Porto directly, but Dr. Ronald Jones in 1997 also told a story about Dr. Porto speaking of something on the left temple.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Here's a test. Dr. McClelland's original report--the report designed to be his one and only contribution to the historical record--said the fatal wound was "of the left temple". Should we accept that as his ultimate statement? Or take into account his subsequent "corrections" to that account? And if the latter, how is that not inconsistent with yours and Gary's and so many other people's claim we can throw out the latter-day statements...corrections...of Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter? 

What's Lito Porto, chopped liver?

I've asked this before - is there any way that a new narrative will prop up arguing that the single bullet theory doesn't have to be true to make the official story work? What if they tried claiming Oswald intentionally drained some of the powder in one or more of the rounds he fired, firing one at Kennedy at around z180 and then Connally at around z222? Still implausable for so many reasons, but it could act as a way of reassuring the public that it would be physically possible.

What? How does it help the SBT? The exit point is over an inch below the top of the collar. That's more than a one-pixel error.

Does he have a video of the Pittsburgh conference with the autopsy witnesses?

On 11/21/2023 at 6:54 PM, Tom Gram said:

I mentioned this in the other thread, but am I crazy for thinking this animation supports the SBT more than it refutes it? Look at 1:31 in the Knott Labs video: 

They have the bullet entering below the shoulder line in a spot consistent with the autopsy photos and coming right out the left side of JFK’s tie.

I’d be interested in @Pat Speer’s comments on this. 

Doesn't it arguably show the exit point 1 1/2 inches or more below the throat point? It shows the line moving well through the tieknot, not just above it. And the appearence of the tie knot is based on the Zapruder film.

On 9/29/2023 at 6:57 PM, Micah Mileto said:

 

Sorry I couldn't have The Case For An altered Throat Wound out by the anniversary. The more time the better it will be. My first write-up took 2 years also. so much xxxxing trivia to cram into every page that may or may not be considered "suspicious" - for the sake of completeness I must include and acknowledge every theory and every suspicion even if I don't agree with it.

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

Isn't the Connally wound supposed to be descending at 27 degrees down through his torso?

The bullet could've gone in any number of directions after it would've Connally's fifth rib. Still a stretch in the model.