Jump to content
The Education Forum

Keven Hofeling

Members
  • Posts

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Keven Hofeling

  • Birthday 12/02/1966

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    801-784-8008
  • Yahoo
    j.keven.jd@jkhofelinglaw.org

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah. United States.
  • Interests
    Political Science, including the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Recent Profile Visitors

484 profile views

Keven Hofeling's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

  1. The following article written by Allan Eaglesham (who I have seen @James DiEugenio write highly of) is what I had believed to be a solution for the autopsy photograph landmarks (such as the wall telephone, tiles and head stirrup) that Bethesda techs Jim Jenkins and Paul O'Connor (as well as others) had said they did not recognize as being part of the Bethesda morgue they had worked in, but after seeing the LaPlante and Russo podcast, I'm not so sure. The article is on @Allan Eaglesham's website (the link for which is provided below), but it is rather aged and no longer has the autopsy photographs of William Pitzer attached to it (and for some reason the letter "s" is missing throughout the original, which I have corrected in the version below). 'Where Were the JFK Autopsy Photographs Taken?' --by Allan Eaglesham (Originally published in JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly XI(2) 30-36 January 2006) https://manuscriptservice.com/AutopsyRoom Floor Tiles The tiling on the autopsy room floor is visible in Figure 2 and 3, and in an overall shot of LCDR Pitzer's body on the table, part of the edge of which is shown in Figure 6. similarity in the tiling is striking. Although it is impossible to determine whether tile size is the same in Figure 3 and 6, it appears that they are of similar dimension. It is likely that the photograph shown in Figure 2 was taken in the same room as that in Figure 6. A controversial aspect of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination lies with the available photographs that were purportedly taken before and during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH), Maryland. My objective here is not to revisit that controversy -- the degree to which the wounds in the photographs match the memories of those who witnessed the autopsy and of those who attended the president at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas -- but rather to address just one component of it: were the photographs taken in the BNH morgue? Author Harrison E. Livingstone's description of the left-profile photograph (Figure 1) in High Treason 2 (Carroll & Graf, New York, 1992) include: "Note the vertical grout lines between the tile where the hair meets the forehead. The tiles to the left side of it are not full-size, as though this were a composite photograph. The autopsy crew says there was no phone at that position on the wall alongside the table." (emphasis added) 📷Figure 1 A meeting in Dallas organized by Mr. Livingstone in 1991 was attended by autopsy technician Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins and photographer Floyd Riebe. Part of the discussion is described in High Treason 2 as follows [1]: "There was a moment of quiet as the men studied the autopsy photographs. Then the bomb exploded: 'This doesn't even look like the morgue!' Paul said. 'What?' I exclaimed. 'That's true,' Jenkins said. 'It doesn't look like the morgue [at Bethesda].' Floyd Riebe said, 'No, I just noticed the floor.' 'What did the floor look like?' 'Well it was similar in design, but it was white!' The floor at Bethesda was stone tile. It was put in there so it would last for years.' 'What color was it?' 'It was white and black.' 'This area does not exist in that morgue,' Jenkins said. 'Does not!' Paul said. 'We have no wooden structure in the morgue.' 'The Bethesda floor had the small dots,' Floyd said. We saw them in the pictures. 'We didn't have anything wooden in there,' Paul said. 'It does not look like the morgue,' Jenkins said." This exchange is summarized by Livingstone as follows[2]: "All insist that the 'Death-stare' picture of the president (Figure 2) was not taken in the morgue at Bethesda." (emphasis added) 📷Figure 2. Yet, I do not deduce from the above discussion that there was consensus that the floor looks wrong. And the presence of the wooden structure (Figure 3)-- apparently a movable object -- does not preclude the possibility that the photograph was taken in the Bethesda morgue. 📷Figure 3. At the meeting in Dallas, O'Connor and Jenkins also stated that they had no recollection of the metal head-brace visible in some of the autopsy photographs (see Figure 1); rather, a block was placed under the neck to support the head. Lack of recognition of the head-brace was repeated by O'Connor and Jenkins in interviews with William Law in the late 1990s [3,4]. In a discussion in his book Bloody Treason (Laurel, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, 1997), of the photograph in Figure 1, Noel Twyman states [5]: "Paul O'Connor told me that the metal head rest...was not in use at the Bethesda autopsy room... [Figure 2] shows a wooden structure... According to O'Connor, no such structure was present at the Bethesda autopsy room during the autopsy. This is evidence that the president's body was intercepted before it arrived at Bethesda and, during that time, [Figure 1] and other photos were taken." (emphasis added) New Photograph The obvious problem is that judgment of the appearance of the autopsy room in the available photographs of President Kennedy's body is filtered through decades of human memory. No other photographs have been unearthed that show the autopsy room as it was in 1963. Furthermore, that part of the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) has been refurbished and the morgue is now in a different location. However, photographs taken at the autopsy on the body of Lieutenant Commander William B. Pitzer (WBP) -- who died at the NNMC on October 29, 1966 -- have become available* [6], some of which show details of the autopsy room. (*Copies of the WBP autopsy photographs in the author's possession do not show the face or head of the deceased.) Wall Telephone One of the photographs of LCDR Pitzer's body is a left-profile close-up that reveals detail, albeit blurred, of the wall behind (Figure 4). Close examination of the Kennedy left-profile photograph (Figure 1) shows that Mr. Livingstone misinterpreted the different tile sizes. Tile-size differences resulted not from photographic fakery but from the fact that they were on a support column (Figure 1, inset). The right-hand edge of the column is visible in Figure 4 (see "column corner"), casting a shadow on the wall to the rear. The corner of the back wall at a junction with a passage to an adjacent room (top left of Figure 1) is also visible in Figure 4 ("corner"), and, as in Figure 1, the base of the telephone slightly overlaps the top edge of the wall tiles. 📷Figure 4. When the WBP photograph is laid over the JFK photographs such that the telephones are the same width (Figure 5), the wall corner at the passage to the adjacent room lines up as do the right-hand edge of the support columns. This is evidence that the photographs shown in Figures 1 and 4 were taken in the same room. 📷Figure 5. 📷Figure 6. Metal Head-Brace The picture from which Figure 6 was cropped -- an overall view of the body taken at the beginning of the WBP autopsy -- also shows a metal head-brace similar to that in Figure 1 (see Figure 7). It was removed for subsequent close-up picture of LCDR Pitzer's body; the brace is absent but the attachment fixture on the autopsy table is visible in another photograph (Figure 8), and is similar to that in Figure 1. 📷Figure 7. 📷Figure 8. Autopsy Table The JFK back-of-the-head photograph in Figure 9 shows what may be a blood spot or a drainage hole on or in the surface of the autopsy table (black arrow). The autopsy table visible in a WBP photograph (Figure 10, left and bottom right) shows that the table surface comprised removable stainless-steel plates that had spaced drainage holes. By lining up the "spot" in Figure 9 with a drainage hole, the distance to the edge of the autopsy table is approximately the same in both photographs (Figure 10, top right v. bottom right). A gap between the stainless-steel plate is visible in Figure 9 (white arrow). The photographs appear to be mutually consistent, and may show the same autopsy table. 📷Figure 9. 📷Figure 10. Location of the Pitzer Photographs The WBP autopsy report is typed on AUTOPSY PROTOCOL standard Form 503, which doesn't have an entry for location, possibly because it was simplified to have occurred at the NNMC. Two sources of documentary evidence tend to confirm that the autopsy on LCDR Pitzer's body took place at the Naval Hospital, NNMC, Bethesda, MD. In an FBI 302 report, the duty doctor (interviewed October 29, 1966, the day of LCDR Pitzer's death) is quoted as stating that the autopsy would be at the "National Naval Medical Center" on the morning of October 30 (Figure 11), and an investigation report by the Montgomery County Deputy Medical Examiner John G. Ball, dated October 29, 1966, states that the autopsy would take place at "Bethesda Naval Hospt." on October 30 (Figure 12). 📷Figure 11. 📷Figure 12. However, one of the WBP autopsy photographs caused me to question whether it was taken in the Bethesda morgue. With reference to the cadaver, it has a point-of-view similar to that in Figure 2, but shows more of the torso. In the background, vertical lines are visible, the nature of which was unclear. Lightening the photographs revealed that the vertical lines were bars of a barrier or railing (Figure 13). I consulted a "view from the gallery" sketch of the BNH autopsy room made by Harold Rydberg [7] and, indeed, it includes such a barrier (Figure 14). Although his sketch shows a single horizontal bar, Mr. Rydberg recently told me that it "could have had vertical bars." 📷Figure 13. 📷Figure14. William Law contacted Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins, seeking their recollection of any barrier. They agreed with Mr. Rydberg that one was situated in front of the gallery. Mr. O'Connor stated that it had no internal bars and Mr. Jenkins stated that the internal bars were vertical. I interpret their unanimity on the presence of a barrier to be consistent with what is seen in the Pitzer photographs. Furthermore, similar steps to the gallery are seen in Figure 2 and 13 (see Figure 15). 📷Figure 15. Conclusions The information presented indicates that the Kennedy-autopsy photographs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 9 were taken in the morgue at the Bethesda Naval hospital, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. This does not preclude the possibility that the president's body was intercepted before it arrived at the Bethesda morgue; however, the case for interception should now be appraised on evidence other than the appearance of the autopsy room in Figures 1, 2 and 9. The presence of the wooden object (Figure 3) and of the metal head-brace (Figures 2 and 9) do not exclude the possibility that these photographs were taken at the Naval Hospital. Paul O'Connor' and Jim Jenkins's lack of recollection of these objects in the autopsy room during the evening of 11/22/63 raises a different question: when were these photographs taken in the Bethesda morgue? In a 1998 interview with William Law, technician Jerrol Custer said that the wooden object is the base of the portable machine with which he X-rayed the president's body [8]. Furthermore, Custer stated that the metal head-brace was removed prior to his taking X-rays [9]. This suggests that the wooden object and the metal head-brace were present early in the proceedings and both were removed for the autopsy proper, which may explain why O'Connor and Jenkins have no recollection of them; on the other hand, neither O'Connor nor Jenkins is of the opinion that the wooden object was a portable X-ray machine [10,11]. If the wooden object was not Mr. Custer's, the question is begged again: when were these photographs taken? Acknowledgment The forbearance and generosity of the donor of the WBP autopsy photographs are most gratefully acknowledged. I am thankful also to Harold Rydberg for kind permission to use his sketch, to William Law for contacting Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins on my behalf, and to Bernice Moore for suggestions that led to improvements in the text. Notes [1] Livingstone HE (1992) High Treason 2. Carroll & Graf: New York, pp. 291-292. [2] ibid. p. 292. [3] Law WM Eagleham A (2004) In the Eye of History. JFK Lancer: Southlake, TX, p. 57. [4] ibid. p. 91. [5] Twyman NH (1997) Bloody Treason. Laurel: Rancho Santa Fe, CA, p. 241. [6] Eagleham A Hersh KF (2004) The Pitzer Case: Autopsy Photographs Released. JFK/Deep Politic Quarterly 9(2) 22-24. (Available here) [7] Mr. Rydberg's drawing was made for In the Eye of History [3], but not included. [8] Law loc. cit. p. 129. [9] Law loc. cit. p. 113. [10] Law loc. cit. p. 57n. [11] Law loc. cit. pp. 90-91. SCHEMATIC OF BETHESDA MORGUE BY PAUL O'CONNOR (1992) SKETCH OF BETHESDA MORGUE BY SKIP RYDBERG (2003) -- DONE FOR WILLIAM LAW
  2. Below is an excerpt of a podcast by Dealey Plaza UK researchers Rick Russo and Brooks LaPlante about there being an "old" Bethesda morgue and a "new" Bethesda morgue which they claim holds the key to explaining why Bethesda technicians Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Jim Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Floyd Reibe did not recognize some of the landmarks in the autopsy photographs (such as the wall telephone, tiles and head stirrup). According to them, the explanation is that some of the autopsy photographs were taken in the "old" Bethesda morgue, as opposed to the "new" Bethesda morgue where the autopsy was conducted. However, they are both advocates of the body substitution hypothesis which, to me, raises credibility issues, so I am making this post to seek information about what other members of this forum know about both the "old" and "new" Bethesda morgues (if, indeed, it is true that in 1963 there were both new and old Bethesda morgues), and about the autopsy photo anomalies which the above-named Bethesda technicians told David Lifton and William Law that they did not recognize (I had been aware of a possible solution, which I will provide in the following post, but this LaPlante/Russo video has me wondering whether it has actually been solved): The following is the source information for the podcast from which the above was excerpted: 'Brooks LaPlante and Rick Russo DPUK Talk Saturday 23rd March' Dealey Plaza UK | Apr 11, 2024 | https://youtu.be/vTabsL4AoA0?si=g_IBrpsJBYwyeB0Q Brooks LaPlante & Rick Russo re-examine the events at Bethesda on the evening of 22nd November 1963.
  3. This scene has been commonly misunderstood by viewers and commentators alike as implying that the original Zapruder film depicts Secret Service Agent William Greer (the driver of the Presidential limo) shooting President Kennedy, when in fact, the lesson of this scene is that intelligence operatives use altered documents and artifacts (such as the Zapruder film) to plant a barium pill which will discredit researchers. So, for example, if this journalist had claimed that she had been shown the original Zapruder film and that it had depicted Greer shooting the President, then she and all of her other work would be discredited. But she was too smart for that and was on to the intelligence operative from the start...
  4. Sorry Mr. Shahrdar, but the Nix film has no evidentiary value. It is worthless, and cannot be used to prove anything. It cannot be authenticated or admitted into evidence (except to prove fraud). It has a badly broken chain of custody, and highly dubious origins. So once again, you've proven yourself to be an ignoramus as it concerns the evaluation of the probative value and evidentiary weight of the substantiating evidence upon which you purport to rely: "...Orville Nix thought it odd that the FBI did not seem interested in interviewing him about the facts of the assassination. The questions FBI agents asked him related to his act of filming the assassination. One agent did ask him how many shots he heard, and Nix told him at least four, maybe five. When the agent asked Nix which shots hit the president, Nix replied that he wasn’t sure, but he knew that it was the third shot that hit JFK in the head. The agent appears not to have written down what Nix said about the shots. None of Nix’s statements to the FBI about the shooting (as opposed to his filming) ended up in any FBI report. Lane’s filmed interview of Nix on black and white sound film was in 1966, three years after the assassination and six years before Nix’s death. The Orville Nix interview is on YouTube. Take a look at it. During the interview, Nix tells Lane that at the time the shots were fired he thought they came not from the School Book Depository, which was behind the limousine, but instead from the stockade fence, which was at the top of the grassy knoll and to the right of the limousine. Nix also says that other witnesses—“most everyone”—and even a Secret Service agent friend of his were in agreement at the time that the shots came from the fence. Nix also tells Lane that some frames were missing when his film was returned to him by the FBI. Gayle Nix Jackson, the author of Orville Nix: The Missing JFK Assassination Film, is Orville Nix’s granddaughter. Subtitled The Unflinching True Story of an Ordinary Man Swept Up in an Extraordinary Event, the book includes an abbreviated biography of Orville Nix, who worked for the federal government as an air conditioning repairman, and was born, lived and died in Dallas, TX. A modest, gentlemanly, straightforward man, Nix had many friends, including Forrest Sorrels, the Secret Service Special Agent in Chief of the Dallas office—one of the security officials responsible for the catastrophic decision to route JFK’s motorcade through Dealey Plaza. Even if you don’t read Gale Nix Jackson’s book, you might consider looking, on YouTube, at the two-and-a-half minute video by her daughter (and Orville Nix’s great granddaughter) Taylor Jackson, who discusses the original Nix film, the mystery of its disappearance and the continuing efforts of the Nix family to recover it. The best parts of Gayle Nix Jackson’s book deal with (1) what Orville Nix did and observed in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963, and (2) the original Nix film itself and the various copies made over the years. Here are some of the facts the book presents: ● Like Abraham Zapruder, who also personally watched a president shot in the head, Orville Nix had recurring nightmares the rest of his life. ● Nix heard more than the three shots the Warren Report claimed had been fired. “I heard four or five shots… I heard at least four shots, maybe five.” This of course is what he had previously told the FBI agent who failed to write down what Nix said. ● Although the Warren Report concluded that all the shots were fired from the Book Depository behind the limousine, eyewitness Nix believed the shots “came from that little park area [the grassy knoll to the right of the limousine] in front of the train yards by the Triple Underpass.” This of course is what Nix said in his 1966 interview with Mark Lane. ● Nix delivered his film to the FBI on Dec. 1, 1963. When it was returned to him several days later, he became “convinced that his returned film looked changed from the time he had seen it [when it was first developed].” The film, Nix believed, was “different” after its return by the FBI. Nix said something similar in his 1966 interview with Mark Lane, where he also told Lane that some of the frames in his film had been “ruined.” ● Nix delivered his motion picture camera to the FBI in January 1964. When it was returned to him the following June, it had been taken apart and was in pieces. “[T]he camera of history… the camera that took an important assassination film… [had been] destroyed.” The FBI apologized, repaired the camera and also gave Nix a new one. This satisfied Nix. ● Nix later sold the original film to UPI for a paltry $5,000 and a cowboy hat, but was allowed to retain a copy. The original was to be returned to Nix after 25 years. UPI kept the film inaccessible to the public and never returned it to the Nix family. ● In 1965, UPI took the Nix film for a special optical scan to a secretive, CIA-connected company that manufactured sophisticated reconnaissance cameras for use in spy satellites. ● The original Nix film has probably been destroyed. At any rate, the present location of the original Nix film is unknown. Believing the film may still exist, the Nix family continues to work for its return. ● According to one theory, in 1974 a UPI executive placed the original Nix film in a safety deposit box in a New York City bank. This, it is said, is the last known location of the original film, which, it is claimed, has not been seen since. The building housing the bank, it appears, was later demolished. ● According to a perhaps more likely theory, the original Nix film disappeared in 1978, after it was returned to UPI by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations. ● A copy of the Nix film was broadcast on television for perhaps the first time in a 1988 British TV documentary, “The Day the Dream Died.” ● The Warren Commission’s copy of the Nix film (which it obtained from the FBI) has been in the National Archives since 1964. Not until 1966 was a researcher (Harold Weisberg) even allowed to see the copy...." Excerpt from 'Film Altered, Eyewitness Ignored - The Best 2014 Book on the JFK Assassination' Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a professor emeritus at the University of Georgia, where he taught in the law school for 40 years. This is his 39th published article on the JFK assassination. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1207&context=fac_pm
  5. "Narrative never trumps facts." Mr. Shahrdar, you are always repeating this phrase like a mantra as if it means something. As if it constitutes some kind of evidentiary standard by which ultimate truth is ascertained. Well I have news for you sunshine, it is just a meaningless mantra that will continue to mean nothing no matter how many times you regurgitate it. This is because in our civilization "facts" are determined by judicial fact finders, in the form of Judges and Juries, who evaluate evidence in accordance with historically true and tried rules of evidence and procedure in the context of which your "narrative never trumps facts" mantra means absolutely nothing. What I think you are attempting to articulate with your mantra is the idea that direct evidence, such as medical reports (and associated autopsy photos and X-rays), and other photographic evidence (such as the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films) supersedes testimonial evidence (such as the testimony and interviews of the Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses), but what this idea fails to take into consideration are the standards of probative value and evidentiary weight, as represented by Federal Rule of Evidence 403, by which both direct and testimonial evidence is assessed on an individual basis. And when direct and testimonial evidence comes into conflict such as, for example, when the testimony of 50 witnesses -- most of them law enforcement and medical professionals -- contradicts the autopsy images depicted by photographs and X-rays, or the imagery of amateur films, Like Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, then the Court declines to admit those items of direct evidence for consideration at trial except to prove fraud, because the concept of fraudulent autopsy evidence and falsified photographic evidence is well known to the rules of evidence and judicial history. So your ill-conceived mantra representing the proposition that direct evidence supersedes testimonial evidence, though it may be true in cases where the testimony of an individual witness is contradicted by a photograph or autopsy report, just isn't true when the testimony of a large number of witnesses contradicts such direct evidence, and that is the scenario that repeatedly arises with evidence in the case of the JFK assassination, which is highly unusual in a murder case. Evidence, both testimonial and direct, usually fits together like pieces of a puzzle in a murder case, but this is not so for the JFK assassination, which is indicative of widespread fraud in the evidence. But even despite the ubiquitous presence of fraudulent evidence in the Kennedy case, there exists enough genuine evidence to enable the factfinders to make findings of fact, thereby determining the truth of the matter. For example, the evidence in the JFK case that has the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight are the first day admission notes of Parkland doctors Kemp Clark, Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Robert McClelland, Fouad Bashour, and Marion Jenkins, which constitute the earliest expert medical reports concerning the nature of President Kennedy's wounds. These reports are nearly unanimous that JFK had a large avulsive wound on the right side of the back of his head with extruding cerebellar brain tissue, and NONE of the reports indicate the existence of a large head wound on the side or the top of JFK's head. These reports by themselves would likely force a Judge or a Jury, acting as finder(s) of fact, to conclude that the President's large head wound was located in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head. For your inspection, the same day Parkland Hospital Admission Notes are reproduced as follows: ____________ COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm Summary (By Dr. Kemp Clark) The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery. Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx. At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered. A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids. Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were place in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage. Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dialted and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found. There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark Kemp Clark, M. D. Director Service of Neurological Surgery KC:aa cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital ______________________________________________________________________________________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 DOCTOR: Carrico When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. 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. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone. In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained. Charles J. Carrico M.D. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY Staff Note At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. 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. Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg. At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired. Malcolm O. Perry, M.D. 1630 hr 22 Nov 1963 PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER Note of Attendance to President Kennedy. I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. 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. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Close chest message was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made. Charles R. Baxter M.D. Associate Prof of Surgery Southwestern Medical School PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE JOHN F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: [KEMP CLARK] 12:20pm to 13:00 hrs Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. 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. A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well . The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time. He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound. 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. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy. At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M. F. Bashour M.D. Associate Professor of Cardiology Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL DALLAS November 22, 1963 1630 To: Mr. C.J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital From: M.T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology Subject: Statement concerning resusciative efforts for President John F. Kennedy Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A . H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs . On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus . Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation . Doctors Gene Akin and A . H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube, and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity. During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank . All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity . 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 . It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently . However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage . President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 . Sincerely, /s/ M. T. Jenkins M. T. Jenkins, M.D . ____________ Those first day Parkland Hospital Admission Notes are by no means the only evidence of the large occipital-parietal wound of course. And the following video assembled by researcher @Gil Jesus provides a useful overview of the testimonial evidence which substantiates the existence of the occipital-parietal wound: Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part II / The Exit Wound -- By Gil Jesus ____________ The Secret Service detail composed of law enforcement professionals is the most credible of all the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and SSA Clint Hill who ran up to the rear of the limo and returned Jackie to her seat, then entered the rear limo compartment to aid the President, was splattered by blood, brain and skull blown out of the back of JFK's head, observed the large aulsive back of the head wound close up, then viewed it again at the Bethesda morgue, as indicated by SS reports, Hill's Warren Commission testimony, and more recently, his book about his assassination experiences. SSA Samuel Kinney, the driver of the follow up car directly behind the limo, witnessed the back of JFK's head being blown out, and was simultaneously splattered with blood, brain and skull, as he described to researcher Vince Palamara. More recently, SSA Paul Landis demonstrated that the location of the large avulsive head wound was in the back of JFK's head on camera. And the testimony of several other SS agents also supports that the location of the large avulsive head wound was on the right side of the back of JFK's head. Dallas Police motorcycle patrolman Bobby Hargis's testimony of being splattered with blood, brain and skull is also significant in that it is evidence of the trajectory of the frontal shot that blew out the back of JFK's head, as attested to by SSA Samuel Kinney. This testimony of the Secret Service Agents has far greater probative value and evidentiary weight than the testimony of the Dealey Plaza spectator witnesses, and is surpassed only by the unanimous testimony of the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses attesting to the large avulsive head wound being located on the right side of the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." [WC--V2:141] “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 lying in the seat.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H742] After seeing the President's skull wound in Dealey Plaza, and after returning with the body to Bethesda Clint Hill was "summoned...down to the morgue to view the body (again) and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds."--as agent Kellerman put it in his 11-29-63 report. (WC--CE #1024, Kellerman report of 11-29-63. In: WC--V18:26-27) Hill reported, "When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and...I observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull." [WC--CE#1024, V18:744] "...Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair..." [in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"] _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT SAM KINNEY, who was driving the follow up car: “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.” [11/30/1963 Statement: CE1024: 18H731] Kinney is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. We can be certain of this due to statements Kinney made when interviewed by Vince Palamara on 3/5/1994, as follows: "...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it ... It was the right rear part of his head ... Because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the pieces blow out, then the skin went back in -- an explosion in and out..." [3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara] Former Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney confirms JFK back of head wound to Vince Palamara _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT PAUL LANDIS (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow up car), November 30, 1963: “I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President’s shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President’s car. 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. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon [sic]. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H755] Landis's statement to the WC was not very revealing as to the location of the head wound. However, in the context of the publicity surrounding the release of his 2023 book, Landis was asked about the location of the large head wound and he demonstrated with his hand that the large wound was in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, as seen in the video below: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda. Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely gone." [Warren Comm-- V2:127] I wish there was a photograph of Greer's hand gesture, but nevertheless, in the context of the aggregate of all of the Dealey Plaza testimony it is clear that Greer is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." [WC-V2:80- 81] Kellerman's 8/24/1977 HSCA sketch of JFK's wounds is somewhat confusing because he has reversed the locations of the wounds (putting the back wound of the right side rather than the left and likewise reversing the large occipital-parietal wound from the right side to the left), but his sketch confirms that he remembered the large avulsive wound was on the back of JFK's head rather than on the top or side of JFK's head. Furthermore, his sketch and corresponding WC testimony tends to confirm the existence of the second gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head: Any doubt about the actual location of the large back-of-the-head wound Kellerman observed is resolved by his testimony about viewing the wound in the morgue: Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. 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. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. 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. [2 H 80-81] Despite the confusion caused by the HSCA sketch, this testimony of Kellerman's observations about the large back-of the-head-wound in the morgue is powerful corroboration that it was located at the "rear portion of the head" on the right (and not on the left as in his HSCA sketch). _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT GEORGE HICKEY (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his 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.” [Statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H762] “Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” [Statement: 18H765] Clearly, Hickey is another back-of-the-head witness... _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT EMORY ROBERTS (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “I do not know if it was the next shot or the third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H734] Considering that all of the Secret Service Agents above were referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head when referencing "the right side," there is no reason not to assume that Robert's was also referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head, and this Roberts is also a back-of-the-head witness. _________ DALLAS MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN BOBBY HARGIS: "...When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and a kind of bloody water..." [4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony] "... As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit...." [11/24/1963 article in the New York Daily News] The biological debris that impacted Hargis at such a velocity that he thought he'd been shot is consistent with Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney's description of seeing the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head, and thus Hargis is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ _________ The Dealey Plaza witnesses whose testimony carries the least evidentiary weight, are the spectator witnesses, but their testimony nevertheless has a great deal of probative value and evidentiary weight, as demonstrated below: _________ _________ FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. 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. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony] Jackie Kennedy's deposition conducted by the Warren Commission with Jackie sworn under pains and penalties of perjury presents the most immediate evidence with the greatest weight about the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound (which the Warren Commission attempted to conceal by classifying it "top secret" and omitting it from the Warren Report, with the testimony being released as the result of litigation in the early 1970's). That sworn testimony was as follows: "I was trying to hold his hair on. 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...." There is nothing ambiguous about Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission testimony. She clearly stated that there was no damage to the front of JFK's head, and that she was trying to hold his hair and skull down on the back of his head. The photographic evidence of Jackie Kennedy's interactions with the head wound is just as decisive as her Warren Commission testimony and corroborates it. In the following slow motion high definition Zapruder film footage we see Jackie Kennedy very deliberately feel the dimensions of the occipital-parietal wound with her white gloved hand (and no, she is not feeling a shadow -- that is the false appearance presented by the surreptitious black patch placed by the CIA over the Zapruder film imagery of the occipital-parietal wound): _________ BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] This slow-motion footage of Newman's hand gesture made while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" emphasizes, highlights and underscores my point: And the following is the video of Bill Newman giving the description and making the hand gesture demonstrating the wound at regular speed: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] With his description of seeing the President's ear blown off, Newman is clearly describing the blood, brain and skull that so many others witnessed being ejected from the back of JFK's head, but the split-second glimpse that he had of it left him with the impression that the ear was blown off when actually it was the back of the head exploding behind the ear that Newman had seen. Newman may not have done the best job articulating it, but the above makes it clear that he is describing the exit wound as being distinct from the entry wound that he described and demonstrated with his finger pointing to his temple on 11/22/1963, as follows: _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS CHARLES BREHM: Mark Lane: 0:15 Did you see the effects of the bullets upon the President? Charles Brehm: 0:21 When the second bullet hit there was a [Brehm puts his hand on the right side of the back of his head to demonstrate], hair seemed to go flying, uh it was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet, and uh, yes I very definitely saw the effects of the second bullet. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 It seemed to have come left and back...." [Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS MARILYN WILLIS: "...The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle, with bright matter in the middle of it -- It just went like that..." [Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS JEAN HILL (on the south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), March 13, 1964: “Mrs. Hill heard more shots ring out and saw the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up.” [FBI report: 25H853–4] Jean Hill reported effects of the ejection of biological debris from the back of JFK's head and this is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM WITNESS ERWIN SCHWARTZ: "...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...." Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman. _________ _________ And by far of the most significant of all the categories of witnesses is the testimonial evidence of the medical witnesses which carries the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight, and would result in the Court excluding the fraudulent Autopsy Protocol (and autopsy photographs and X-rays), and the fraudulent amateur films (Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix) from evidence except to prove fraud: _________ _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR ROBERT McCLELLAND: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...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...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...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34) NOTE DR. MCLELLAND'S USE OF HIS THUMB TO DEMONSTRATE BACK OF HEAD WOUND "Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area." SKETCH OF BACK OF HEAD WOUND BY DR. MCCLELLAND ON TMWKK (1988) _________ PARKLAND NURSE AUDREY BELL: _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR CHARLES CRENSHAW: Charles Crenshaw, a resident physician at Parkland, neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86) The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead. Crenshaw claimed to have kept quiet about his observations out of professional and personal fear of reprisals. _________ PARKLAND NURSE PHYLLIS J. HALL: _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR PAUL PETERS: Paul Peters, a resident physician at Parkland, described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71) Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324) Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed... You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters) When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)..." _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR JAMES CARRICO: On the day of the assassination Dr. James Carrico hand wrote, "(the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5) In is first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) 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." (6H6) On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, "Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?" Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present...". Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?" Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361) In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound" ...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268) _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR RONALD JONES: Under oath Dr. Ronald Jones told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President 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." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56) Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered, "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 he 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." (WC.V.6:56) While he then expressed some doubt that a high velocity bullet would so radically change course, JFK's skull wound must have appeared to him quite posterior for him to have advanced such an hypothesis. It is particularly noteworthy that Jones continued to believe JFK's skull suggested a rear exit of a bullet that entered from anterior. In January, 1983 he told David Lifton, "If you brought him in here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." (BE, p. 705) Jones told student, Brad Parker, on 8/10/92, again, "...if they brought him in today, I would tend - seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back of the head as seen in Six Seconds. Jones specifically denied to Parker that he had seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't think that there was any wound -- I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the right temporal area or the right side of the upper part of the head, you know, over the -- in front of the ear say, or anything like that". These description are fully consistent with the autopsy report of a right rear defect. If the defect did extend forward, the anterior portion was quite small. _________ PARKLAND NURSE DORIS NELSON: Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "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." (High Treason I. p. 454) _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR RICHARD DULANEY: Richard Dulaney was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.) _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR ROBERT SCHORLEMER: _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR MARION JENKINS: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), 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." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.) _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR KEMP CLARK: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392) In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....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 the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10) At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "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." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance. In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322) Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29) In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound 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 wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect. On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound." _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR KENNETH SALYER: Kenneth Salyer was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with. _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78. _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR ADOLPH GIESECKE: Adolph Giesecke, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Parkland in 1963, authored a typed summary of his care of Governor Connally on 11-25-63, Warren Commission "Gieske Exhibit #1", (WC-V20:5-7) in which he does not mention JFK's wounds. In Warren Commission testimony he described JFK's head wound as: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78) This is the only case of any witness mistaking which side the skull injuries were on. However, despite his error on the laterality, he claimed that the skull defect extended from the occiput to the front of the skull. _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR DONALD TEEL CURTIS: Don Curtis, an oral surgery resident, was mentioned in the Warren Report (p.66), but gave no account to the Commission regarding JFK's wounds. Pre-med student, Brad J. Parker, sent Curtis a copy of McClelland's drawing showing a large right-sided defect in the rear of JFK's skull to ask his opinion about it. On October 25, 1994, Curtis wrote Parker. His letter in full read: Dear Mr. Parker, The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially by recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Best regards, Don T. Curtis, D.D.S. _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR WILLIAM ZEDLITZ: Note: Source of Zedlitz information is Vince Palamara. _________ PARKLAND NURSE PATRICIA HUTTON GUSTAFSON: Patricia Hutton, a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID) _________ PARKLAND NURSE DIANA BOWRON: Diana Bowron greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. ( Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD (High Treason) in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth,in images following p. 368) _________ PARKLAND DOCTOR CHARLES BAXTER: Charles Baxter, a resident physician at Parkland, in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter's original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present...." (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been "temporo-occipital" than "temporo-parietal", because he also recalled, "cerebellum was present". (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, "...the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table...." (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as "...a large gaping wound in the occipital area." Livingstone also reported that "(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact)."(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45) _________ AMBULANCE DRIVER AUBREY RIKE: _________ FBI AGENT FRANCIS O'NEIL, JR.: In an HSCA interview with Andy Purdy and Mark Flanagan on 1/10/78 O'Neill said that the autopsy doctors felt that "the bullet that entered the head struck the center, low portion of the head and exited from the top, right side, towards the front." (HSCA rec # 006185.) However, O'Neill made a sketch witnessed and signed by D. A. Purdy and M. T. Flanagan that showed an "entry" at the low rear central portion of JFK's skull and an 'exit' on the right rear quadrant of the head no more anterior than the posterior portion of the ear. (HSCA rec # 006185 p. 10.) (O'Neill felt it odd that while he had been interviewed by the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, he had never been called to testify. O'Neill recalled that "On the issue of the full vs. partial autopsy, O'Neill said that Admiral Galloway resolved this by ordering a complete autopsy." (HSCA rec # 006185, p. 3) "O'Neill emphatically stated that the doctors removed only two fragments and not 'a missile'." (IBID. p. 5.) "O'Neill mentioned that the doctors just wanted to obtain the large fragments and that many small fragments did exit.) In a television interview in 1992 with Warren Commission critic, George Michael Evica, O'Neill repeatedly emphasized that he had closely observed the entire autopsy. O'Neill claimed, "There was a massive wound in the right rear of the head." During the course of the interview he placed his hand over the upper right rear portion of his head, behind the right ear, at least four times to demonstrated the wound. (Emphasis added.) _________ FBI AGENT JAMES W. SIBERT: James Sibert assisted Francis O'Neill. After an interview for the HSCA J. Kelly and A. Purdy reported, "Regarding the head wound, Sibert said it was in the "...Upper back of the head." (sic) In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA Sibert claimed, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head.", and "...a large head wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull (sic) bone missing..." Sibert sketched a drawing of the skull wound and traced a small wound square in the central rear portion of the skull neither to the right or the left, slightly above the level depicted for the ears but well below the level depicted for the top of the skull. (HSCA REC # 002191) (Emphasis added.) _________ BETHESDA X-RAY TECHNICIAN JERROL CUSTER: Jerrol Custer, the other X-ray technician told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that "he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off." ( Best Evidence , p. 620) The extant X-rays show no such thing. In May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries. (Reuters wire service, reported in: Duffy JP, Ricci VL, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York, 1992, Thunder's Mouth Press, p. 142.) _________ BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECHNICIAN PAUL O'CONNOR: Paul O'Connor, one of two laboratory technologists present during JFK's autopsy at Bethesda, has repeatedly insisted that the skull wound extended on the right side well into the rear of the skull. "O'Connor was shown the autopsy photographs and he said, "No, that doesn't look like what I saw...A lot worse wound extended way back here, " and he demonstrated with his hand to the back of the head." (Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, p. 451) Paul O'Connor has consistently maintained that opinion in interviews since that time. _________ BETHESDA AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHER FLOYD RIEBE: _________ BETHESDA AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHER JOHN STRINGER: John Stringer was the autopsy photographer. David Lifton interviewed Stringer, in part, as follows: Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."--as had McHugh (BE, p.516)... ...The integrity of JFK's autopsy photographs was apparently also challenged by Stringer in an intriguing observation uncovered only in recently released HSCA data. HSCA counsel Andy Purdy interviewed Stringer and reported, "STRINGER (sic) said it was his recollection that all the photographs he had taken were not present in 1966 (when he first saw the photographs). He noted that the receipt he had said some of the film holders (sic) had no film in one side of the cassettes. He said the receipt said this happened in two or three of the film holders where one side only was allegedly loaded. He said he could understand it if the film holders were reported to have poorly exposed or defective film but could not believe that there were any sides on the film holders which were not loaded with film... STRINGER (sic) also said that he thought he had taken some interior photographs of the President's chest ("I believe so") (sic). He said he was present in the room where the autopsy was conducted between approximately 6:00 and 6:30 P. M. on the night of the 22nd and 3:00 to 3:30 A.M. on the morning of the 23rd... STRINGER remembers taking "at least two exposures of the body cavity" (HSCA rec # 180-10093-10429. Agency file # 002070, p. 11.) _________ BETHESDA ASSISTANT CHIEF OF RADIOLOGY JOHN EBERSOLE: John Ebersole was Assistant Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division at Bethesda, and was the radiologist who evaluated the X-rays in close cooperation with the autopsists on the night of the autopsy. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. However he was called to testify by the HSCA on March 11, 1978. Ebersole's deposition was not published by the HSCA causing it to be sealed for 50 years under congressional rules. (Due to pressure, however, the transcript of his interview was released in October, 1993.) A brief wire service account appeared regarding his appearance before the HSCA claiming that he agreed with the Warren Commissions' conclusions. However, in an interview with reporter Gil Dulaney published two days before his HSCA appearance Ebersole said of the head wound, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a very obvious horrible gaping wound to the back of the head (BE:543).", and "The front of the body, except for a very slight bruise above the right eye on the forehead, was absolutely intact. It was the back of the head that was blown off." (BE:546) In HSCA testimony recently released, Ebersole claimed, "The back of the head was missing..."(HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-78, p.3), and when shown the autopsy photograph with the back of the scalp intact, Ebersole commented, "You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound than this but I can certainly not state that this is the way it looked. Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection. But had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the wound here rather than more forward." (HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-78, p. 62). Ebersole, faced with the photographs before the HSCA, said JFK's skull defect was, "More lateral. Much more lateral and superior than I remembered." (HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-63, p. 63) Yet Ebersole claimed that "I had the opportunity (to examine the back of JFK's head while positioning the head for X-rays) (HSCA Ebersole interview, 3-11-78, p. 64). Later Ebersole said, "...perhaps about 12:30 (am) a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X-rayed these (sic)...". As Lifton observed about Ebersole's HSCA enlightenment, "When Ebersole met with Art Smith on March 28, and of course after his HSCA interview, he said: 'The back portion of the head...the back part of the head, was reasonably intact.' Ebersole claimed that Dulaney had misquoted him. Smith asked: "That was a misquote?" Ebersole: "Yes, Misquoted. I, really, ah, I may have said that--what I meant was, the side." David Lifton had Dulaney read a verbatim transcript of the Ebersole interview. Dulaney again quoted Ebersole describing the head wound as "a very obvious horrible gaping wound at the back of the head..." (BE:546) (Emphasis added.) Ebersole's reliability has also been questioned as he also claimed that the neck wound upon arrival at Bethesda was sutured closed. Ebersole told this to both Dulaney and to Art Smith (BE:543). _________ BETHESDA X-RAY TECHNICIAN JAMES JENKINS: James Jenkins, the other laboratory technologist who worked with the autopsy team on JFK, was at that time in a Ph.D. program in pathology. ( High Treason II , p. 226) The HSCA's Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy reported that Jenkins "said he saw a head wound in the "...middle temporal region back to the occipital." (HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4) He told author, David Lifton, "I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head--it was a large gaping area...It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear." (Lifton, Best Evidence ", p. 616) When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." (Best Evidence , p. 617) Jenkins told Livingstone, "Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented...there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area....this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum." ( High Treason II , p. 228). Jenkins' views, whether as given by the HSCA, Livingstone, or Lifton, are noteworthy by their consistency, and as Jenkins was in a Ph.D. pathology program, his anatomic specificity is of value. _________ BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECHNICIAN DENNIS DAVID: _________ BETHESDA LAB ASSISTANT TO DR. BOSWELL, JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, Rudnicki was interviewed by HSCA's Mark Flanagan on 5/2/78. Flanagan reported Rudnicki said, the "back-right quadrant of the head was missing." (HSCA rec # 180- 10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p.2.) He told author Harrison Livingston, "...from the ear back, the scalp was either gone or definitely destroyed in that area.....it would look more like it was an exit than an entrance." When asked if there was any scalp left in the right rear of the head behind the ear, Rudnicki said, "That was gone." (High Treason II , p. 207) Rudnicki's account to the HSCA squares with Livingstone's. _________ GAWLER'S FUNERAL HOME MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON: Tom Robinson was the assistant to Joe Hagen, president of Gawler's Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy's body for his coffin. Robinson assisted with the preparations for an open casket funeral so preparation of the skull was especially meticulous. Robertson described the skull wound in a 1/12/77 HSCA interview released in 1993 conducted by Andy Purdy and Jim Conzelman: Purdy asked Robinson: "Approximately where was this wound (the skull wound) located?" Robinson: "Directly behind the back of his head." Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them." (HSCA rec # 189-10089-10178, agency file # 000661, p.3. On the day of their interview Purdy and Conzelman signed a diagram prepared and also signed by Robinson. The sketch depicts a defect directly in the central, lower rear portion of the skull. (HSCA doc # 180-10089-10179, agency file # 000662) Robertson gave the same description to author, Harrison Livingstone: "There was not enough scalp to pull together over that large wound in the back. The big hole was only in the back (emphasis added). We filled the skull with plaster and put back the bones, but we did not have all of the bones and could not completely cover over the hole in the back. I do not remember any bone being missing on the top of the head." (HT-II:579- 581)(emphasis added) As one of the morticians who carefully prepared JFK's skull for burial after the autopsy, Robinson cannot be easily dismissed or ignored. _________ GENERAL PHILLIP C. WEHLE: Phillip Wehle, then Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., described the head wound to the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 8-19-77 He did not describe it to the Warren Commission. A copy of memo on Purdy's interview with Wehle was only released in 1993. Purdy reported that Wehle said he was an observer during the later stages of the autopsy. "(Wehle) noticed a slight bruise over the right temple of the President but did not see any significant damage to any other part of the head. He noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up; he also said he did not see any damage to the top of the head, but said the President had a lot of hair which could have hidden that...." (HSCA record # 10010042, agency file # 002086, p. 2) _________ AID TO GENERAL WEHLE, RICHARD LIPSEY: Richard Lipsey, an aide to General Wehle who was Commanding General of the military District of Washington, U. S. Army, he was present at JFK's autopsy. In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy and Mark Flanagan on 1-18-78, he claimed that the autopsists "were 'absolutely, unequivocally' convinced that he (JFK) had been shot three times...there were three separate wounds and three separate bullets.". Lipsey gave a confusing account of JFK's head wound. He "identified the entrance in the lower head as being just inside the hairline", but claimed that there was "no real entrance in the rear of the head...one bullet blasted away an entire portion (entrance and exit)..." (sic). Purdy also reported that Lipsey felt that "one bullet entered the back of the head and exited resulting in part of the face and head being blown away" (HSCA, JFK Collection, RG 233) Lipsey completed an autopsy face sheet diagram that depicted an area of the right lateral skull missing, anterior and posterior to the ear, where he had written "same area blown away as wound". In addition, there was a wound low in the skull, presumably of entrance, that was the source of the throat exit wound, which he labeled bullet #2. Finally there was a wound on the back, labeled #3 but the bullet could not be found in the body Lipsey claimed.
  6. My "hero," is he? Do I detect a bit of resentment over me calling you out for libeling Dr. Robert McClelland? I wish I could regard Dr. McClelland as a hero for having the strength to overcome his fear of being pilloried by the media when he was presented with the autopsy photographs and put on the spot as to their authenticity by PBS Nova and the Ben Bradlee group, but he didn't. McClelland's initial reaction upon first seeing the back of the head autopsy photograph in 1981 was to "firmly" question its authenticity, but when faced with the specter of nationwide dissemination of reports of his view on this by Nova and the Boston Globe, he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand by his initial reaction, resorting instead to postulating that in the back of the head autopsy photo there had been a scalp flap covering up the large avulsive back of the head wound he had observed on 11/22/1963, and claimed that the large throat gash depicted in the photographs was as he remembered it. McClelland's one saving grace is that he didn't completely recant his observation that the large avulsive wound was occipital-parietal, as a few of the other Parkland Hospital doctors did under identical circumstances, and this, I believe, is the reason you are so threatened by Dr. McClelland that you have attempted to start a cottage industry defaming him using the "left temple" mistake he made in his first day Parkland Hospital Admittance Note. So do I hold a view of Dr. McClelland as being a "hero" as you have derisively insinuated? The answer is "no": Heros go wherever the evidence leads even though the heavens may fall, a characteristic that Dr. McClelland and you both do not possess. While Dr. Malcolm Perry can also be faulted for buckling to intimidation by recanting his initial throat wound determination that the throat wound was a wound of entry in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, Perry at least did not do so privately, and in his interviews with a few researchers, and when Robert Groden showed him the autopsy photographs for the first time, Perry was livid over the wide gash in JFK's throat saying, "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job." PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND Dr. Perry, who conducted the craniotomy, and who was surely familiar with the characteristics of his own surgical practices is, of course, a far better source on this than Dr. McClelland (which you would have deduced yourself but for your nefarious agenda). Dr. McClelland surely knew, as Dr. Charles Crenshaw pointed out during his 1992 interview by 20/20, both that the tracheotomy tube was very small (with the larger flange attachment remaining outside of the incision), and did not require a large gashing incision like that seen in the autopsy photographs and that, as Dr. Perry states in the following 20/20 segment, "Perry was an artist with a blade," and wouldn't have made an incision that was twice as large as a tracheotomy requires. Having addressed your highly manipulative comment about Dr. McClelland, I shall now inquire about why you have failed to address the evidence in the post to which your McClelland comment was directed by answering the questions that would have been obvious to practically anyone else, as follows: 1. What evidence can you cite to controvert the written account of New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman that he interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on December 2, 1963 and was told by Dr. Perry that he had received a series of calls the evening of the assassination by the Bethesda pathologists who insisted that he recant his determination that the throat wound had been a wound of entrance, and threatened to report him to the Medical Board if he did not do so? But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said. [emphasis not in original] '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm and, 2. What evidence can you cite to controvert the accounts of the following witnesses which corroborate that the Bethesda pathologists were in contact with Dr. Perry during the evening of the assassination to discuss the nature of President Kennedy's throat wound and/or were aware of the bullet wound in the throat at the time of the autopsy? James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Doctor George Burkley, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself. Audrey Bell, RN: "...Nurse Audrey Bell told me in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23, 1963) that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before, because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance...." "...Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because, as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the better part of valor...." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' By Doug Horne | InsideTheARRB | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html James Humes, MD: "...In the mid 1960’s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia Broadcasting System memo put it, “Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made – when no FBI men were present – that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound’s path...” J. Thornton Boswell, MD: "...In 1966 even Dr. Boswell himself weighed in, echoing Manchester by apparently disgorging to a stringer for the Baltimore Sun, who reported that, “before the autopsy had began, the pathologists had been apprised of JFK's wounds and what had been done to him at Parkland. In particular, Boswell said: ‘We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly.’”[45] (author’s emphasis) Under oath in 1996, Boswell told the ARRB much the same thing. “Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?”, he was asked. “Oh, yes,” Boswell answered...." William Manchester: “...They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1....” Paul Peters, MD: "...Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately (sic) after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen at the time … But it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda … See it was only, it was only going to be a few (sic) hours before I would know that the bullets were fired from behind....” Audrey Bell, RN: "...In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound....” Robert Karnei, MD: “...I was convinced they talked to somebody that night, and finally decided that had to be the exit wound. Pierre Finck, I think, talked to somebody … For some reason I thought they had discovered that around midnight. Maybe it was the next day....” John Ebersole, MD: "...After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy – that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound – corresponding to the back entrance wound – was solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy..." George Burkley, MD: "...By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team...." Richard A. Lipsey: "...Richard A. Lipsey, a witness to the autopsy, told the HSCA that sometime during the autopsy the prosectors concluded that three bullets had struck the President. “Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit,” the HSCA reported, and that, “one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.”[55] Although this is not what finally made it into the autopsy report, it is hard to understand how a non-physician would recall linking the head wound to the throat wound unless he’d heard of a wound in the throat from the surgeons...." Malcolm Perry, MD: "...Arlen Specter asked: “And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.” Perry: “Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.”..." 'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG' By Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham | May 2003 | https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
  7. I don't think we are going to find "common ground" other than perhaps agreeing that James Fetzer has displayed many instances of a lack of discretion in his written articles, such as jumping on board the Judyth Baker bandwagon, supporting the door man controversy, and engaging in some serious disinformation activities in the 911 movement. But as for Fetzer "...trying to use the continued acceptance of Horne and Mantik's theories by men such as yourself as steps upon which he can climb back into a leadership role within the JFK community..." -- the notion sounds completely paranoid to me. And in my opinion, your efforts to undermine the reports and testimonial evidence of the assassination law enforcement and medical professionals is just as much of an embarrassment to the research community and has been and is as much of a disaster for the research community as Fetzer's work has been.
  8. Pat Speer wrote: Really? And on what basis are you impugning the credibility of New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman and his account of his December 2, 1963 interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry other than that it is inconvenient for the PatSpeer.com version of the fraudulent autopsy and cover-up? http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...." [emphasis not in original] '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm Pat Speer wrote: No, Mr. Speer, the government cover-up story does not "make the most sense." The fingerprints of "cover-up" are all over the autopsy and the question of whether or not the pathologists had contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound, and whether or not the pathologists communicated with Dr. Malcolm Perry about the throat wound the evening of the assassination and threatened to report him to the medical board. For example, Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell told Harrison Livingstone in 1991 that “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound,” and in a 2009 blog entry by Doug Horne, Horne wrote the following: "...What most of the public does not know---and what is detailed in my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," is that late on the night of President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital, Federal officials located at Bethesda began harrassing Dr. Perry on the telephone in an attempt to get him to change his mind about having seen an entry wound in the President's throat earlier in the day. Nurse Audrey Bell told me in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23, 1963) that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before, because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance. In his 1981 book "Best Evidence," David Lifton documented that the Secret Service confiscated videotapes of the Parkland hospital press conference from at least one local television station, and that Secret Service Chief James Rowley had informed the Warren Commission in 1964 that no videotapes or transcripts of the press conference could be found. But as Lifton revealed, a White House verbatim transcript of the press conference (White House Transcript 1327-C) later surfaced. In my own book, "Inside the ARRB," I reveal that Chief Rowley lied to the Warren Commission when he said no transcripts could be found, for on the last page of transcript 1327-C, the document is stamped as received by Rowley's office on November 26, 1963. His statement to the Warren Commission was therefore false. A graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had confessed to him in 1970 that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry" shortly after the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in President Kennedy's throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an expected, predetermined way or they would "get their heads chopped off." Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought President Kennedy was "a traitor" because he was "giving things away to the Russians." [According to Arlen Specter, this same Elmer Moore was present when Chief Justice Warren, Gerald Ford, and he interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas; and Arlen Specter also revealed in 2003 (at a conference in Pittsburgh) that Elmer Moore was the Secret Service Agent who showed him an undocumented photograph of President Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964 re-enactment of the Dallas motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.] Unfortunately, after Federal officials at Bethesda (on November 22-23, 1963) and Elmer Moore (between November 29-December 11, 1963) "leaned on" Dr. Perry, he spent the remainder of his life straddling the fence and saying that the bullet wound in JFK's throat "could have been either" an entrance or an exit wound. But that is not what he said on the afternoon of the assassination, before there was an official explanation for the crime to fall in line with. White House Transcript 1327-C makes that very clear, as I reveal in my book, in Chapters 7 and 9. Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because, as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the better part of valor. The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And in the following extremely well documented excerpt from Dr. Gary Aguilar's "HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG," Dr. Aguilar chronicled accounts of contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound at the Bethesda autopsy -- and in several cases, the 11/22/1963 phone calls from Bethesda to Malcolm Perry -- by pathologist James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Coast Guardsman George Barnum, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself: "...The Case for the Autopsists Not Being Ignorant of Kennedy’s Throat Wound During the Autopsy The absence of word about Kennedy’s throat wound in the FBI report is far from proof of the surgeons’ ignorance. It only proves the doctors either didn’t know about the throat wound before the agents left, or that the surgeons kept quiet, and perhaps with good reason. Given their manifest lack of expertise in this sort of work, the surgeons might have wanted kept to their own counsels, lest they later be forced to confront an accurate, federal accounting of their errors and misjudgments. Moreover, the agents didn’t stick it out the entire night; they left the morgue at about 1:00 AM. And although by then the morticians were busy at work, there is evidence the autopsists were still engaged. Internal CBS memorandum reporting on Dr. Humes' admission that a path had been traced from back wound to throat wound during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #16) In the mid 1960’s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia Broadcasting System memo put it, “Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made – when no FBI men were present – that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound’s path.”[39] While several tantalizing details in this account will be explored in more detail later, its relevance here is that the agents didn’t see everything the surgeons saw or did. Moreover, unless they’d had some word about a bullet wound in the throat, Humes would hardly have passed a probe from the back to JFK’s throat if he’d had no reason to believe a wound lay there. What, then, about the report of the President’s physician? If he actually knew, why is Burkley also silent on the throat wound? It turns out that Burkley is silent about all of JFK’s wounds; his report concerns itself more with what Burkley did than what he saw. For example, regarding Kennedy’s injuries, Burkley speaks only about what he witnessed at Parkland: “I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President. It was evident that death was imminent and that he was in a hopeless condition.”[40] It is scarcely a surprise Burkley is mum about the throat wound when he says nothing about JFK’s huge skull injuries. And, finally, what about Boswell’s technician, Jenkins? Boswell was never asked whether he confided in Jenkins during the autopsy. So, in light of the tenseness of the situation, it is quite possible that Boswell could have known of the wound, or strongly suspected it, without telling Jenkins about it. In fact, Boswell’s subsequent statements seem to bear that out. A reasonable case can be also made for the opposite conclusion: that knowledge of the throat wound had indeed seeped into JFK’s morgue. Perhaps the earliest evidence comes from a respected outsider. Although as per his custom he does not name his source, the famously well-connected historian William Manchester may have been the first to come up with it in his 1967 book, The Death of a President. Manchester discovered that the course of events that makes the most sense to us today is in fact what actually happened: that the autopsy team had indeed heard Perry’s comments on the afternoon of the murder, and that they had dutifully communicated with Dallas during the post mortem. “They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.”[41] (authors’ emphasis. One imagines that Manchester intended to convey that the autopsists hoped the pictures would satisfy the Texas doctors that the throat wound Perry had called an entrance wound was instead an exit wound.) Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. (see ARRB MD #41) Manchester gave a compelling reason for the autopsists’ concern about comments emanating from the doctors in Dallas: “Bethesda’s physicians anticipated that their findings would later be subjected to the most.”[42] Ironically, Dallas was generous with reasons for a searching scrutiny of the autopsists’ claimed ignorance of the throat wound. Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately (sic) after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen a the time … But it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda … See it was only, it was only going to be a few (sic) hours before I would know that the bullets were fired from behind.”[43] Author Harrison Livingstone reported another Parkland source for nighttime contact between the morgue and Dallas. In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”[44] In 1966 even Dr. Boswell himself weighed in, echoing Manchester by apparently disgorging to a stringer for the Baltimore Sun, who reported that, “before the autopsy had began, the pathologists had been apprised of JFK's wounds and what had been done to him at Parkland. In particular, Boswell said: ‘We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly.’”[45] (author’s emphasis) Under oath in 1996, Boswell told the ARRB much the same thing. “Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?”, he was asked. “Oh, yes,” Boswell answered.[46] [On the other hand, Pierre Finck told the ARRB that at the end of the evening they had not concluded a throat transit.[47]] But regarding what they knew before they plunged in, Boswell seemed to give a slightly different version to the ARRB than he had the Baltimore Sun. He was asked, “Prior to the time you first saw the President Kennedy’s body, had you heard any communications about the nature of the wounds that he had suffered?” “I don’t think specifically. I think just the fact that he had a head wound,” Boswell responded.[48] Boswell kept to Humes’ claim the calls to Dallas happened the next day. “When was the first conversation with doctors in Dallas?” he was asked in 1996 by the ARRB. “Saturday morning,” Boswell answered.[49] Boswell’s account seems to contradict the comments of another pathologist who was present during the autopsy, though not as a member of the surgical team, Robert Karnei, MD. During an interview, author Harrison Livingstone clumsily commented to Karnei about the autopsists’ alleged ignorance: “They didn’t know there was a bullet hole in the throat. All they saw was the trach (sic) incision.” Karnei: “Right. Once they talked to the doctors in Dallas, this is around midnight, I think.” Livingstone: “No, it was the next day when he called Perry.” Karnei: “Next day?” Livingstone: “Yes. The body was already gone.” Karnei: “I was convinced they talked to somebody that night, and finally decided that had to be the exit wound. Pierre Finck, I think, talked to somebody … For some reason I thought they had discovered that around midnight. Maybe it was the next day.”[50] Karnei was not the only morgue physician who was confused about information from Dallas and when the team had decided there had been a bullet wound in JFK’s throat. In the suppressed HSCA interview of autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, Ebersole told the medical panel that Humes was in telephone contact with Dallas doctors during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #60. p. 64) After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy – that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound – corresponding to the back entrance wound – was solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy.[52] By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team. Either way, Humes’ assertion to the Warren Commission to the effect a throat wound only dawned on him the next day, after a call to Dallas, seems open to dispute. Other witnesses add to the doubts. General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide,[54] Richard A. Lipsey, a witness to the autopsy, told the HSCA that sometime during the autopsy the prosectors concluded that three bullets had struck the President. “Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit,” the HSCA reported, and that, “one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.”[55] Although this is not what finally made it into the autopsy report, it is hard to understand how a non-physician would recall linking the head wound to the throat wound unless he’d heard of a wound in the throat from the surgeons. Then there is the odd answer of tracheotomist, Malcolm Perry, MD, one that called to mind Dr. Peters’ previously cited comment that, “it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda”: Arlen Specter asked: “And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.” Perry: “Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.” Specter hastened to correct Perry, following up with: Specter: “Could it have been Saturday morning?” Perry: “Saturday morning – was it? It's possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter.”[56] While Perry’s turnabout may have come completely from the heart, that his instantaneous recall of a contact on Friday happened to match the recollections of so many others is surely quite a coincidence...." [39] CBS Memorandum from Bob Richer to Les Midgley, 1/10/67. Reproduced in: The Effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Hearing Before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, November 17, 1993, p. 233. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 16. [40] Affidavit of Admiral George Burkley. In: Warren Commission Exhibit # 1126. 22H93-97. [41] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [42] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [43] Tape recorded interview of 1 May 1981; transcript supplied by Harrison Livingstone. [44] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 121. [45] Richard H. Levine, 25 November 1966, page 1. [46] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 34. [47] ARRB interview with Pierre Finck, p. 91 “miniscript,” or p. 18 of published text. [48] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 30. [49] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 27. [50] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 186. [51] See transcript of David Mantik’s interview with John Ebersole in: James Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza. Chicago: Catfeet Press 2000, p. 437. [52] HSCA Agency File # 013617. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 60. [53] David Lifton. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1980, p. 671. [54] HSCA-V7:9. [55] HSCA-V7:20, footnote #95. See also a now-declassified audio recording of the HSCA's interview with Lipsey from 1-18-78. [56] 6H16. [Mr. SPECTER. And did you and I sit down and talk about the purpose of this deposition and the questions which I would be asking you on the record, before this deposition started? 'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG' By Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham | May 2003 | https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm Pat Speer wrote: Nothing has been said that implies that any of the pathologists themselves claimed to have authority over Perry's license to practice medicine. What New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman wrote that Dr. Malcolm Perry told him was as follows: "...When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...." As you are not a professional, and have no experience with licensure, or regulating agencies, such as medical boards, you don't understand how the disciplinary process works. Complaints are made to the medical board, and the board conducts investigations, and sometimes has hearings. Complaints made by other doctors, such as autopsy pathologists, would be taken more seriously by the board than other garden variety complaints, and this is what the Bethesda autopsy pathologists were threatening to do. Dr. Perry's account of this is perfectly credible. Pat Speer wrote: Are you pretending not to know about the turnarounds that Dr. Perry did in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, and about Dr. Perry's well-known reluctance to be interviewed and to participate in JFKA conferences and other related activities? Malcolm Perry's colleague and friend, Dr. Donald W. Miller, in 2013 wrote about the intimidation that Dr. Perry had undergone, about Perry's revisions of his position on the throat wound before the Warren Commission and HSCA, and about Perry's well-known reluctance to speak of the matter as follows: "...I have had the unique experience of personally knowing ... the Texas surgeon who performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy after he was shot, Dr. Malcolm Perry.... Dr. Perry was the first physician to speak publicly about the President’s injuries in a televised news conference an hour after his death. A newsman asked him, “Where was the entrance wound?” Dr. Perry informed the American public and the world that “There was an entrance wound in the neck…It [the bullet] appeared to be coming at him…,” which he repeated two more times at the news conference. This did not sit well with the Warren Commission. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck had to be an exit wound for Oswald to be the assassin. Presented with its single bullet theory when testifying before the Commission several months later, Dr. Perry obligingly changed his view of the matter and said that the bullet wound he observed in the neck “certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”... ...Dr. Perry publicly changed his view of the neck wound for the Warren Commission after a Secret Service Agent came to Dallas, threatened him, and coerced him to testify that it was an exit wound. In 1970, that Agent, Elmer Moore, confessed to a friend that he had acted “on orders from Washington.” He regretted that he had “badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck.” As ordered, he said, “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off.” The friend he admitted this to was (appropriately enough) a University of Washington graduate student named Jim Gochenaur. Thirteen years later, Dr. Perry and I performed surgery on a patient with a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. I removed the thoracic, or chest part of the aneurysm, and Dr. Perry, the abdominal part. When the residents were closing the incisions Malcolm and I sat together alone in the surgeons’ lounge drinking coffee. Dr. Perry had always refused to discuss the Kennedy assassination, but that night, after we had been operating together for many hours on a complex case, I once again asked him about it. This time, however, Dr. Perry told me that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, in fact, unquestionably a wound of entrance. A year later, when called to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Dr. Perry once again publicly supported the government’s single-bullet-theory official truth and agreed with the committee that the bullet wound in the neck must be an exit wound, explaining that the wound was so small that he had initially mistaken it for an entrance wound. But in 1986, Dr. Perry told another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, that it was in fact an entrance wound...." 'Reflections on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 50 Years Later' By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD | November 16, 2013 | https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/donald-w-miller-jr-md/jfk-thought-control-and-thought-crimes/ Pat Speer wrote: I know, due to my familiarity with your website, that you are well aware of all of the information I presented above, and yet you still deny the bulk of the evidence showing the massive cover up of the fact that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. Well I think I have a pretty good guess about why that is. My suspicion is that it had to do with the fact that the information above all leads to the alteration of President Kennedy's throat wound that took place between the time that the body left Parkland Hospital and the start of the "official" autopsy at Bethesda, as explained by Doug Horne, as follows: "...The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And when Robert Groden first showed the autopsy photographs to Dr. Malcolm Perry, Perry had a similar reaction, saying "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job." From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND
  9. No, Mr. Speer, it is not true that "...the only credible source for such a thing...is a very aged McClelland..." The source is New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman who, along with investigative reporter Fred Ferretti and Houston Chronicle reporter Stan Redding, interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on the evening of December 2, 1963. In Martin J. Steadman's article entitled "50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas...," he wrote as follows (See highlighted paragraph below): http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...Our meeting with Dr. Perry was after dinnertime at his home, and I remember a little girl playing with her toys on the living room floor as the three reporters and her father talked about how he tried to save a President’s life. She was oblivious to the gravity of the conversation, playing quietly with her toys throughout. Dr. Perry had become a controversial figure in the assassination story--to his dismay. With the President lying on his back on a gurney, fighting for breath in his dying moments, Dr. Perry tried to create an air passage with an incision across what he believed to be an entrance wound at the front of Kennedy’s neck. The President was pronounced dead soon after, but the doctor’s incision at the throat had forever foreclosed a conclusion that the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound. Late that Friday afternoon, the Parkland Hospital officials held a news conference for the hundreds of reporters who had descended on Dallas. Dr. Perry spoke of his efforts to save the President and his belief that his incision was across an entrance wound. The controversy didn’t erupt until government officials in Washington later said all three shots at the President had been fired from a sixth floor window of a building behind the President’s limousine. So little more than a week later, three reporters were speaking quietly to the surgeon at the center of the dispute. As far as I know, it was the first and only such private interview with Dr. Perry. None of us in his living room that night took out a notebook or a pencil. It was a conversation with a clearly reluctant surgeon who had done his best in a crisis and who had agonized about it since. Dr. Perry said he believed it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean, with no edges. In the course of the conversation, he was asked and answered that he had treated hundreds of gunshot victims in the Emergency Rooms at Parkland Memorial Hospital. At another point he said he was a hunter by hobby, and he was very familiar with guns and ammunition. He said he could tell at a glance the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound with its ragged edges. But he told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said. [emphasis not in original] When he was finished, there was only one question left. I asked him if he still believed it was an entrance wound. The question hung there for a long moment. “Yes,” he said. Ultimately Dr. Perry appeared as a witness before the Warren Commission. In substance he testified that he realized he had no proof the bullet hole in the President’s neck was an entrance wound, and he conceded that the Bethesda doctors who autopsied the President would know better because they had all of the forensic evidence and he had but a fleeting recollection. I can’t fault Dr. Perry for his testimony before the Warren Commission. Surely it occurred to him there was no point in holding out for a belief that couldn’t be proved. And just as surely, this 34-year-old surgeon with an exemplary record and a brilliant future knew his life would be forever shadowed by conspiracy theories that relied heavily on a bullet fired from the front. He testified only as he most certainly had to testify. But I’ll never forget what he said to three reporters that night in Dallas...." '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm The article I had originally provided in a post on this thread which referenced the highlighted passage above, and which @Robert Morrow was quoting from, is a very good article on the subject by @James DiEugenio using evidence discovered by @Rob Couteau (and which references your work on SS agent Elmer Moore), as follows: 'THE ORDEAL OF MALCOLM PERRY' | By James DiEugenio | Monday, 24 May 2021 05:00 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry "Using recent evidence discovered by Rob Couteau, Jim DiEugenio revisits the experiences of Parkland Hospital Dr. Malcolm Perry regarding the anterior neck wound he observed in President Kennedy and the concerted and persistent efforts to manipulate his testimony and obscure the clear evidence of a frontal entrance wound."
  10. Pat Speer wrote: Face it, Mr. Speer: Online forums and website accumulations of trivia are not the vehicles by which "truth" is ultimately decided in our civilization. Judges and Juries serve as our factfinders, and do so pursuant to historically vetted judicial rules and principles designed to eliminate the variety of frivolous nonsense and fallacious diatribe that you regularly practice in your endeavor to validate and protect the fraudulent photographic evidence that the government relies upon to preserve the cover-up of the coup de tat it perpetrated in 1963. Should your manipulation of the principles of probative value and evidentiary weight ever be adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction in which the scales of justice are genuinely operational, your entire project will go down in flames, and your fraudulent photographic evidence will be excluded from consideration except to prove fraud pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Your denial of the fact that you constantly proclaim the confused split-second crisis generated testimony of Bill Newman and the other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as definitive proof of your nutty top of the head wound mythology is conclusively belied by your posting behavior, including in this very thread. As previously stated, this betrays your lack of understanding of the principles of probative value and evidentiary weight under which there is simply no comparison between the testimony of the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses and the testimony and official reports of the law enforcement witnesses and the medical witnesses, and despite being constantly confronted about it by myself and others, you continue to proceed on the errant path that you are on as if you believe yourself to be participating in a fiction forum rather than conversing about the assassination of a United States President and the illegitimate downfall of a duly elected democratic government. Pat Speer wrote: You are neglecting to mention that the most prominent of those Parkland doctors -- meaning those who were senior physicians and who conducted the most extended examinations of JFK's large avulsive head wound -- qualified their validation of the autopsy photographs by saying that if there was scalp covering the large avulsive back of the head wound then, in that case, the back of the head autopsy photographs are authentic (even though it begs the obvious question of what the purpose of those particular autopsy photographs is given the absence of a visible wound, which is even more troubling when considering that John Stringer, the Bethesda autopsy photographer, told researcher David Lifton that the back of the head autopsy photographs he took were of the actual occipital-parietal head wound). Where doubt enters the equation, in reality, is when a Judge is shown the reports of all the Parkland doctors and nurses about the large gaping back of the head wound, as well as the David Lifton interview of John Stringer, and she or he excludes the back of the head autopsy photographs from evidence -- except to prove fraud -- pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Your suggestion that there could be a "reasonable doubt" of the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses (combined with the reports and testimony of the law enforcement witnesses and the Bethesda autopsy witnesses), and that just "numerous theorists" have attested to the existence of the occipital-parietal wound constitute yet further examples of the variety of sophistry you are so well known for on this issue. Pat Speer wrote: Your imaginary scenario has built into it your standard propaganda, consisting of easily debunked fallacies. The concert goers who claimed Hendrix was wearing a blue shirt are the fifty or so witnesses that wrote reports and/or otherwise attested that JFK had a large avulsive wound on the right side of the back of his head. The film showing Hendrix was wearing a white shirt is the Zapruder film in which there is a D-max black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal wound, and obviously designed to mimic shadow, about which at least three veteran Hollywood professionals have rendered their professional opinions that it is but one example of crude special effects in the film. Your best-selling book author could be David Lifton or any number of other JFKA researchers who have written books bringing to the attention of readers the overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence of the large occipital-parietal wound, and some of the many anomalies in the Zapruder film and autopsy photographs that are indicative of photographic forgery. Those you have renouncing their earlier testimony about the blue shirt when questioned by journalists are supposed to represent the Parkland doctors who, when confronted with the autopsy photos by Ben Bradlee and PBS, hemmed and hawed for fear of being portrayed as crazy conspiracy theorists, which is understandable, given the mainstream media propaganda campaigns they had all seen conducted against David Lifton. And the one holdout you mention represents Doctor Robert McClelland who continued to describe the large occipital-parietal wound he had witnesses up until the day of his death. This you present in your apparent misguided belief that the recanting of some of the Parkland doctors in light of the stress of media attention and potential risks to their professional reputations invalidates their earlier contemporaneous and near contemporaneous observations about the large occipital-parietal wound, but you are wrong. All things considered, the earliest accounts of the fifty or so witnesses, most of whom were law enforcement and medical professionals, continues to be the evidence with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight. The witnesses your story has coming forward later and falsely inserting themselves into the concert events represent JFK witnesses such as Dr. Robert Grossman, who is not mentioned as being involved in the treatment of President Kennedy by any of the medical reports or Warren Commission testimony, and who was likely not actually involved in the events, as demonstrated by his testimony to the ARRB that he saw Jackie Kennedy wearing a "white dress" on the day of the assassination, as well as his claims of having seen a small bullet entry wound in the back of JFK's head (the single solitary Parkland Hospital witness to make such a claim). Yet, because of Grossman's claims made in support of the Bethesda autopsy proceedings, you feature him prominently on your website without any mention of the likelihood that he is not a genuine witness. You are thus attacking yourself with your own story. The bottom line is that the reality which your silly metaphor represents is not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is, except for the parts that are applicable to you and your own sophistry. Pat Speer wrote: Your use of the ad hominem, straw man, and guilt by association fallacies in relation to Jim Fetzer is noteworthy. It is demonstrative of your recognition that you have no formidable arguments to offer in your own defense, and so must resort to cheap fallacious reasoning in an attempt to inflame the prejudices of readers. Using Jim Fetzer to mount an attack on all JFK researchers who recognize the probative value and evidentiary weight of the reports and testimony that proves the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is tantamount to using George Santos as the vehicle for an attack upon all politicians. It just doesn't fly and reveals your desperation and the frivolousness of your defense. Pat Speer wrote: I can see that you are really struggling with this idea of the judicial principles of probative value and evidentiary weight. "A few Parkland witnesses" who dealt with gunshot wounds on a daily basis in a busy metropolitan hospital versus the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had split-second glimpses of the assassination under highly traumatic conditions? As you can see, it wouldn't really be a fair fight, and as I'm sure Dr. Gary Aguilar has told you, adding "numerous autopsy witnesses" into the mix just further supports the already solid evidentiary case for the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound. The reports and testimony of the law enforcement professionals and the medical professionals would, without any doubt whatsoever, carry the day. In addition to very serious chain of custody issues, it is precisely all of those reports and testimony that would lead to the exclusion from evidence of the autopsy protocol (and associated photographs and X-rays), and the Zapruder film, except to prove fraud, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This may not seem like a just result to you, given that you are charged with defending the authenticity and integrity of these very materials, but it would certainly be a just result for those of us seeking to unravel the pernicious effects of the 1963 coup. You've picked the wrong side to be on Mr. Speer.
  11. Pat Speer wrote: Mr. Speer, you should be well aware by now that it is due to your misguided and misleading emphasis on Bill Newman as definitive evidentiary proof that JFK's large avulsive head wound was on the top or the side of his head that we are forced to revisit his testimony, and the testimony of various other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses again and again. With regard to Newman's testimony in particular, it is a testament to your lack of formal training in the assessment of the probative value and weight of official reports and testimonial evidence that you prioritize these Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as being key substantiation for your wacky hypothesis that the two superior classes of witnesses -- the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal wound -- fell victim to an inexplicable case of mass hallucinations pertaining to the large head wound on the day of the assassination. It is precisely because of that large body of unassailable testimonial and documentary evidence that we know that Bill Newman saw indications of TWO head wounds on the President's head, and that he witnessed indications of biological debris being blown out of the occipital parietal wound on the right side of the back of the President's head. It is true that Bill Newman is not sure of this given that he only had a fleeting glance during a high stress situation, but we can be sure of this due to the existing cumulative evidence regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's wounds, chiefly from those two superior classes of witnesses, the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal head wound. Even though Bill Newman didn't accurately perceive what he witnessed that day, we can and should interpret his observations in the context of the existing cumulative testimonial and documentary evidence. Bill Newman witnessed the bullet impacting and entering the President's head at the right temple, just as was reported by the Assistant Physician to the President, Dr. George Burkley, to Acting White House Press Secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, who reported the same to the world at the Parkland Hospital press conference; as well as according to Bethesda autopsy witnesses Paul O'Connor, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson. In addition to seeing the bullet impact the President's right temple, Bill Newman witnessed blood, brain and skull being blown out of the back of the President's head, but due to the split-second glance he had in the highly traumatic context of the situation, it instead appeared to Newman that he had seen the President's ear and the side of his head blown off; but objectively speaking, we know that Newman was actually seeing the same thing as Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the Secret Service follow up car described seeing to researcher Vince Palamara -- "...it was the right rear part of his head...because that's the part I saw blow out, the piece blow out..." -- and what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill told Arlen Specter under pains and penalties of perjury: "...The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered in blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Bill Newman himself acknowledged during his presentation at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016 that when he first saw the autopsy photographs, he realized that JFK's ear had not in fact been blown off, which was an explicit acknowledgment that his first day observations of the head wound had been distorted. But that Bill Newman, himself, realized that is immaterial, as the accuracy of his perceptions, and his own understanding of what he had seen, is outweighed by the much greater probative value and evidentiary weight of the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which for any reasonable factfinder or jury, taking the cover-up into consideration, would conclusively establish that there was a small entry wound in the President's right temple, and a large blow out wound on the right side of the back of the President's head. I state that Bill Newman is demonstrating the back of the head wound because, although Newman's doesn't clearly understand it himself, or at least does not clearly articulate it, the back of the head wound is what objectively existed on the ground in real time, that day in 1963. It may also be that Newman is conflating the two wounds; but even though that may be the case, what really matters is the objective reality of those two wounds as established by finder(s) of fact, whether by Judge or by Jury, weighing ALL of the evidence in the context of its appropriate probative value and evidentiary weight. Additionally, as it pertains to what Bill Newman understands about his own observations of JFK's head wound, whether consciously or not, I consider it to be highly significant that after seeing the autopsy photographs and learning that the President's ear had not in fact been blown off, when gesturing to his own head in the 1990's while describing what he had seen, he demonstrated that the portion of the President's head he saw blown off was behind the ear, in the back of the head, which is confirmed and corroborated by the vast body of other substantiating evidence, such as the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which is far more important than Newman's testimony in its own right. And if you are so troubled by my efforts to counter your use of inferior witness testimony -- such as that of Bill Newman and other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses -- to assert the utterly absurd proposition that the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses mass hallucinated their observations about President Kennedy's right temple and back of the head wounds, maybe you should consider discontinuing your practice of putting the cart before the horse by attempting to invalidate the reports and testimonial evidence of the witnesses with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight using the confused testimony of those Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had only split second glances at the wounds in the midst of a highly stressful crisis situation. It only serves to emphasize, highlight and underscore your lack of formal training about how to correctly assess the probative value and evidentiary weight of official reports and testimonial evidence, as well as being completely futile as it merely serves to reveal that you are attempting to perpetrate an agenda upon us that insults our intelligence.
  12. I've experimented with AI a little bit with JFKA topics, with both surprisingly good results, and disappointing results: The following is a video I made with AI about the Bethesda autopsy, with my contribution being a written script. AI supplied the visuals and vocals. I did this at no cost, and was surprised that it turned out as well as it did: What I had little success with was getting AI to create images of the Bethesda autopsy, the assassination itself, and other JFK related scenes, based upon my prompts. The following images are the result of those attempts:
  13. Evidently, the pathologists at the pre-autopsy autopsy written about by Doug Horne in Volume IV of his "Inside the Records Review Board," at which a clandestine craniotomy was performed, and other surgical procedures took place to remove evidence of gunshots from the front (such as destroying evidence of a frontal shot to the throat): --------------------------------------------- There is simply no way to get around this... Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain. * Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB. * He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg). --------------------------------------------- DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW: "...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole. ⁠ Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph. ⁠ Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24 ⁠ Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important: ⁠ "We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain." ⁠ Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26... ⁠ ...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...." ⁠ ⁠https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv
  14. This might be considered a postscript to the story about the interplay between Dr. Malcolm Perry and the Bethesda autopsy which is significant to the story of the small circular hole that was clean, with no edges, that Perry described: DR. MALCOLM PERRY DENIES DOING "THE BUTCHER JOB" ON JFK'S THROAT DEPICTED IN 'STARE OF DEATH' AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxRh4PZ_nFvW017auQQTpPFiamqrQ5CKDE From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...]
×
×
  • Create New...