Michael Griffith

Some of Pat Speer’s criticisms of Dr. McClelland are downright silly. For example, he actually argues that because McClelland used the term “of the left temple” instead of “to the left temple” in his 11/22/63 report, McClelland may have thought that the large head wound was near the right temple and that he had confused his right with his left because he was looking at Kennedy upside down. Pat also argues that since McClelland did not specify the location of the “massive head and brain injury” in his 11/22 report, he therefore failed to indicate there was “any wound anywhere but on the left temple.” Now, come on—that is just ridiculous. A much more logical, sensible explanation is that McClelland described a frontal-bone entry wound because he believed it was an entry wound based on the fact that there was a large defect somewhere behind the frontal-bone entry wound. Pat pounces on the fact that a few weeks after the shooting, McClelland told journalist Richard Dudman that there was nothing about the head wound that suggested a shot from the front. But this was after McClelland had heard about the autopsy report. This was also after every major media outlet had been insisting since the day after the shooting, if not earlier, that all the shots had come from behind JFK, from the TSBD. By Pat’s own admission, when McClelland testified before the WC, he was publicly supporting the party line that the shots came from behind. Yet, he still said that the large head wound was in the right occipital-parietal part of the head and that some of the cerebellum had been blasted out: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 33) If anything, the fact that during this same time period McClelland was publicly going along with the line that all the shots came from behind makes his WC testimony all the more compelling. Pat nitpicks over the fact that McClelland was not absolutely perfectly consistent in how he drew or demonstrated the large head wound. This is unserious nitpicking. McClelland always drew or demonstrated the wound as being clearly behind the right ear, even though his placements were not identical. He never drew or demonstrated a wound that was directly above the right ear and that did not include part of the back of the head. Pat makes the odd claim that Clint Hill’s description of the large head wound is “vague” and could refer to the area above the right ear! Hill, who saw the wound up close for several minutes, said the wound was in “the right-rear portion of the skull.” How could anyone infer that this could refer to a wound above the right ear? Again, come on. This is silly. The area above the right ear is not in the “right-rear portion of the skull.” It is in the middle of the side of the head, several inches from what anyone would describe as the “rear” part of the skull. Pat is so ideologically committed to denying the large back-of-head wound that he can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hill’s straightforward account. BTW, when Agent Hill demonstrated the location of the large head wound in a filmed interview in 2013, he put his hand on the right-rear part of his head, several inches behind his right ear (LINK; see also the screencap below). Jackie Kennedy, who held JFK’s head in her hands on the way to Parkland Hospital, told the WC that on the ride to Parkland she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head: 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. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

Given the historic ARRB disclosures, coupled with the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, Clint Hill's 11/30/63 report, the Parkland doctors' and nurses' WC testimony, the Ben Bradlee interviews, the Harrison Livingstone interviews, the fact that Dr. Finck questioned the origin of the back-of-head photos in his HSCA testimony, the mutually corroborating optical density analyses of the skull x-rays, etc., I don't see why the "age of the BOH-wound is broken." I reject the idea that Dr. McClelland fabricated his description of the large head wound in his WC testimony. He had no conceivable motive for doing so, and his description of a large right-rear head wound aligns closely with how most of the Dallas doctors and nurses described the wound in their WC testimony. Dr. Charles Carrico The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3) The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6) Dr. Malcolm Perry I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. (6 H 9) Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically? Dr. Perry. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area. . . . (6 H 11) Dr. William Kemp Clark (neurosurgeon) I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20) Mr. Specter. Dr. Clark, in the line of your specialty, could you comment as to the status of the President with respect to competency, had he been able to survive the head injuries which you have described and the total wound which he had? Dr. Clark. This, of course, is a question of tremendous importance. Just let me state that the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. This would have led to a visual field deficit, which would have interfered in a major way with his ability to read, not the interpretation of reading matter per se, but the acquisition of information from the printed page. (6 H 26) Notice that Dr. Clark said that JFK lost tissue from the cerebellum, from the right occipital lobe, and from the right parietal lobe. This is not what we see in the alleged autopsy brain photos. Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound ; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. (6 H 48) Cerebellar tissue looks very different than any other brain tissue, and it is only located low in the brain behind the occiput. Dr. Ronald Coy Jones Mr. Specter. Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound? Dr. Jones. There was large defect in the back side of the head as the Presi- dent lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54) Mr. Specter. Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to account- ing for the point of wounds which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter? Dr. Jones. With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head. (6 H 56) Dr. Gene Akin The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. (6 H 65) Mr. Specter. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet hit his head? Dr. Akin. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either. (6 H 67) Dr. Paul Peters Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound? Dr. Peters. Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember—I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Mr. Specter. What did you notice in the occiput? Dr. Peters. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. (6 H 71) Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped to clean JFK's head wound, packed the wound with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around the head to prepare the body for the casket: Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what? Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter. And what was that condition? Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad—you know. Mr. Specter. How many holes did you see? Miss Bowron. 1 just saw one large hole. (6 H 136) Nurse Patricia Hutton Just after JFK was wheeled into the ER, Nurse Patricia Hutton was asked to place a pressure dressing on the head wound because "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head." But, she said, the pressure dressing was ineffective "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (11/22/63 statement, Price Exhibit No. 21, p. 1). Nurse Doris Nelson Nurse Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She got a good look at JFK's head. In 1981, in a recorded interview, journalist Ben Bradlee asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson said she got "a fairly good look. . . . When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the autopsy photographs that show the back of the head intact, she was incredulous, saying, "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (LINK) Bradlee even had Nelson draw the wound on an artificial skull. She put the wound in the right-rear part of the skull. Then, Bradlee asked her if the autopsy photos showed the head wound that she saw, and she said "No." Bradlee then asked her specifically about the large wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos. She rejected it, saying, "There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head] (LINK). Ignoring all this, WC apologists give precedence to the one and only time that Nurse Nelson demonstrated the wound as being only on the right side of the head and not at all on the back of the head, which she did when she was interviewed by a LIFE reporter two years after she had described and drawn the wound as being in the right-rear area of the head. The reporter asked her to show him where the wound was, and she put her hand only on the right side of the head. WC apologists of course accept this demonstration and reject her prolonged interview with Bradlee where she repeatedly said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head, drew the wound on an artificial skull, and expressly rejected the head wound shown in the autopsy photos.

To his credit, Pat rejects the bogus cowlick entry site (the red spot) and correctly argues that a bullet entered near the EOP. However, Pat cannot explain how an EOP bullet could have missed the cerebellum and the rear part of the right occipital lobe. Unless the gunman fired from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD, there is no way the bullet could have avoided smashing through the cerebellum, and of course a number of witnesses, including a neurosurgeon, saw substantial damage to the cerebellum. Pat is in this predicament because he won't even admit that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent. The preposterous brain photos show a virtually intact brain, a brain with a single long laceration on the right side and with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing. They also show a virtually undamaged cerebellum, the only damage being a small sliver of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. This is clearly not JFK's brain. For one thing, the skull x-rays show, as Dr. Fred Hodges noted, "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar have confirmed this. Dr. Mantik confirmed it with optical density measurements. We also know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. Let's read what the FBI's Robert Frazier said about the blood and tissue he found just on and in the limousine when he examined the car early in the morning on 11/23/63: We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area. ("Shaw Trial Proceedings," 2/21-22/1969, volume 29, pp. 8-9, HSCA record number 180-10097-10181) Again, this was not counting the blood and brain matter that was splattered onto the follow-up car's front hood and windshield, onto Agent Kinney's clothes, onto the windshields of the two left-trailing police bikes, and onto police officers Hargis and Martin's clothes.

A few points: -- Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the doctors at Parkland Hospital described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the small wound at the anterior surface of the neck, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158). -- Autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169). -- The greatly enlarged tracheotomy wound could indicate that fragments were retrieved from beyond the throat wound during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB. -- Some have suggested that the missile that hit the throat may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield. -- The throat wound was small (3-5 mm), roundish, and, most important, punched inward. Nurse Henchliffe told the WC that the throat wound looked like an entry wound, and that in all her years as a nurse and having seen many gunshot wounds, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound.

I think the idea that Diem's assassination was related to the Chicago attempt is pure fantasy. Even most of the South Vietnamese generals who took part in the coup against Diem did not know he would be killed--in fact, they joined the coup on the condition that Diem would not be harmed. When they learned that Big Minh and a handful of other plotters had had Diem executed, they were furious. This fury led to the January 1964 coup that overthrew Big Minh and his junta.

This interview is more evidence that contradicts the outlandish theory that Nixon was one of the plotters or that Nixon knew of the plot and did nothing to stop it.

My point was to show that when it comes to the JFK case, the refusal to release the records has been bipartisan, that it has not just been judges and politicians from one party who have tried to block the release of records, but judges and politicians from both parties.

Well, let's be clear about one thing from the outset: Very few conspiracy theorists still believe that the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine/accurate, especially the autopsy brain photos (which are brazenly contradicted by the skull x-rays). The Zapruder film is a different matter. There are many WC skeptics who still believe the Zapruder film is the original film. As for why a few conspiracy theorists still believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine, I think one reason they believe this is that you can make a strong case against the lone-gunman theory even if you assume the autopsy materials are genuine, ala Dr. Joe Riley. For example, the existing autopsy materials show two separate wound paths in the brain, one cortical and the other subcortical. The x-rays show pretty clear indications of a frontal shot. The x-rays also show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone and a clear gap between the triangular fragment and the missing parietal bone, a fact that the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP erroneously and fraudulently denied. Etc., etc., etc. I think that many WC critics still believe the Zapruder film is the original for the same reason that a few critics believe the autopsy materials are genuine, i.e., that you can make a powerful case against the lone-gunman theory with the existing Zapruder film. By even the most ultra-cautious, conservative analysis, the film shows reactions to four shots. I believe that the plotters were unable to edit the film enough to remove all evidence of multiple gunmen, and that the edited version was unacceptable to them, which is why the film was suppressed for so long--the film was not shown to the American people until 1975.

Regarding the flimsy, dubious case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, I quote from Dr. Gerald McKnight’s section on the shooting from his book Breach of Trust: Belmont was accurate when he told Katzenbach that Oswald had never been a suspect in the Dallas police’s investigation into the Walker case. All of the Dallas police’s witness testimony pointed to two or three conspirators with cars using a high-powered rifle and steel-jacketed ammunition. Oswald did not drive and had no known access to a car, his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was not high-powered, and the ammunition he allegedly used to kill Kennedy was copper-jacketed. The bullet the Dallas police recovered from Walker’s home had passed through the center wood strip of the outer screen of the general’s study, through a copper weather strip, and penetrated an inside masonry wall reinforced with solid tin and metal lathing, finally falling onto a pile of papers in the adjoining room. Because the bullet was completely mutilated and deformed by such obstruction, the Dallas police claimed they had run no ballistics test on the recovered slug. . . . Whatever weapon was involved in the Walker shooting incident, it was highly unlikely that a 6.5-mm bullet fired from Oswald’s rifle could have penetrated a cinder block, as did the projectile recovered from Walker’s house. During his first appearance before the Warren Commission, Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s chief firearms expert, repeatedly stressed that Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano had a “very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight”. . . . What Eisenberg carefully avoided and Frazier did not volunteer were the results of the FBI’s spectrographic analysis of Q-188. A week before Frazier appeared before the Commission, Eisenberg met with him and Agent Henry H. Heilberger to review the FBI lab results for the Walker bullet. Eisenberg could not have been encouraged by what he learned from Heilberger, the one who ran the tests. Heilberger concluded in his report (PC-78378) that the lead alloy in the Walker bullet was different from the lead alloy of the two large bullet fragments recovered from under the left jump seat of the presidential limousine. (pp. 48-50) In 1979 Walker was watching a televised session of the House Select Committee on Assassinations when Robert Blakey, the committee’s chief counsel, held up CE 573 as a visual aide to augment his narrative on the firearms evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Walker, a thirty-year career army officer with extensive combat experience in World War II, and with more than a passing familiarity with military weaponry, was stunned. According to Walker, what Blakey represented as the bullet fired into his home bore no resemblance to the piece of lead the police had recovered, which he had held in his own hand and closely examined. (p. 52) McKnight also deals at length with the highly suspicious “discovery” of the alleged Oswald note, the absence of Lee and Marina’s prints on the note, the eyewitness testimony that two men were involved and that neither looked like Oswald, and the pressure that was applied to Marina.

I just hope that a new book is written about the Lafitte datebook, one that is not laced with egregious tar-brush attacks on conservative political figures and their supporters.

Sigh. . . . A few facts, facts that have been known for years: -- Walker himself insisted that the bullet in evidence looked nothing like the bullet that he examined at the time of the shooting. -- FBI spectrographic testing found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from the lead in the bullet fragments found in JFK's limo. -- Guinn's bogus NAA finding regarding the Walker bullet has been debunked. -- The Walker bullet was fired from a high-powered rifle, a rifle powerful enough to enable the bullet to go through brickwork. The Mannlicher–Carcano rifle was not that powerful--it was a rather low-velocity weapon--and there is no evidence that Oswald had access to a high-powered rifle. -- Two men were seen leaving the shooting scene, and neither of them resembled Oswald. -- The alleged Oswald note smells to high heaven. The finding of the note alone raises strong doubt about its authenticity. The police and the FBI thoroughly searched Ruth Paine’s home twice, once on the afternoon of the shooting and again the next day, and failed to find the note. Also, the note was undated, did not mention Walker, and said nothing about a reason for a potential arrest. Moreover, two of the three handwriting experts consulted by the HSCA declined to identify the note's handwriting as Oswald's handwriting. And, none of the seven fingerprints on the note belonged to either Lee or Marina.

Personally, I could never feel shamed by anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory. Similarly, I could never feel shamed by someone who believes that Elvis did not die in 1977 but faked his death and lived a secret life for many years thereafter. Given all we now know about why the SBT was conjured up in the first place, given the release of clear photos of the tie and what those photos show (e.g., no hole through the tie and no nick on the edge of the tie), given the hard physical evidence of the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt, given the ARRB releases about the absolute and positive determination during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, given Dr. Mantik's CT scan of a JFK-like torso showing no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through bone, given that the Zapruder film indisputably shows that JFK was hit before Z190, given the demolition of Guinn's NAA fraud, given that three of the Dallas doctors revealed that the throat wound was above the tie knot, and given the recent Knott Laboratory 3D laser SBT analysis, etc., etc., there is just no excuse for still believing in the SBT.

Anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory is in no position to shame anyone, especially after the release of close-up photos of the shirt and tie, after the demolition of Guinn's NAA, and after the the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis of the SBT. Reasonable people will recognize this paragraph as a mix of strawman polemic and a denial of documented facts. We could literally fill hundreds of pages with real-life cases of innocent suspects who were wrongly convicted because the police and/or prosecutors used faked evidence, altered evidence, and/or planted evidence. FYI, it is an established fact that the CIA ran long-term imposter projects. "Presidential body-snatchers"? Well, we now know that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda long before its official arrival time, and that it arrived in a cheap metal military shipping casket, not in the ceremonial casket into which it was placed in Dallas. Personally, I've never mentioned or seen references to "photo-alteration vans" in Dealey Plaza. Photo alteration probably occurred elsewhere. There are technical anomalies and impossibly fast movements in the Zapruder film that no anti-alteration apologist has yet been able to explain, not to mention the absence of events in the film that numerous witnesses described (such as the limo stop/marked slowdown). How many times have governments been caught using fake photos for propaganda/disinformation purposes? Did you miss the news about the CIA's frequent use of fake photos in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s? How many thousands of cases of fake passports that fooled government customs personnel do you want to talk about? It is almost comical that WC apologists, and a few misguided WC critics, act like photo fakery and photo alteration only happen in fiction movies and spy novels.

In fact, in some criminal cases, eyewitness accounts are given years after the fact but are still viewed as credible and reliable. In the case of the large back-of-head wound, we have written same-day accounts from several doctors. We have Agent Hill's 11/30/63 report in which he mentions seeing the wound and notes that he saw JFK's head three times on the day of the shooting, once for several minutes on the back of the limo, again at Parkland Hospital, and again at Bethesda (where he was specifically asked to view the wounds). We have extensive WC testimony from Parkland doctors and nurses who saw the wound. We have recorded private interviews with medical and non-medical personnel who saw the wound either at Parkland or Bethesda. We have the HSCA interviews in which numerous Parkland and Bethesda witnesses recalled seeing the wound. And, we have the ARRB interviews in which a number of witnesses, including several new ones, recalled seeing the wound or recalled seeing the wound in autopsy photos that were excluded from the official collection.

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion.

As usual, you are being very selective in your choice of witnesses and statements. How about the nurses who saw, and in one case handled, a large back-of-head wound? How about the morticians who saw, handled, and filled a large back-of-head wound? How about the federal agents who saw a large back-of-head wound (even though they thought it was an exit wound from a shot from the rear)? How about the funeral worker who felt the edges of the back-of-head wound as he helped put the body in the casket? How about the other witnesses at the autopsy who saw a large back-of-head wound (Karnei, Reed, McHugh, Canada, Ebersole, Stringer [first interview], Custer [first interview], etc.)? How about the autopsy photographer and the autopsy photo lab technician who said they saw autopsy photos that showed a large back-of-head wound? How about the newsman at Parkland who saw a large back-of-head wound? How about the 11/22/63 Parkland reports that mention a right occipital-parietal wound? Why do you suppose Finck questioned the authenticity of the back-of-head autopsy photo? What about the brazen contradiction between the skull x-rays and the brain photos regarding the amount of missing brain (much of the right brain missing vs. only 1-2 ounces of brain missing)?

To read this post, one would never guess that suspects are charged and convicted based solely or mostly on eyewitness testimony all the time. It happens every day in our courts. In most cases, many if not the majority of the witnesses did not give their accounts immediately after the event but anywhere from half an hour to an hour to several days or even weeks after the fact. I would like to see a study where dozens of witnesses independently make the same egregious mistake in describing a wound when they have clear reference points to which to associate the wound. We're not talking about a few people, but at least over two dozen who supposedly could not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound in the back of the head that included part of the occiput. We're talking about nurses and morticians who handled the skull, for crying out loud. We're talking about a federal agent who saw the wound three times in one day, the first time being from just a few feet away and for several minutes. We're talking about a funeral home worker who held JFK's head in his hands while he helped put the body in the casket and who could feel the jagged edges of a large wound in the back of the head.

So your argument is that dozens of people independently, and in three different locations, actually saw a large wound above the right ear but for some inexplicable reason mistook it for a large wound that was 3-4 inches farther back on the head and included part of the occiput, even though some of them actually handled the head or saw the wound up-close for several minutes, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy. I don't see how anyone can truly, deep down, believe this. We now know that Dr. Finck questioned the authenticity of the back-of-head photo in his HSCA FPP testimony. We know that one of the FBI agents at the autopsy (Francis O'Neill) said the back-of-head photo looked "doctored" and did not show the head as he remembered it. We know that Saundra Spencer and Joe O'Donnell told the ARRB that they saw autopsy photos that showed a large hole in the back of the head. We also know that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent because the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing, whereas the autopsy photos show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing (as Bugliosi foolishly and gladly acknowledged). We further know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. I find it much more logical and easier to believe that a handful of autopsy photos are fraudulent than to believe that dozens of people, including doctors and nurses and morticians, independently mistook a large wound above the right ear for a large wound in the back of the head.

I think you misspoke. The only skeptics who accept the large back-of-head wound are WC skeptics. WC apologists universally reject the back-of-head wound. WC skeptics accept it. Anyway, your posts are great. Keep them coming! If anyone is getting "headaches" from your posts, they are getting them because their brains are trying to break free from the lone-gunman brainwashing that has chained them down all these years.

No WC apologist has yet offered a rational, credible explanation for why Tippit was so far out of his area when all other police officers had understandably been ordered to head to the downtown area. Even the 1:16 shooting time requires that we believe that Tippit's killer somehow walked past 10th and Patton before Tippit arrived, then inexplicably turned around and started walking west before Tippit arrived, and then turned around again and resumed his eastward heading, i.e., away from Tippit's car, when he saw Tippit's car approaching.

Requested DENIED. Resubmit in 90 days with triplicate forms. Be advised that you must answer the first question on the form before you can complete the rest of the form. The first question reads, "Do you still believe in the single-bullet theory?" Warning: Checking the Yes box will gray-out the rest of the form, and you will be sent links to (1) the overhead CT image that proves that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, and (2) the recent Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis that proves that a bullet exiting JFK's throat could not have caused Connally's back wound.

Gerry, your handler has asked me to advise you that you're sharing too much information about CIA recruiting operations. He also asked me to pass along that it would be a shame if your scheduled promotion were delayed or revoked. Remember: I'm just the messenger here.

And then there was Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton. She said nothing about seeing a large wound above the right ear, but she did see a large wound in the back of the head. Nurse Hutton saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart, and then she helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK's life. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound, but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Are we to believe that she could not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head? How did all the morticians fail to see the obvious wound above the right ear that we see in the autopsy photos? Mortician Tom Robinson said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He provided a diagram of the wound and put it in the occiput (MD 88, p. 5). Robinson gave the same description to the HSCA in 1977 (HSCA interview transcript, 1/12/1977, MD 63, p. 2). Mortician John VanHoesen said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" even after the skull was reconstructed (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage." Mortician Joe Hagan said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back." Gesturing to the back of his head, he said that "all of this was open in the back." The ARRB meeting report notes that he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head" (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5). Were all these medical personnel legally blind and/or astonishingly ignorant of basic anatomy? Are we to believe that they looked at a large wound above the right ear and somehow imagined that it was 3-4 inches farther back on the head? Is it just an amazing coincidence that after getting a close-up, prolonged look at JFK's large head wound en route to Parkland, and after seeing the wound twice more that day, Agent Clint Hill said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? And is it an even more amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large head wound with gauze, Diana Bowron, said the wound was in the back of the head? Could she not distinguish between the right ear and the back of the head while she was cleaning the wound and packing it with gauze?

I've never really cared a great deal about the identity of the shooters. I'm much more interested in the identity of the plotters and in the identity of those who knowingly participated in the cover-up.

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline: KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here. SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . . SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline? KELLERMAN: Yes, sir. SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture? KELLERMAN: The little finger. SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger. KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81) [/quote] During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10). Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear: Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed. Mr. SPECTER. All right. Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81) In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head: 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. . . . At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman 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. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745) So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull. Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).