Keven Hofeling

Some people believe the silliest things, such as that it is significant that mortician Tom Robinson said that he believed the quarter inch right temple wound that he sealed with a dab of wax was an exit wound, even though he was not a pathologist, nor an expert in ballistics, and always made it perfectly clear that he was basing his opinion that the right temple wound was an exit wound on the discussions of the pathologists that he had overheard. Can you believe that? Or the idea that in order for Charles Brehm's hand gesture over the right side of the back of his head to mean he was denoting a shot from the front of the limousine, he would have to be "a conspiracy theorist." As if the implications of evidence are subjective like that. It has never occurred to some people that the value of the evidence is in truth enhanced and exemplified by the fact that the bringer of bad news has no bias, and not even the least understanding of the significance of the facts he or she has brought to the table. Some people just don't get this empirical principle, and I have no idea why....

A few days ago you quoted James Jenkins to me contending that you were presenting me with a "fact." I then presented you with the following photograph of a skull model on which James Jenkins had marked the right temple and occipital-parietal wounds that he witnessed in the Bethesda Morgue the night of the assassination, and ever since you have not wanted to discuss James Jenkins with me anymore (or so it seems to me). So tell me: Is this photograph of a skull model on which James Jenkins sketched the wounds he witnessed at Bethesda indicative of "facts" or of a "narrative?"

1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" still of Z-317 https://youtu.be/Xorv0YCCRno?t=2506 The black patch is even more obvious in the crop of the 1998 MPI scan of Z-317 presented in Hany Farid's article which attempts to debunk the black patch thesis: https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf ------------------------------------------------------ Z-317 from Hany Farid article https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf Z-317 from Hany Farid article https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf The black patch is equally evident in Jack White's presentation of the 1998 MPI scan of Z-317: And the black patch is also visible in this 9/2/2020 letter written by Rollie Zavada which includes Z-317: https://www.ebay.com/itm/403700159791 But for sure, Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scan of Z-317 from the "Forensic Copy" of the Zapruder film they purchased from the National Archives is superior to all of the above: And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills? The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ , as follows: ---------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE: "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and post production who have performed content analysis of the Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ) and Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) who had the following to say about the Zapruder film. Look them up, they are the real deal. ------------------------------------------------ FILM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS COMMENTING ABOUT Z-317 ------------------------------------------------ "...This extreme close-up from the HD scan of Zapruder frame 317 is what prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." His film industry colleague, Paul Rutan, Jr., proclaimed we are looking at artwork in this frame (i.e., aerial imaging) -- not at "opticals" (i.e., traveling matte)...." Horne's "Inside the ARRB," Vol. 4, p. 1361. Even Rollie Zavada has acknowledged the black patch and conceded that "...it certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration...." Although Rollie Zavada is not and never claimed to be an expert on film alteration or cinematography. Zavada was a Kodak employee with expertise in Kodachrome II film, and thus is not qualified to evaluate the Zapruder film for content falsification, and the ARRB mandate that Zavada had did not include "content analysis" for which he is not qualified. Zavada authenticated that the extant Zapruder film is on Kodak Kodachrome II film -- which is no surprise given that Hawkeyeworks was a joint CIA/Kodak facility -- and then went beyond his expertise to claim that the film had not been altered. But as you can see below, even Rollie Zavada, viewing an inferior copy of Z-317, admitted that the black patch looks like an alteration, but not being an expert in film alteration, simply said he refused to believe it because he hadn't seen evidence of how it could have been done.... "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." Having no expertise in film alteration whatsoever he resorted to blind faith in a sacred cow instead of following the evidence wherever it leads even though the Heavens may fall... -------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG HORNE TAKES ROLLIE ZAVADA TO TASK OVER ZAPRUDER FRAME 317 [THE BLACK PATCH SUPERIMPOSED OVER JFK'S OCCIPITAL BLOW OUT WOUND]: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html "...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.] I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...." 'Josiah Thompson and Rollie Zavada at JFK Lancer: A Critical Report' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

I came across this meme on PatSpeer.Com (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18c-reason-to-doubt) and thought I'd ask Mr. Speer a couple questions about the peculiarities therein... 1. I see that you have a quite clear version of Z-317 on your meme. The following are 6k stills from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's copy of the "Forensic Zapruder Film" that they purchased from the National Archives which are even sharper than your copy. The deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal region in the lower right back side of JFK's head is even sharper in these copies of Z-317, although yours is very sharp; indeed, sharp enough to see the hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges. I'm wondering what exactly you think that patch is? 2. When I ask this question of Zapruder film authenticity apologists (both of the LN and CT denominations), without fail the answer that comes back is that it is "a shadow." The problem with this answer, however, as demonstrated by the following GIF showing the transformation of the actual shadow on the back of JFK's head in Z-312 to the deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges that we see at Z-317, only 5/18ths of one second later, is that within that micro second of time a perfectly natural looking shadow has acquired unnatural characteristics, such as sharp edges and the hexagram shape. I'm wondering if you have an explanation for this peculiarity? 3. The following set of stills are from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k copies of selected Zapruder film frames Z-312 through Z-335. Notice how the black patch is present in all of the frames in which you can see the back of JFK's head, and notice how the deep black patch with sharp edges radically morphs from frame to frame, in fractions of seconds between each, and tell me if you have ever seen a "natural shadow" behave in such a manner? Do you think it all unusual that the black patch -- or shadow, if you insist --morphs so perfectly to obscure the right side of the back of JFK's head where up to 50 or more witnesses reported that we should be seeing a large avulsive blow out wound? 4. And as for the back-of-the-head photograph you've included in your meme, I'm sure you understand that in order to overcome objections to the contradiction between it and memories and reports of a large avulsive back of the head wound, a sizable contingent of witnesses and researchers have had to postulate the existence of a "flap" covering what you term "the invisible hole." One of these researchers, Douglas Horne, has in recent years reassessed his position about the existence of such a "flap" due to the failure of the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to pass the stereographic testing of Dr. David Mantik and Robert Groden (during his time as a photographic consultant for the HSCA). See article below regarding Doug Horne's reversal of position on the authenticity of the BOH autopsy photographs. Does it concern you that former proponents of an imputed "flap" as a saving measure for the authenticity of the BOH autopsy photographs, such as Doug Horne, are accepting the science of spectrographic testing and are conceding that the BOH autopsy photographs necessarily must be altered? 5. Does it concern you that your notion of an "invisible hole" as it pertains to the BOH autopsy photographs is also invisible with regard to the dimensions of the posterior border of the large top-of-the-head wound modeled by Bethesda pathologist J. Thornton Boswell? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): Others adhering to the hypothesis about the concealment of JFK's head wound in the back of the head autopsy photographs being accomplished by manipulation of the scalp have changed their minds and concluded instead that the photographs are fraudulent. Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, which found that there is a soft matte insertion over the occipital-parietal wound in these photos, is a strong indication that the back of the head autopsy photographs have been altered. Doug Horne is among those who have changed their minds as the result of Dr. Mantik's testing. https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 When the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were first shown the bootleg autopsy photographs, they reacted in shock, and disavowed them. By the time of the 1988 NOVA PBS-TV program ["Who Shot President Kennedy?" https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c ], some of the Parkland doctors who had had some time to find ways to rationalize away the discrepancy between their eye-witness observation and the autopsy photographs, they did exactly that for PBS/Nova, opining that JFK's skull had been manipulated in such a way as to create the false appearance that the back of JFK's head was intact. Dr. David Mantik described it as follows: "...Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Doug Horne had reached the same conclusion during his tenure with the ARRB. In his book "Inside the ARRB" as well as in his Press Statement of May 15, 2006, Doug Horne expressed doubt about claims that the back of the head autopsy photographs of JFK have been altered to conceal the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, speculating instead that JFK's scalp had been manipulated in the photos to conceal the back of the head wound. Ten years later, after Dr. David Mantik had conducted stereoscopic analysis on the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, and thereby detected that there is a soft matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound in the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Doug Horne announced that he had changed his opinion, and now accepts the evidence that the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head are in fact altered. Doug Horne announced his change of opinion during a joint appearance with Dr. David Mantik on Brent Holland's "Night Fright" podcast. The transcript of the relevant dialogue is below, and the video has been queued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ---------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): …BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David? DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing. BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug? DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems. DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about… BRENT HOLLAND: Really?! DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it…. DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine… BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration. DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice. DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…”

Cool. That would make you the first seriously devoted fellow JFK researcher I have met during the forty or so years that I've been at this. Good to meet you. I have a great deal of appreciation for Dr. Aguilar's work too and have noticed that Speer refuses to respond to it (or basically anything that sinks his ship). In my book that is dogmatism in its purest form. If I ever reach a point that I am no longer capable of learning anything new about the assassination, I'll start looking for a new interest. ------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

Interestingly enough, I just replied to this post. You and I both pressed the submit button at exactly the same time. There are indications that both Bill Newman and Abraham Zapruder DID see the blood, brains and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head. Bill Newman described the biological debris as follows: 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 -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] NOTE THAT VIDEO IS CUED IN ADVANCE FOR YOU. Bill Newman, while describing the biological debris being blown out of JFK's head, makes a hand gesture over the lower right hand side of the back of his head, denoting the location where he saw the biological debris exiting JFK's head: And Abraham Zapruder mentioned seeing the blood, brains and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head both in his Warren Commission testimony and in his Clay Shaw trial testimony: Abraham Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony: https://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm "...Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning-leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was. you know, like you say, “Oh, he got me,” when you hear a shot - you’ve heard these expressions and then I saw - I don’t believe the Presi- dent is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started - I cani hardly talk about it [the witness crying]. Mr. LIEBELER. That’s all right, Mr. Zapruder, would you like a drink of water? Why don’t you step out and have a drink of water? Mr. ZAPRUDER. I’m sorry-I’m ashamed of myself really but I couldn't help it..." Obviously, Zapruder was very traumatized by what he had seen through his viewfinder at the time of the headshot -- which certainly wasn't just the red mist cloud that appears in one frame for 1/18 of one second in the extant Zapruder film of today [more on this below]. Liebler didn't return to the topic, but Zapruder did near the end of the questioning: "...Mr. ZAPRUDER. I am only sorry I broke down-1 didn’t know I was going to do it. Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, I want to thank you very much, for the Com- mission, for coming down. It has been very helpful. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I am ashamed of myself. I didn’t know I was going to break down and for a man to - but it was a tragic thing, and when you started asking me that, and I saw the thing all over again, and it was an awful thing-I know very few people who had seen it like that - it was an awful thing and I loved the President, and to see that happen before my eyes - his head just opened up and shot down like a dog - it leaves a very, very deep sentimental impression with you; it’s terrible. Mr. LIEBELEB. Well, you don’t have to feel ashamed about that at all, and thank you very much. I enjoyed meeting you very much...." Abraham Zapruder's Clay Shaw Trial Testimony: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm In Abraham Zapruder's Clay Shaw trial testimony, Zapruder recounts that JFK's "head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out", which is something many other witnesses attested to, but we don't see it in the extant Zapruder film of today: "...Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: ...As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out...." A follow up question then results in Abraham Zapruder even more explicitly describing "the head practically open[ed] up and blood and many more things, whatever it was, just came out of his head." This confirms for us that Abraham Zapruder at the time of the Clay Shaw trial -- exactly like his business partner Erwin Schwartz -- remembered imagery from the camera-original Zapruder film from their repeated viewings during the weekend of the assassination, depicting blood, brain and skull being ejected from the back of JFK's head; imagery that has been completely excised from the extant Zapruder film: "...Q: As you saw it, what happened at the time the second shot went off in regard to President Kennedy? What did you see? A: I thought I just described what I saw. You mean where it hit him? Q: Yes. A: I saw the head practically open up and blood and many more things, whatever it was, brains, just came out of his head...." Abraham Zapruder's Clay Shaw trial testimony, as recited above, is further supported by the fact that Zapruder's business partner, Erwin Schwartz, who accompanied Zapruder on the day of the assassination to the Kodak and Jamieson lab as he developed his camera original film, and viewed the camera-original film at least 15 times during that weekend, on November 21, 1994 reported to Noel Twyman, author of Bloody Treason, that he recalled seeing bloody exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy's head and traveling to the left rear when he viewed the original film at Kodak. Noel Twyman wrote in Bloody Treason: "...When I interviewed Erwin Swartz, I asked him several questions about what he saw on the film when he first viewed it in its original state at Eastman Kodak. [In a footnote, Twyman made clear that Schwartz was referring to first viewing the film in its 16 mm wide, unslit state at the Kodak plant in Dallas.]...I also asked him to describe what he saw at the instant of the fatal head shot. His answer was very descriptive. He said he saw Kennedy's head suddenly whip around to the left (counter-clockwise). 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." We went over this several times with him to be certain he was clear on this point. He was very clear. Of course. Schwartz's statement that the blood and brains went back to the rear and left was completely consistent with all of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the rear of Kennedy's head blow out and brain and blood go to the rear. It was also consistent with Dallas motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis's testimony that he was riding to the rear and the left of limousine and was splattered with blood and brains...So here we have testimony from a man who first saw the original Zapruder film (he said he looked- at it at least fifteen times over the weekend)...who...saw the eruption of blood and brains in a direction opposite [to] what we now see on the Zapruder film...." Note that there are no pieces of skull or brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as you can see from the witness accounts directly below. -------------------------------------------------------- WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni. __________ "...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..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...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..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...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 KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...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 BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...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...." Dealey Plaza witness 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 ). __________ "...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..." Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT 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 OH 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...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...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. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. __________ Z-311 THROUGH Z-316 SHOWING TOTAL ABSENCE OF BLOOD, BRAIN AND SKULL

This meme is disseminated in the JFK research groups by Warren Commission apologists as a slightly more sophisticated proof that there was no back-of-the-head wound than the utterly absurd argument that the members of the Parkland Trauma Team did not bother to inspect the back of the President's head and therefore could not possibly know of the existence of the large wound in the occipital-parietal region. The Pat Speer.com version of this tactic throws photos of Gail Newman and Malcolm Kilduff into the mix in support of the baseless claim -- which you repeat in your comment -- that all of the Dealey Plaza witnesses referred only to one large head wound, and that they all located that large head wound at JFK's right temple. Like your claims about the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Autopsy witnesses, your assertions about the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not withstand scrutiny. Practically the entire Secret Service Detail and multiple lay witnesses describe the same blown out right side of the back of JFK's head that the Parkland doctors and nurses would later report; and contrary to your claims, the accounts of some of these witnesses do indeed demonstrate recognition of a frontal entrance wound AND a large rear exit wound from which blood, brain and skull was rearwardly ejected at high velocity. Pat Speer.com attempts to contend with the historical abundance of back-of-the-head wound evidence and testimony through a combination of hair-splitting, parlor trick sleights of hand, and outright character assassination and demonization -- all tactics that would be unnecessary but for the absence of supporting evidence and common sense for your positions. Take, for example, your treatment of Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm: it is implied that by 1966 Brehm was embellishing his memories to include a back-of-the-head wound and rearward flying biological debris; it is presumed that his lack of expertise in ballistics impugns his credibility rather than enhances it; and attempts are made to impute sinister implications to an inconsequential pause in Brehm's speech, and to gaslight readers into believing that Brehm has a finger in the palm of his hand pointing to his right ear when, in fact, his actual fingers are resting upon the occipital-parietal region of the back of his head. Unfortunately, with PatSpeer.com, such tactics are the rule rather than the exception. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that another cut and paste job from PatSpeer.com is not employed to respond to this post, particularly considering that same would be unresponsive to the information in this post that your site is calculated to evade. CHARLES BREHM HIT PIECE EXCERPTED FROM PATSPEER.COM _________ 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 the 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 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] _________ 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 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 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. _________ 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] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS 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 -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] As Bill Newman demonstrated in the interview above, in addition to the right temple entry wound that he famously pointed out on the day of the assassination, he was also conscious of the biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head, thus making him a Dealey Plaza witness who reported two wounds to JFK's head. _________ 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] Marilyn Willis appears to be another Dealey Plaza witness who was conscious of both the small entry wound in the front of JFK's head and the large exit wound in the back of his head. _________ 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.

------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

And consider what we learned when the ARRB declassified the records that the HSCA had classified 'top secret' for 50 years: They had suppressed their medical witness interviews from the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, forcing the Panel to rely exclusively on the fraudulent Autopsy Protocol, and autopsy photographs and X-rays, in relation to questions about the occipital parietal wound in particular. And to think that people like Speer swear by this stuff... ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGARDING THE HSCA MEDICAL COVER-UP: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position. But misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in JFK’ skull.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .”Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants. ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm ___________________________________________ This is the COPA conference referenced in the article above: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'AMAZING HSCA PANEL COPA CONFERENCE 1995: BADEN, PURDY, WECHT + GARY AGUILAR AND KATHY CUNNINGHAM' Vince Palamara | Jun 10, 2022 | https://youtu.be/LoHk5Y6pqFY ------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

Yes, he did. And there is also this... "...JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this site, nor did they discuss it any further. When questioned, he said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye, but did state that these two sites were completely different, i.e., separated by enough distance to be distinguishable. He had no recollection of the bullet entrance wound low in the posterior skull described by all three pathologists in the autopsy report, and in their testimony over the years. Analysis: Jenkins' 5 mm diameter bullet wound in the right temporal bone, just anterior to and slightly above the level of the right ear, is entirely consistent with an entry wound, and inconsistent with a bullet exit wound. Jenkins’ bullet entry site supports a shot from the right front that would have caused the huge blowout in the right rear posterior skull, the large avulsed wound seen by all the Parkland witnesses. This was the large defect, devoid of scalp and skull, that neurosurgeon Kemp Clark at Parkland described as a probable “tangential wound” at the Parkland press conference the afternoon of the assassination. [A bullet striking near the right ear and blowing out the right rear of the skull could create damage consistent with what someone else might describe as a "tangential wound."] Jenkins’ bullet hole is consistent with the same-day testimony of Bill Newman, who thought he saw part of President Kennedy’s ear “blown off”---presumably Newman saw a bone fragment exit this area immediately after the bullet’s impact. Jenkins' bullet entry site is also consistent with the wound diagram of the side of the head (a lateral view) made by Tom Robinson in 1996 for the ARRB. And I know why James Jenkins did not recall seeing an entry wound high above the right eye in the frontal bone, just below JFK’s hairline. In fact, it is highly significant that Jenkins did NOT see it. By the time Jenkins saw the body, shortly after 8:00 PM, that wound (seen by Dennis David and Joe O’Donnell in photographs the week after JFK’s death) had been obliterated---excised by Dr. Humes’s scalpel---during the clandestine post-mortem surgery. No doubt all Jenkins could see in that area was the bright red incision we see in the forehead today, above the right eye, in the autopsy photographs. We know that incision was not made at Parkland Hospital, and was not seen by anyone in Dallas. Surely, therefore, it was made by Dr. Humes in order to remove all evidence of the entrance wound at that site from the body. This is the same site at which acting White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed his finger before media people with cameras, who were at Parkland Hospital, when he quoted Dr. Burkley’s statement that the cause of death was a bullet “right through the brain.” Jenkins did not see it simply because he was not in the morgue when Dr. Humes removed evidence of that entrance wound (skin and bone tissue) from the cranium, as well as numerous bullet fragments from the brain, during clandestine surgery prior to the autopsy...." The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963 November 26th, 2013 by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board) https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

THE MYSTERY OF ZAPRUDER FRAME 314; MIRACLE, MYTH, OR PHOTOGRAPHIC FAKERY? The clear images of the Zapruder film head wound sequence begin at Z-314 (as we see below in these blown up and cropped images from the 1998 MPI "Image of an Assassination" CD struck off the extant "original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, thus making it a FIRST GENERATION product). Z-314 through Z-337 depict a top of the head blow out which seems to morph into a huge crater in JFK's forehead which, of course, none of the witnesses reported, not even pathologists Boswell and Humes (who had otherwise mutilated the top of JFK's head by performing a modified craniotomy with a bone saw, but did not do anything resembling the huge forehead crater we see in these Zapruder images). And in all of the frames that follow Z-313 in which it is possible to see the back of JFK's head, there is a conspicuous black patch covering the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head. Multiple witnesses, in Dealey Plaza, and some who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film on 11/22/1963, reported real world observations of copious amounts of blood, brain and skull being ejected from the back of JFK's head.... WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni. __________ "...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..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...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..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...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 KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...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 BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...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...." Dealey Plaza witness 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 ). __________ "...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..." Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT 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 OH 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...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...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. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. But all of this rearward flying biological debris is mysteriously missing from the extant "original" Zapruder film, and in its place the red mist cloud lasting but for one frame (1/18th of one second in duration): Frame 314 of the Zapruder film immediately follows frame 313 -- the single frame in which we see the halo of blood from the head shot. Z-314 appears to portray a slice of skull or scalp coming off of the top of JFK's head, yet none of the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital reported any wounds on JFK's head other than the occipital-parietal wound in the back. Not even Nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the dried blood out of JFK's hair before the body was placed in the ceremonial casket encountered such a wound in the front or top of JFK's head. A great many JFK assassination researchers have speculated that the wound depicted by Z-314 is a swinging bone door (or flap) which Jackie Kennedy pushed back into place on the way to Parkland Hospital; and that said bone door (or flap) was sealed so well by the First Lady that none of the medical personel at Parkland Hospital could see it. Nor was such a frontal cranial swinging bone door (or flap) encountered at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center during the autopsy; although pathologists Boswell, Finck and Humes reported a wound in the top of JFK's head which none of the Parkland nurses or doctors had seen or encountered. So perhaps the swinging bone door (or flap) opened while the body was in transit to Bethesda? Special Agents O'Neil and Sibert who were tasked with preparing a report of the autopsy for the Federal Bureau of Investigation attended the autopsy from beginning to end, and reported that the only head wound they had seen at the autopsy was the occipital parietal wound in the back of JFK's head. Both agents also told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that they had not seen any head wound at the autopsy other than the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head. So both the swinging bone door (or flap) in the top of JFK's head that some JFK assassination researchers speculate existed, AND the frontal head wound reported by the pathologists, were for some reason invisible to Agents O'Neil and Sibert, and invisible to all the other autopsy witnesses except for the three pathologists. How could that possibly be? JAMES W. SIBERT'S SKETCH OF HEAD WOUND FOR THE ARRB: FRANCIS X O'NEIL JR'S SKETCH OF HEAD WOUND FOR THE HSCA: A few of the photographs of the autopsy appear to depict what some JFK researchers have called a "bat wing" in the area of JFK's right temple, but said "bat wing" seems to be considerably smaller than the swinging bone door (or flap) depicted by Z-314, and is oriented differently. FBI agents O'Neil and Sibert did not report seeing such a "bat wing" to the FBI, the HSCA or the ARRB; and the three pathologists did not specifically note such a "bat wing" in their official Autopsy Protocol, so said "bat wing" is also quite mysterious. Mortician Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home, who was primarily responsible for restoration of JFK's head for an open-casket funeral, reported to the HSCA that the only significant wound on JFK's head other than the occipital-parietal wound in the back was a puncture in JFK's right temple that was a quarter inch in diameter that he sealed with a dab of wax (Robinson also noted very small shrapnel wounds in JFK's right cheek that he also sealed with wax). The speculated swinging bone door (or flap) and underlying frontal head wound was evidently also invisible to the morticians, so if it had ever existed, it had vanished by the end of the autopsy procedures. However, the diagram Tom Robinson executed of the right temple wound for the ARRB (See below) does have a triangular shape, and could be speculated to be the "bat wing" of the autopsy photographs (and Robinson even referred to it as "a flap" in his ARRB testimony), but it is certainly far too small to be the swinging bone door (or flap) that we see in Z-314, and Robinson's quarter inch in diameter estimation of the right temple wound he sealed with wax could not be the enormous head wound we see in later frames of the Zapruder film, such as Z-335 and Z-337. TOM ROBINSON'S SKETCH OF RIGHT TEMPLE WOUND FOR THE ARRB: ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME 335: ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME 337: Thus, the underlying frontal head wound that we can only presume existed at frame 314 of the Zapruder film (since only the so-called swinging bone door, or flap can be seen in Z-314) mysteriously appeared only for pathologists Boswell, Finck and Humes; and not for any other autopsy attendee. And the swinging bone door (or flap), and underlying frontal head wound remained as invisible to the morticians as it was to the Parkland Hospital medical witnesses, and all other autopsy attendees. How can this possibly be? What exactly is the mysterious slice of skull matter or biological debris we see in Z-314, and how is it possible that the underlying frontal head wound briefly appeared only for the autopsy pathologists, only to disappear again prior to the beginning of the work of the morticians? Is the vanishing swinging bone door (or flap) a miracle, a myth, or photographic fakery?

Highly suggestive of the importance of the NPIC/Hawkeyeworks/Zapruder film topic is the following... CIA MEMO DOCUMENTING INVOLVEMENT OF DINO BRUGIONI AND NPIC IN PLANNING A TRIANGULATED CROSSFIRE ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO (THE OPERATION OUT OF WHICH THE JFK ASSASSINATION ORIGINATED): William Kelly has recently updated his very interesting article entitled "Pathfinder at Dealey Plaza - Revised and Updated" -- https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html -- about CIA Operation Pathfinder, which concerns the CIA paramilitary operation to assassinate Fidel Castro by triangulated crossfire sniper action which, evidently, was ultimately modified to accomplish the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In his article, Kelly references a 21, March 1975 CIA "Memorandum for the Record" (attached to below), contained in the CIA Security File of Frank Sturgis, which documents that Dino Brugioni, Chief of the Western Geographic Region of the CIA National Photographic Interpretation Center ("NPIC"), had been informed of the Pathfinder program to assassinate Fidel Castro, and subsequent CIA interviews of NPIC personnel revealed that NPIC was involved in providing advance photographic intelligence in support of the Castro assassination mission. This, for me, raises the question of whether NPIC may have also been involved in providing advance photographic intelligence for the successor to Pathfinder -- the Kennedy assassination -- and perhaps post assassination work, such as that related to the films of the assassination, such as the Zapruder film (which is the source of our familiarity with Dino Brugioni). It would appear plausible that the duplication of the plan to assassinate Castro for purposes of assassinating Kennedy might also include duplication of the advance and post intelligence work by NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, and that perhaps the proximity of said operations to the actual culprits of the JFK assassination might explain why certain CIA operatives posing as JFK assassination researchers go batshit crazy with their denials and misinformation about Dino Brugioni's account of working with the camera-original Zapruder film at NPIC during the evening of November 23, 1963? There is MUCH of additional interest in William Kelly's article, and I highly recommend that you read it in full: 'PATHFINDER AT DEALEY PLAZA – Revised and Updated' By William Kelly – Billkelly3@gmail.com | Friday, June 9, 2023 | https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2023/06/pathfinder-at-dealey-plaza-revised-and.html

I agree that Robinson and Reed's testimony leave much to be desired in terms of timelines, but Tom Robinson fiercely objected to the top-of-the-head autopsy photographs when the ARRB showed them to him: "...-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD...." (emphasis not in original) MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm And the photographs Robinson was reacting to were taken at the beginning of the "official" autopsy (as confirmed by the numbering of the autopsy photographs in question having been taken at the beginning of the "official" autopsy as well as the condition of the head as James Jenkins described his initial observations of same to be): JENKINS: "...Now the strange thing about it was at the top of this wound here there was an INCISION in the scalp [Jenkins points to parietal area above occiput on skull model] that went approximately to the coronal suture here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. It went a little past here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. QUESTION: An incision... JENKINS: An incision. QUESTION: ...that you saw? JENKINS: Right, it was actually see... QUESTION: Why would there be an incision? JENKINS: That's a good question. The scalp had, you know, remember all of this area in this portion is fractured [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], okay, to the sagittal suture, which is this suture [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. All of this area was fractured now, but it wasn't gone, it was still being kept intact by the scalp. The scalp had rips and tears in it. Along this area [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], it seemed like some of those tears in the scalp had been surgically connected. The little connections to follow fracture line in here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. And that extended to about here [Jenkins points to parietal area on top of skull model]. Okay, you know, that was the same. When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off of the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think, you know, I think was the towel, but the scalp and the whole thing, this was all matted hair, and missing scalp, torn scalp, fatty tissue from beneath the scalp... QUESTION: Which is all normal? JENKINS: Yea, which is all normal. Okay, it had kind of stuck to that secondary layer. So as he was taking it off this area kinda gaped open, but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together. Now that is significant for, the fact is you could actually, if you wanted to do that, you could actually lay this skull open. You could actually take your hands and seperate it. So that would have given you access to the brain. QUESTION: Which means? JENKINS: Which... Again, speculation, is that, fact is that you would have had access, you would have had access to the brain before we received it in the morgue..." [See James Jenkins's answers at the following link which has been cued up for you: https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1823 ] In order for Tom Robinson to be objecting to these photographs, he had to have seen JFK's head at an earlier point prior to the top-of-the-head damage portrayed in them, and prior to the damage described by James Jenkins upon pathologist Humes taking the wrappings off of the head immediately upon the body being removed from the casket (what appeared to Jenkins to be the first time the body was removed from a casket in the morgue). It is also important to understand that Tom Robinson also described to the ARRB (and the HSCA) the use of a bone saw to conduct a craniotomy: "...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED... PAGE 3: "...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..." MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm A craniotomy did not take place during the "official autopsy." No mention is made of a craniotomy in the "official" Autopsy Protocol, and throughout all of the investigations, it has been pathologist Humes's position that no craniotomy was necessary because the skull was so shattered that the brain simply rolled out into his hands. Nor did James Jenkins or other autopsy techs report a craniotomy, except for X-ray tech Ed Reed who reported to the ARRB that he and Jerol Custer were asked to leave once Humes began to cut into JFK's forehead with the bone saw: "...Q: Where you present during the time of the first incision. A: Yes. Q: What was the first incision? A: The cranium. The scalp, right here. Q: And can you describe how that procedure - A: Commander Humes made an incision. After we brought all the X-rays back, we were all allowed to sit up in the podium and observe. And Commander Humes made an incision - that I could see from my vantage point - an incision in the forehead, and brought back the scalp. Q: Okay. A: Like this. Q: And you were making a line first across the top of your forehead, roughly along the hairline - A: With a scalpel. Q: -and then pulling the scalp back. A: That's correct. Just like this. Q: And were you able to see the size of the wound when the scalp - A: Not from my - not from where I was, no. The podium was a good 20 feet away. Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head? A: WELL AFTER ABOUT 20 MINUTES, COMMANDER HUMES TOOK OUT A SAW, AND STARTED TO CUT THE FOREHEAD WITH THE BONE - WITH THE SAW. MECHANICAL SAW. CIRCULAR, SMALL, MECHANICAL - ALMOST LIKE A CAST SAW, BUT IT'S MADE - Q: Sure. A: - SPECIFICALLY FOR BONE. (emphasis not in original) Q: And what did you see next? A: We were asked to leave at that time. Jerry Custer and myself were asked to leave. Q: Do you know why you were asked to leave? A: Because we were - No more assistance - our assistance was not needed. X-rays were done. And someone decided that we weren't needed, and they asked us to leave...." In The Matter Of: PDF https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf Assassination Records Review Board In Re: President John E Kennedy, J1: Deposition of Edward E Reed October 21, 1997 Thus, I believe it is on the basis that nobody but Robinson and Reed reported that a craniotomy was conducted, and that all of the head damage caused with scalpel and bone saw in the course of the craniotomy was believed by others -- such as Jim Jenkins and Jerrol Custer -- to have occurred prior to the start of the "official" autopsy, that it has been postulated that the craniotomy observed by Tom Robinson, and partially observed by Ed Reed, in fact took place prior to the start of the "official" autopsy. The following is how Doug Horne ties it all together: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963 November 26th, 2013 by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board) https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html On Thursday, November 21, 2013 I noticed a tall, reserved, dignified and almost shy man standing in the lobby of the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas, where the JFK Lancer conference was being held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. He was well over six feet tall, wore glasses, had white hair, and sported a well-trimmed short white beard; was impeccably groomed, and had an air of quiet and seriousness that made me hesitant to approach him. I immediately knew it was James Curtis Jenkins, one of the two Navy corpsmen who served as “autopsy technicians” and assisted the Navy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, at President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. It was now 50 years later, and I was pleased to see Mr. Jenkins alive, and looking so good---and yet surprised to see him attending a JFK research conference. I introduced myself, and found that he was attending the conference with William Law, one of the very few people in the JFK research community he trusts. William Law interviewed many of the autopsy witnesses and published his oral history of their interviews, In the Eye of History, in 2003. James Jenkins had a reputation for being reticent to discuss the JFK autopsy, and with good reason. He did not have a good experience when interviewed by two hostile and disbelieving HSCA staff members, and so didn’t trust any Federal authorities, particularly since---because of what he himself witnessed at President Kennedy’s autopsy---he did not concur with the Warren Commission’s conclusions about a lone gunman firing from behind, and no shots hitting JFK from the right front. After the HSCA published its own report in 1979, confirming the Warren Commission’s conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald had done all the wounding of the limousine’s occupants with shots from above and behind, he was even less well disposed toward the organs of authority in this country. Over the years, since the HSCA’s report was issued in 1979, Jim had agreed to appear on video before three different researcher-organized panels consisting largely of Navy autopsy witnesses, but none of this footage has yet been aired in the format of a completed documentary. I had seen some of the raw footage from one of these interviews (in which Jim was interviewed along with Paul O’Connor and some of the Parkland treatment staff, including Dr. Robert McClelland), and I knew, therefore, that Mr. Jenkins had significant things to say about what transpired at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. In the interview footage I had seen of him along with some members of Parkland treatment staff, he seemed sober, responsible, and most credible. When we spoke on the 21st, Jim stated that he was not seeking any notoriety at all, and that his sole wish was to sit quietly in the back of the room at selected presentations and just take it all in, and observe. I told him I would honor his request and would not reveal that he was present during any of the presentations he decided to attend. On the afternoon of November 22nd, William Law moderated a “breakout” event called: “Special Guest: Jim Jenkins.” I was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. As it turned out, James Jenkins began to open up at this session and had quite a lot to say about his recollections of the autopsy; and the audience was so interested in what he had to say, that a special session (unbeknownst to me) was organized for later that night, in which Mr. Jenkins continued to discuss his recollections of JFK’s autopsy. Fortunately for me, and for history, Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., PhD., attended both sessions at which Jenkins spoke, and took copious notes, something he has been doing for decades now whenever an autopsy participant takes the floor. All of my information in this article about what James Jenkins said at the Adolphus Hotel on 11/22/2013 is derived from Dr. Mantik’s notes, which I trust explicitly and without reservation to represent what Jenkins had to say, without any embellishment or changes of any kind. I will be discussing a few key areas of Jim Jenkins’ 50th anniversary recollections in this essay, and will then explain why they are so significant to our understanding of what happened at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a “skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body. Jenkins recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes. Jenkins recalled that the total brain volume seemed too small, i.e., smaller than the skull cavity. He recalled that the right anterior brain was damaged, and some brain tissue was missing there, but recalled no damage to the left brain. He said about two thirds of the brain was present (which of course means that about one third of its mass was missing). He recalled that a large amount of posterior tissue---cerebral tissue---was also missing. Jenkins stated that after Dr. Boswell put the brain upside down in a sling in a formalin bucket, he noticed both carotid arteries (at the Circle of Willis) leading into the brain were retracted, which made it very difficult to insert needles for infusion. Jenkins interpreted this retraction as meaning that the carotids had been cut some time before the autopsy. When asked how he interpreted all of this data about the condition of the brain, Jenkins said he had concluded that the brain had already been removed before the autopsy began. In response to a question as to why this might have occurred, he stated quite clearly that the purpose would have been to remove bullet fragments. Jenkins also stated that he never saw any bullet or bullet fragment fall from JFK’s body during the autopsy, as others had recalled. Analysis: James Curtis Jenkins, in these discussions on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, has confirmed my hypothesis of clandestine, post-mortem surgery on JFK’s cranium at Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove evidence of frontal shots before the “official autopsy” began at 8:00 PM. Here is why I say this: (1) It was normally Jenkins’ job (and also Paul K. O’Connor’s job) to remove the brain at Navy autopsies, by performing the post-mortem surgery called a craniotomy, or “skull cap.” Neither Paul O’Connor (who gave many interviews prior to his death) nor James Jenkins, either performed---or witnessed---a craniotomy. HOWEVER, we know that a craniotomy was indeed performed, because both Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home, and Navy x-ray technician Ed Reed, confirmed that they witnessed a pathologist sawing into President Kennedy’s cranium to “get the brain out” (in the words of Tom Robinson). In a 1996 interview with the ARRB staff, Tom Robinson recalled that “the doctors” did extensive sawing on the rear of the skull to get to the brain; and under oath at his 1997 ARRB deposition, Ed Reed specifically recalled seeing Dr. Humes (by name) make a long incision with a scalpel in the frontal bone above the forehead, just behind the hairline, and follow-up with a bone saw in that same region. At this point Reed and his colleague, fellow x-ray technician Jerrol Custer, were summarily dismissed from the morgue. Fifteen minutes after being dismissed, they were recalled and began taking the skull x-rays. (2) The above evidence provided by Robinson and Reed proves that Dr. Humes perjured himself before both the Warren Commission and the ARRB, by claiming that he did not have to perform a craniotomy to remove JFK’s brain. Furthermore, the observations of Robinson and Reed indicate that autopsy technicians O’Connor and Jenkins were simply not in the morgue when that post-mortem surgery was performed by Humes. Since JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and body bag at 6:35 PM (per the Boyajian report of November 26, 1963, and the combined observations of Dennis David and Paul O’Connor), and then re-entered the morgue at 8:00 PM in the ceremonial bronze Dallas casket (per numerous witnesses, and the Joint Casket Team Report), I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum---a period of almost an hour and a half---that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did. (3) The modified craniotomy performed by Dr. Humes was necessary to gain access to the brain for one obvious purpose---to remove bullet fragments and entry wounds, evidence of shots from the front, prior to the formal start of the autopsy. We know it was necessary to perform a craniotomy of sorts, to get the brain out, because the wound descriptions of the avulsed posterior head wound (the blowout) provided by Dr. Carrico at Parkland (5 x 7 cm), and by Tom Robinson (see his ARRB sketch) and Navy Captain R. O. Canada at Bethesda (per Kurtz, 2006), all indicate that the avulsed wound in JFK’s right posterior skull was the same at Bethesda upon arrival as it had been when observed at Parkland, and was therefore too small to permit removal of the brain without performing surgery to remove significant portions of the cranium. (4) It is clear that the first round of skull x-rays and the majority of the autopsy photos in the official collection today were taken immediately following this post-mortem surgery that so dramatically opened up the skull. The damage seen today in the surviving skull x-rays, and in all of the autopsy photos showing the top and right side of JFK’s head, with the head resting in a metal brace, were taken immediately after this post-mortem surgery. The surgery was done in a hurried manner, and once completed, President Kennedy’s head wound (the posterior blowout) had been expanded to almost five times its original size. (Simply compare the Carrico wound dimensions, from Dallas, of 5 x7 centimeters, with the Boswell dimensions of missing bone in the cranium (in his autopsy sketch) from Bethesda, of 10 x 17 centimeters; the ratios are 35 sq. cm vs. 170 sq. cm.) (5) Furthermore, the bright red incision high in JFK’s forehead, seen in various autopsy photographs above the right eye in the frontal bone, just beneath the hairline, is additional evidence of post-mortem surgery, for that striking wound was not seen by anyone at Parkland Hospital. (6) The proof of this cover-up is the fact that Humes and Boswell lied about the nature of these photographs to the ARRB during their depositions, saying that the photos were taken before any incisions, and represented the condition of the body immediately after it arrived at Bethesda. We know from the Parkland observations, and from the statements of Robinson and Reed, that this was perjury. (7) Additionally, the removal of bullet fragments from the brain (and the body)---which never made it into the official record---by autopsy doctors at Bethesda is damning proof that clandestine surgery to alter the crime scene (the body of JFK) took place prior to the start of the official autopsy, which ran from 8:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff in 1996 that he was shown a vial or test tube containing about 10 small metallic fragments; Dennis David has consistently stated ever since 1979 that he held in his hand, and typed a receipt for, 4 bullet fragments that night, which constituted more mass than one bullet, but less total mass than two bullets; and the infamous Belmont FBI memo from 11/22/63 stated that there was a bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear, which the FBI was going to obtain. Furthermore, it is crucial to understanding the true sequence of events at Bethesda to understand the implications of Jenkins’ statement at Lancer that he did not see any bullet falling from the body---whereas x-ray technician Jerrol Custer did see a bullet fragment fall from the thorax onto the examining table. In corroboration of Custer’s claim, Paul O’Connor told the HSCA staff that after he returned to the morgue after some period of time, after being ordered to leave, he was informed by one of his Navy colleagues that an intercostal bullet (i.e., a bullet taken from the tissue between two ribs) had been found and removed. This all indicates that some Navy personnel were banned from the morgue during certain procedures performed early that night: namely, post-mortem surgery to sanitize the crime scene. That the crime scene---the President’s body---was sanitized, we can be sure of, for the only two pieces of metal removed from JFK’s body, according to the official record, were two tiny fragments, 1 x 3, and 2x 7 mm in size, taken from the cranium and handed over to the 2 FBI agents, Sibert and O’Neill. (8) The two FBI agents---like Paul O’Connor and James Jenkins---were likewise barred from the morgue after carrying the (empty) bronze Dallas casket into the morgue anteroom, at about 7:17 PM---with the help of two Secret Service agents, Kellerman and Greer. AFTER they were finally allowed into the morgue about 8:00 PM, they recorded in their notes that the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes, made the following statement: “…it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull.” The two FBI agents confirmed in the mid 1960s to their superiors that this statement in their report (dated November 26, 1963) was a direct quotation of Dr. Humes. James Sibert (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy) confirmed that Humes made this statement at his own (Sibert’s) ARRB deposition in 1997. When asked under oath at his ARRB deposition whether he had seen any evidence of surgery on JFK’s body, Humes committed perjury and said, “No.” Humes’ denial was significant, because it indicates he was hiding something. In 1980 David Lifton interpreted Humes’ remark as meaning he had discovered surgery performed by someone else, before the body got to Bethesda. I respectfully disagree, because my rigorous timeline analysis (see my July 2013 essay on this blogsite) has revealed that there was barely enough time to get JFK’s body from Andrews AFB to Bethesda by helicopter, and for it to arrive at the Bethesda morgue loading dock at 6:35 PM---and therefore, I conclude that the surgery could not have happened anywhere else but at Bethesda. Remember, Canada and Robinson confirmed that the head wound, when first seen at Bethesda, was the same as it looked in Dallas. [Significantly, this eliminates any possibility that the post-mortem surgery occurred anywhere in Dallas, Texas.] My own, differing psychological interpretation of Humes’ remarks about surgery, in view of the severe timeline restrictions on the body’s transportation, are that Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery himself at Bethesda, and then panicked before a large, disbelieving audience inside the morgue shortly after 8:00 PM, and made his intentionally deflective oral utterance about “surgery of the head area” (mimicked by Bowell in the form of a rhetorical question, according to James Jenkins). I view Dr. Humes’ excited oral utterance as a defensive reaction to the overwhelming skepticism of his audience, as recalled by Paul O’Connor in many interviews, when that audience was confronted with the enormous amount of missing bone in the cranium shortly after 8:00 PM; psychologists call this defensive reaction dissociation. The implication of Humes’ statement, as I see it, was that he was attempting to create an escape route for himself, attempting to distance himself from what he had just done, to wit: “I see the surgery just like all of you do, but I didn’t do it---someone else did.” If there had been a benign explanation for the “surgery of the head area” statement made by Humes, or for the post-mortem surgery itself, then both Humes and Boswell would have provided that explanation at their ARRB depositions. Instead, they stonewalled and denied (unconvincingly) that they had even seen any evidence of surgery. (9) It is no wonder, then, that once he was allowed back into the morgue to witness and assist with the “sham” autopsy---nothing more than a charade enacted before the 2 FBI agents and about 35 witnesses in the morgue gallery---that James Jenkins noticed that Kennedy’s brain stem had already been cut by two incisions (one on each side), and had the opinion that the brain had previously been removed from the cranium. It had been, about 75 to 90 minutes previously. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel at the ARRB, during a discussion with me about the medical evidence, sharply interrupted me once when I used the word “autopsy,” saying: “President Kennedy never had an autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital---that was not an autopsy.” He was correct. It is vital to understand that the illicit, clandestine surgery performed at Bethesda prior to the autopsy---obviously done to remove bullet fragments and evidence of frontal shots from the body prior to the “official procedure” performed before witnesses---invalidates the official autopsy report and all subsequent testimony about JFK’s wounds by the autopsy pathologists. As a result, the recollections of the Parkland treatment staff then inevitably become the “best evidence” of how President Kennedy was killed; and their two universal observations were of an entrance wound in the throat (made by a shot from the front), and an exit wound in the right posterior skull (necessarily implying a shot from the front). (10) Dr. Pierre Finck, who had been called by the defense team in the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw (the Garrison trial) in 1969, told the defense team (per William J. Wegman’s interview notes) that President Kennedy’s brain had been severed from his spinal cord, and that this had been described in the autopsy report. This is consistent with James Jenkins’ account of what he witnessed (surely after 8:00 PM) when Humes removed the brain (for the second time) before a large morgue audience: namely, that the brain stem had previously been severed by incisions on both sides, in different planes. [Incidentally, Finck’s statement to the Clay Shaw defense team is a further proof that the extant autopsy report is not the original---the subject of chapter 11 in my book---since the autopsy report in the Archives today does not mention the brain stem being severed.] Now, Finck did not arrive at the morgue until 8:30 PM, after the brain, heart, and lungs had been removed. Therefore, Dr. Humes must have informed Finck about the severance of the spinal cord. Humes really had no choice, since according to Jenkins, the brain had literally fallen out in his hands before a large audience, and there had to be an explanation provided for that bizarre occurrence. Similarly, I believe the reason Humes took a tissue section from the area where the spinal cord had been transected, at the subsequent brain exam on 11/25/63, was to “cover his ass.” It was all theater. For him not to have taken a section from the line of transection, after announcing “surgery of the head area,” and after the brain falling out in his hands without his large audience witnessing any cutting to dislodge it from the cranium at its attachment points, would have been most suspicious. By taking a tissue section from this area, I believe Humes was cleverly attempting to distance himself from “whoever did the surgery,” should it become an issue later on. In 1996, Dr. Humes stated under oath to Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB that the brain stem was damaged before he removed the brain, but told Gunn that he had transected it himself. Humes denied that it was disconnected or transected when the body was received. No doubt this was true; what Humes did not tell the ARRB at his deposition was that he had done so while James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM, when he was removing evidence of frontal shots from the body of the slain Commander-in-Chief. (11) Jenkins’ observation that the damage to the cranium was much larger than the damage to the underlying brain seems consistent with the surgery hypothesis, and not with damage caused by a bullet. JENKINS IMPUGNS AND DISAVOWS THE BRAIN PHOTO SKETCH PUBLISHED BY THE HSCA: Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Gary Aguilar---both long-time and dedicated researchers in the JFK medical evidence arena---got together privately with James Jenkins during a short break in the midst of his second panel session on 11/22/2013, and presented him with a high-resolution laptop computer rendition of the Ida Dox HSCA medical illustration of one of the brain photographs in the Archives (a superior view of a damaged, but intact and unsectioned, human brain). They asked him if the image in the official sketch was the brain he saw removed from the body, and that he himself infused, the night of JFK’s autopsy. Dr. Mantik’s notes read: “He clearly replied that it was not---he had seen significant loss of brain in the right posterior area.” Analysis: This confirms the second major conclusion in my book---that the brain photographs in the Archives cannot be photos of President Kennedy’s brain, which constitutes the strongest evidence of a U.S. government cover-up in the medical evidence arena. This subject is thoroughly covered in chapter 10 of my book, Inside the ARRB. This chapter, in Volume III of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, is the single most important chapter in my multi-volume work, and should be required reading for any journalist, historian, or researcher who approaches the JFK assassination. To summarize briefly here, the descriptions of damage to the brain found in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (after the brain was examined at a separate post-autopsy examination) do not appear consistent with the pattern of damage in the brain photographs. This was noticed by both Dr. Robert Livingston, before the time of the ARRB, and independently by my own boss, ARRB General Counsel Jeremy Gunn. I myself conducted the rigorous timeline analysis of all previous testimony---something no one else had ever done---which revealed for the first time, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there were two separate brain exams following JFK’s autopsy---not simply one, as there should have been. The official photographer when JFK’s brain was examined on Monday morning, 11/25/63---John Stringer---disowned the brain photographs in the Archives at his ARRB deposition because they are on the wrong type of B & W and color film, because they represent views he did not shoot of the underside of the brain, and because the many photos he shot of serial sections of the brain (after coronal sectioning) are not present. Former FBI agent Frank O’Neill disowned the brain photos in the Archives at his ARRB deposition because he said that way too much mass was present in the photos (he recalled that over one half of the mass of JFK’s brain was missing when he saw it following its removal at the autopsy on the body, Friday night). We know that Dr. Finck, the Army pathologist who assisted at JFK’s autopsy, did not attend the first brain exam on 11/25/63, but did attend a second brain exam sometime between 11/29 and 12/02. Drs. Humes and Boswell attended both events, which means they were orchestrating the brain cover-up, and were using Dr. Finck as a dupe, as the witness to the examination of a substitute brain at the second exam, whose photos would soon be inserted into the official record. It is the photographs of the substitute brain, from the second brain examination, that are in the National Archives today; not the photographs of JFK’s brain, from the first examination, which were suppressed and never made it into the official record. James Jenkins confirmed this with his statement about the Ida Dox official HSCA drawing. JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this site, nor did they discuss it any further. When questioned, he said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye, but did state that these two sites were completely different, i.e., separated by enough distance to be distinguishable. He had no recollection of the bullet entrance wound low in the posterior skull described by all three pathologists in the autopsy report, and in their testimony over the years. Analysis: Jenkins' 5 mm diameter bullet wound in the right temporal bone, just anterior to and slightly above the level of the right ear, is entirely consistent with an entry wound, and inconsistent with a bullet exit wound. Jenkins’ bullet entry site supports a shot from the right front that would have caused the huge blowout in the right rear posterior skull, the large avulsed wound seen by all the Parkland witnesses. This was the large defect, devoid of scalp and skull, that neurosurgeon Kemp Clark at Parkland described as a probable “tangential wound” at the Parkland press conference the afternoon of the assassination. [A bullet striking near the right ear and blowing out the right rear of the skull could create damage consistent with what someone else might describe as a "tangential wound."] Jenkins’ bullet hole is consistent with the same-day testimony of Bill Newman, who thought he saw part of President Kennedy’s ear “blown off”---presumably Newman saw a bone fragment exit this area immediately after the bullet’s impact. Jenkins' bullet entry site is also consistent with the wound diagram of the side of the head (a lateral view) made by Tom Robinson in 1996 for the ARRB. And I know why James Jenkins did not recall seeing an entry wound high above the right eye in the frontal bone, just below JFK’s hairline. In fact, it is highly significant that Jenkins did NOT see it. By the time Jenkins saw the body, shortly after 8:00 PM, that wound (seen by Dennis David and Joe O’Donnell in photographs the week after JFK’s death) had been obliterated---excised by Dr. Humes’s scalpel---during the clandestine post-mortem surgery. No doubt all Jenkins could see in that area was the bright red incision we see in the forehead today, above the right eye, in the autopsy photographs. We know that incision was not made at Parkland Hospital, and was not seen by anyone in Dallas. Surely, therefore, it was made by Dr. Humes in order to remove all evidence of the entrance wound at that site from the body. This is the same site at which acting White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed his finger before media people with cameras, who were at Parkland Hospital, when he quoted Dr. Burkley’s statement that the cause of death was a bullet “right through the brain.” Jenkins did not see it simply because he was not in the morgue when Dr. Humes removed evidence of that entrance wound (skin and bone tissue) from the cranium, as well as numerous bullet fragments from the brain, during clandestine surgery prior to the autopsy. JENKINS RECALLED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE LARGE WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR CRANIUM: Twice during his talks at JFK Lancer, Jenkins recalled that he did observe the large wound in the right rear of the head, and that its approximate size was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar." Analysis: This description is entirely consistent with the wound sketches made by Parkland witnesses nurse Audrey Bell, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw, for the ARRB in 1997. (They are published in my book, and can also be obtained from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II). The size of the wound recalled by Jenkins in the right rear quadrant of the skull is also entirely consistent with the size of the wound in sketches made for the ARRB by two Bethesda witnesses, mortician Tom Robinson, and FBI agent James Sibert. (They, too, are published in my book and are available at Archives II.) [Note: The fact that Bell and Crenshaw at Parkland, and Robinson and Sibert at Bethesda, all recalled the same approximate location and size for the wound in the posterior skull, is a simple and elegant proof that JFK's wounds were not altered in transit, and that his head wound was in the same condition when it arrived at Bethesda, as it was when it left Parkland hospital.] Furthermore, the size of this posterior cranial wound recalled by Jenkins ("somewhat larger than a silver dollar") is consistent with the size and location of the posterior head wound given by Navy Captain Robert O. Canada---the Commanding Officer of the Bethesda treatment hospital in 1963---to researcher Michael Kurtz in 1968. At Dr. Canada's request, Kurtz withheld this explosive information [which was contrary to the autopsy report and to the Warren Commission's findings] until after Canada's death, and finally published it in his book in 2006, quoting Robert O. Canada as describing a: "...very large, 3-5 cm wound in the right rear of the President's head, in the lower right occipital region." Canada told Kurtz that it was "clearly an exit wound," because the occipital bone was "avulsed" [i.e., exploded outward]. In corroboration, Dr. Charles Carrico of Parkland Hospital told the Warren Commission under oath, in 1964, that the approximate dimensions of the posterior head wound were about 5 x 7 centimeters (clearly incompatible with an entry wound, and clearly consistent with a typical bullet exit wound in the cranium). The very similar locations and dimensions recalled by Jenkins, Bell, Crenshaw, Robinson, Sibert, Canada, and Carrico are all within the expected range of accuracy and consistency expected of eyewitness describing the same event many years later. In fact, they are remarkably consistent with each other. All of these descriptions fall within the right rear quadrant of the skull, and do not in any way encompass the top of the head or the right side of the head. This is also significant. These collective observations are a further proof that the massive damage to the top and right side of the head, seen in two thirds of the autopsy photos, must surely represent surgical manipulations performed AFTER JFK's body arrived at Bethesda hospital---post-mortem surgery performed prior to when the official autopsy began---simply to gain access to the cranium and remove evidence of shots from the front. Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell both perjured themselves when they told the ARRB that these autopsy photos of massive damage to the top and right side of the head depicted the body's condition immediately after it arrived, and prior to any incisions. JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck. Analysis: Like the two FBI agents present at the autopsy, Jenkins recalled a shallow back wound that did not transit the body; recalled Humes inserting his finger in the wound, and the fact that the bullet track terminated and did not go anywhere; and recalled that it was low enough in the back that the single bullet theory was impossible. In fact, per Jenkins' recollection that the back wound was 10 cm below the plane of the tracheotomy site, we can safely conclude that EVEN IF THE BULLET THAT ENTERED THE BACK HAD TRANSITED THE BODY AND EXITED AT THE TRACHEOTOMY SITE, that it would have been going in an UPWARD trajectory, and therefore Arlen Specter's absurd single bullet theory would still be impossible. Any transiting bullet traveling upward in this manner could not have struck Governor Connally below the right armpit, since Connally was sitting in a jump seat directly in front of President Kennedy that was well below the level of JFK's back seat bench. Jim Jenkins' discussion of the bruise he observed at the top of the right lung's middle lobe causes me to re-evaluate the subject of the "missing bruise photographs" from JFK's autopsy. Dr. Humes stated repeatedly before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB that the pathologists and the photographer---John Stringer---had gone to great pains to illuminate the interior of the chest in order to photograph what Humes described as a bruise located in the pleural dome itself, immediately above the apical portion (or apex) of the right lung. And yet there are no such photographs in the autopsy collection today, and never have been---at least not since the inventory was drawn up at the National Archives on November 1, 1966 by Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer. I now wonder if Humes' tale about a bruise at the top of the pleural dome might have been "fabricated out of whole cloth," to use one of Humes' most noteworthy phrases during his ARRB deposition. His mention of the bruise above the apex of the right lung in the autopsy report was viewed at the time as corroboration that the bullet entering the back of the President had indeed transited the body, and exited the neck---at least, to Humes it was. Months later, when Arlen Specter and Humes jointly invented the single bullet theory (which claimed that this transiting bullet had also struck Governor Connally), this purported bruise became even more important to proving the Warren Commission's contention that there had been a lone assassin firing from behind. And for these reasons, it has always been mystifying why this crucial evidence, which might have supported Humes' contention that a bullet did transit JFK's body, has never been part of the official collection of autopsy photographs. If the photos had supported Humes' contention of a transiting bullet, why would they not have been included in the collection? It never made any sense. I now believe there is a high likelihood there never was any such bruise atop the pleural dome, and that Humes, recalling the true bruise at the top of the right lung's middle lobe (per Jim Jenkins), invented the bruise atop the pleural dome "out of whole cloth," in an attempt to foster his belated conclusion (not in the original draft autopsy report---subsequently burned---and not in the first signed version, which is now missing), in the extant autopsy report (the third written version of that document), that a bullet transited JFK's body. Why do I make such a strong statement? Because the ARRB discovered evidence of Humes' predilection for lying about another subject during his ARRB deposition in 1996. Humes stated in the autopsy report that the lateral skull x-rays depicted a trail of bullet fragments leading from the bullet entrance wound low in the rear of the head, near the EOP, in an upward direction to Humes' purported exit site in the right front of the cranium. And yet the lateral skull x-rays in the Archives show no such thing; instead, they show a clear trail of metallic fragments leading from the upper frontal bone (above the right orbit) in an upward direction toward the upper rear of the skull, NOT DOWNWARD TOWARD THE EOP. When shown this clear discrepancy while under oath by Jeremy Gunn, the ARRB's General Counsel, Humes could offer no explanation whatsoever, became quite silent, blushed, and exhibited what I interpreted as extreme embarrassment---perhaps even shame. In view of this, I now wonder if Humes simply invented the "bruise story" to support his new conclusion about a transiting bullet in the third (extant) version of the autopsy report---the one we are familiar with today. When before the ARRB, photographer John Stringer recalled illuminating the interior of the chest for some reason to take photographs, but did not remember the specifics. Perhaps the bruise being photographed was actually in the pleura at the level of the top of the middle lobe of the right lung, adjacent to the area of Humes' probing, as witnessed by Jenkins at the autopsy. CONCLUSION: James Jenkins made many other interesting and important observations during his two talks, including the fact that the autopsy “face sheet,” i.e., the body chart and note-taking aide, called the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, that is in the official record today is NOT the one he filled out at the autopsy of JFK. The "face sheet" in evidence today at the National Archives depicts two body charts on the front side of the document, and the back side of the locally produced form---which was originally blank---was used by Dr. Boswell to make an historically important sketch depicting the severe damage to the top of President Kennedy's skull. Jenkins specifically recalled at JFK Lancer---as he had in previous interviews---that the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet he used at President Kennedy's autopsy was a two-sided form, with a single body chart of the front of a human body on the first page; and another body chart, of the back of a human form, on the reverse side. He also noted that there are erasures and emendations of various organ weights on the extant form in the Archives, which he did not make, and which were contrary to the conventions for such changes employed in 1963. In addition, Jenkins recalled a second round of skull x-rays taken at the autopsy, and the fact that OBLIQUE VIEWS were taken of the posterior head wound; this confirms x-ray technician Jerrol Custer's consistent recollections over the years that he exposed at least 5 or 6 skull x-rays, and that those included oblique views. There are only 3 extant skull x-rays in the official collection (far fewer than Custer, Ebersole, or Jenkins has recalled), and none of them are oblique views. David Mantik concludes his notes by saying: “My sense in listening to James Jenkins for about 90 minutes on the evening of 11/22/2013 (from about 10:40 PM to 12:10 AM the next day) was the same as William Law---i.e., James Jenkins seemed totally alert and aware. I had also listened to James Jenkins during the afternoon session, which was at least 45 minutes. James Jenkins seemed very sincere and forthright, sometimes admitting that he did not recall certain items. His demeanor was serious, sometimes even somber, and his responses seemed very considered, as he often took time to gather his thoughts before speaking.” The appearance of James Curtis Jenkins at the Lancer conference on the 50th anniversary was a significant event, and we are all fortunate that Dr. Mantik was present to take such a thorough set of notes. Jenkins’ comments confirm, once and for all, that the principal problem with the Bethesda autopsy was not the incompetence of the pathologists---although the two Navy pathologists, Humes and Boswell, did demonstrate incompetence in the way they executed (or failed to execute) some procedures---rather, the principal problem with the Bethesda autopsy on President Kennedy was cover-up---the intentional cover-up of all evidence of shots from the front. END --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And just one additional thing that I would add is the testimony and wound diagrams of Parkland Nurse Dianna Bowron who washed the dried blood out of JFK's hair and packed gauze squares into the occipital-parietal wound prior to the body being placed in the ceremonial casket at Parkland Hospital. Bowron reported that the top and sides of JFK's head were completely intact, and that the only damage she encountered was the occipital parietal wound on the right side of the back of the head. This interview was conducted by JFK researcher and author, Harrison Livingstone: https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron ⁠"...HL: Okay. If you can try to remember anybody taking pictures in there, photographs, it's very important because there's a reason to think that some of these autopsy pictures-I published a lot more of them in my last book-that they're not taken at Bethesda, you know. Now, do you think that any part of his face-like the right eye and the right forehead above it - did that sag in or was there any bone missing in that area? Did his face look so perfectly normal? Did you feel his face? ⁠ HL: You washed his face? ⁠ DB: I can't remember whether I washed it or Margaret washed it. I know I washed his hair. ⁠ HL: Well, you would have noticed if a large piece of bone -- see, the X-rays, if you look at the X-rays in my book, they show the whole right front of the face is gone from the eye area. And the lateral view X-ray is not the same as the AP view. There's a lot more bone missing in the lateral view. But most of the-most of them have the whole right eye area, from the top of the orbit, at least, plus the forehead and the temporal bone is gone. ⁠ DB: No, no. I mean, I would have noticed something like that. You know, to say his face looked like a dead body's face. You know, there was no injury to the face. ⁠ HL: Yeah. ⁠ DB: It was just to his-the back of his head. And the one in his, in his throat. But and by then it was the tracheostomy opening. But his face itself, no. ⁠ HL: Okay. One more question about that. Do you remember any laceration across the scalp from front to back where it comes on to the forehead, where the scalp would have been lacerated and it goes straight back from that area? Picture the right eyebrow. A laceration about a half an inch into his forehead, and then going straight back, where the scalp was torn. Do you remember anything like that? ⁠ DB: No. ⁠ HL: You would have because you washed the hair, right? ⁠ DB: Yes. When I say washed it, I just took cotton swabs and washed all the clotting blood off. I mean, I didn't shampoo it or anything. ⁠ HL: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone? ⁠ DB: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big, gaping hole. ⁠ HL: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right? ⁠ DB: Yeah. There might have been little lumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. ⁠ HL: Was there any part of a flap of scalp over that big defect in the bone missing? ⁠ DB: What I'm saying is that the hole where the bone had gone, perhaps the skin was a little bit smaller, if you know what I mean, but only fractionally, just over the edge. ⁠ HL: So the scalp was blown out, too? ⁠ DB: Yes. ⁠ HL: I don't know if I should ask you this question-but did you have enough experience either before or after to think that that was either an exit or an entry hole? ⁠ DB: Well, to me it was an exit hole. ⁠ HL: Yeah. ⁠ DB: I mean, I've never seen one as big as that, but-..."

Actually, Bill Newman has indicated that he witnessed the occipital parietal wound at the time of the assassination: And you have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for your assertion that Dr. Burkley observed only "one" wound, nor that it was a "large" frontal wound, as you are implying, any more than you have any basis to assert that you have observed a "large wound" in the autopsy photographs. We know from the existing record that Dr. Burkley was notoriously cryptic about his assassination related medical observations, and your mere speculation cannot fill that void: "...McHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body? BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that...." https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-ggb-01 SPEER: "1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos." This is all speculation: On what basis do you assert that Kilduff was pointing out the location of a SINGLE wound, or that Kilduff and Burkley both observed only ONE wound? And as mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB that the pathologists, not a bullet, caused the top of the head damage that he viewed in the autopsy photographs (consistent with his and Bethesda X-ray Tech Ed Reed's testimony regarding the clandestine craniotomy), on what basis do you assert that there is a "large wound" caused by the assassination visible in the autopsy photographs? SPEER: "2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location." As Dr. Crenshaw makes mention of the right temple wound in some of his accounts, but not in others, I'll agree with you that the photograph of him pointing to his right temple is inconclusive. And as for your veiled objection to the sketch of the autopsy photograph described to Doug Horne by Quentin Schwinn , I concede that the revelations are dated and tenuous (although to me very interesting and persuasive), so I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you about that one; however, the sketch of the photograph based upon Schwinn's description, and the details about how it came into existence is something researchers should be aware of. Conversely, White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, in the early 1990's, related a very interesting story about being shown autopsy photographs by fellow White House photographer Robert Knudsen, shortly after the assassination, depicting the right temple wound and the occipital parietal wound, and then was shown similar autopsy photos a week later in which the right temple and occipital-parietal wounds had been edited out (See O'Donnell himself relate this story as follows at 02:16 which I have cued in advance for you): And yes, I am aware of the controversies involving O'Donnell having dementia later in life and embellishing upon his accomplishments, but do not believe he could have falsified the details of his story about the autopsy photographs simply because he wouldn't have had access to the requisite information in the early 1990's. And Bethesda Autopsy Tech, Dennis David, who was also pictured on the meme you are objecting to, recounted being shown films by Navy Lieutenant Commander William Pitzer who held a senior position at the Bethesda Medical Center which included command over the hospital's closed circuit TV system with which he made instructional movies over the years. William Law elicited very interesting information from former Bethesda X-ray Tech Jerrol Custer pertaining to Pitzer as follows: Law: Who was William Pitzer? Custer: At that time he was the chief in charge of the photographic department of the National Naval Medical Center. He and Dennis David were buddies, long term friends. Dennis wasn't on duty that night, but Chief Pitzer' was. I remember seeing him that evening and he was all around. I mean everywhere you went, you saw Chief Pitzer. He was there. And it's funny to the fact that the man-he never noticed what was around him. He kind of turned the commotion off and he was doing his job. That's what he was paid to do. Law: What was he doing exactly? Custer: Taking movies. Law: He was taking movie film of the autopsy? Custer: Absolutely. Law: And you saw this? Custer: I saw this. Later on it was brought out that Commander Pitzer - well of course he made commander farther down the line - had committed suicide by blowing his brains out by putting a gun in his right hand and shooting himself. Law: What's so unusual about that if you're going to commit suicide? Custer: Well, it's kind of funny. How can you commit suicide when you have a deformed right hand? That couldn't hold a gun? This was clue to a birth defect. And Dennis David' knew it. Everybody that knew the chief knew it and it was evident that night. When he was taking the movies, you could see the hand was deformed. But suicide was the reason for the death on his death certificate, which, I felt, was part of the cover-up. See, you have to be there. You have to see what's going on. Everything is plain and simple. It's there! It's right in front of you! The government feels the experts, so-called experts, are going to look at everything but the nose on their faces. And if you just stop and look at what's right in front of you and not try and surmise, "Well this is why, this is why that happened." My God-Kennedy's skull was pushed backward! Basic physics! You had to have a force from the front! If you had a force from the back, everything would have been pushed forward. Common sense! Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005): https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpitzerW.htm And, according to Dennis David, whom William Law also questioned about William Pitzer: Law: What happened to Bill Pitzer? David: As l said, Bill was one of my mentors - and I took the program for MSC in '64 then - starting early '64 - and missed it. They selected forty - I was forty third on the list. In 1965 I applied for and took the program again. And there were sixty selected that year, and I was number two on the selection list. So then, in late August of '65, Congress passed the bill and the president signed the bill, and I became an officer and a gentleman (laughter). I used to laugh about that because I used to say, "Well, they made me an officer, but my mother made me a gentlemen." At least I tried to be, before that. I left Bethesda in the first week in December of '65 to go to Officer's School and Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island, And shortly before I left, Bill indicated to me that he was getting ready to retire - probably in '66 - and he would have had, I think, thirty years at that time. He had been through the second world war for one thing. So I left, and reported in at Newport, Rhode Island, in the early part of January. I went through the three weeks at Officer's Training School and Naval justice School, and was assigned to a naval hospital in Great Lakes - one of the jobs I had there was as an assistant to one of the department heads. I was in the lobby of the hospital at Great Lakes when Lieutenant Commander Barb Munroe came in and saw me and came over, and of course we renewed old friendships. And she said, "By the way, did you know Bill's dead?" And I said, "No, what happened?" Then she said, "Well, he shot himself." I said, "I don't believe that." And she said, "Well they found him with a gun in his right hand, and he blew his brains out." And I said, "But Bill's left-handed..." That's what I recall, because sometimes - back at Bethesda, Barb, Bill, and I would play bridge together - he sometimes would deal the cards in reverse, you know instead of dealing them clockwise he would deal them counter clockwise (with his left hand) and we'd kid him about it. That was the first time I had heard he was dead. I asked, "Well, why did he commit suicide?" And she said "It's highly questionable that he did." I said, "Well, it stands to reason." And then she said something to me about, "Did you know that he'd had some pretty good job offers?" And I said I had, and that just before the last time I'd seen him, just before I'd left Bethesda, he'd told me that lie had some very lucrative offers from a couple of the national networks like ABC, CBS, to go to work for them. I said, "I suspect it was probably because of some of the films and the material he had from the assassination." She said, "You know he had those?" And I said, "Yes, because l was over there a couple, three days after the autopsy and saw them." She kind of nodded her head as though she agreed with me, or something like that. Law: Did she apparently know that he had the film? David: I don't know whether she did. She seemed surprised when I told her that I knew about it though. Now whatever that was -the reaction - that was the first time she heard... we really didn't discuss it too much after that, because even in '67 - excuse me, in '66 May or June - you still didn't talk about what you knew, your experiences on the night of the assassination. It was still classified information. Law: It's not so unusual that somebody would commit suicide. It happens every day. Why do you feel that Bill Pitzer would not have done this? David: Because I knew the man. You can say well, lie wasn't the type to commit suicide. Well, what type will commit suicide? I don't know, it was just a gut feeling. I didn't think that he would do it. He had been through too many stressful situations in his life. Second world war-he had been in and out of Vietnam for various and sundry reasons-dealing with classified information and I didn't think-you know, lie was not a weak personality type, or type of person who would ever run into anything he couldn't handle, whether it be stressful or whatever, mental. I knew lie had some problems with his kids, but lie generally had a "well you know it will work itself out" attitude towards that. So I don't know. I just didn't feel like lie was the kind of man who would commit suicide. William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005): https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpitzerW.htm I'm certain you will find much to criticize about the tenuous connections involved in some of the above, but I believe all of it is undoubtedly more reliable than your speculation about Dr. McClelland's use of the word "of" in his initial JFK treatment report meaning that McClelland did not observe the occipital-parietal wound in Trauma Room One on 11/22/1963. In some situations -- particularly when involving a high-level government conspiracy -- evidence has greater weight in the aggregate; and sometimes subsequent evidence, even when tenuous, receives substantiation from earlier more significant evidence. The case for JFK's right temple wound -- which mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA was a quarter inch in diameter, that he filled with a dab of wax (not the "large" frontal head wound you keep attempting to impute to this location) -- is precisely such a case, and I submit to you as Exhibit One, constituting foundational evidence lending additional credibility to that which followed, former Bethesda Tech James Jenkins's skull model markings representing the small right temple AND large occipital-parietal wounds that he observed during the autopsy of President Kennedy on 11/22/1963, as follows.

They WERE all mistaken in precisely the same way, in that they all located the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal quadrant of the right side of the back of JFK's head, and there is no amount of hair splitting that you can do to change that fact Pat. First of all, and as you well know, Dr. McClelland was mistaken as to the ENTRY WOUND in the head because Dr. Jenkins was taking JFK's pulse at his left temple and McClelland mistakenly believed that Jenkins was signaling that there was an entrance wound at the left temple (according to BOTH doctors). It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview. I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this. (Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History." p. 406) "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound. (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed." p. 313) And when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in his 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/1963, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple,''' it is clear McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had entered JFK's head. Your contention that the phrasing "of the left temple" somehow rules out his observation of the large occipital-parietal wound on the basis of your lay-perusing of medical journals is nothing less than absurd. I have seen "of" used by physicians to denote entrance wounds many times, and your repeated assertions to the contrary are simply unconvincing. You should discontinue this slander of Dr. McClelland, and you should discontinue it now. That being said, it is not just the testimony of the Parkland Trauma Team that provides solid evidentiary support for the location of the occipital-parietal wound, but Dealey Plaza witnesses such as Clint Hill, and Jacqueline Kennedy as well: "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." (Secret Service Agent Clint Hill in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir") "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." (Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission Testimony, June 5, 1964) Also supporting the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is Bethesda autopsy testimony and sketches, such as those of former FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neil (See their diagrams, attached below), and Bethesda Technicians Jerrol Custor, Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins (and spare me the details of Jerrol Custor's later deviations in testimony after he decided to try to become a nationally acclaimed expert on the case): QUESTION: What was the location and dimensions of the large avulsive head wound that you observed in the Bethesda morgue during President Kennedy's autopsy? JENKINS: "...Now the wound that I saw: [pointing to regions on a skull model] This is the occipital area here, the parietal area here, and in the temporal area here. The wound was here approximately where my finger is [Jenkins points to the upper occipital region of the back of the skull model], and it extended down here [Jenkins indicates a lower region on the occiput with his thumb]. It was about 3 and a half inches long, this being the length [Jenkins demonstrates length on skull model], about 2 inches wide [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. That was where the missing bone was, and the missing tissue was. Okay, it wasn't exactly a square or a round thing. The top of the wound was kind of domed, and it came down and kinda had a little tail type of thing that came into here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model], and then it kind of came back up in this area [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. [See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1774 ] As you well know, the above is only a tiny sliver of the voluminous evidence and testimony that supports the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, and your assertion that it is not "the low occipital wound" portrayed in the sketch ratified by Dr. McClelland falls miles short of encompassing all of this evidence, and short even of dispelling the considerable evidence of the "low" occipital wound itself.

Indeed, and that is the explanation for Newman and Zapruder pointing to their right temples -- they had just witnessed a bullet impacting that very location. And Malcolm Kilduff was merely demonstrating where JFK's physician, George Burkley, had just told him the bullet had entered JFK's head. As for James Humes, as you pointed out, this is a little more complicated, as Humes was denoting the location of the clandestine craniotomy mortician Tom Robinson and X-ray Tech Ed Reed witnessed him perform (as well as the location of the incision Ed Reed told the HSCA he had seen Humes make in JFK's forehead); although as Humes, Boswell and Finck all repeatedly denied that a craniotomy had been performed, viewers of Humes's hand gesture were all in the dark, and for the most part, remain there to this day...

JFK's large avulsive head wound was located in the lower occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head. Sure there is slight variation of this location between the different eyewitnesses who have sketched the wound, or demonstrated the location by hand placement, but this is to be expected, memory being what it is. Chronic nitpicking upon the negligible variations as a means of arguing for an entirely different location (such as the top or side of JFK's head) seems to me to overlook the unlikelihood that if all of these witnesses were mistaken they would all be mistaken in almost precisely the same way, as well as the fact that we don't have witnesses diagramming the large avulsive wound as being on the top or the side of JFK's head. The wound drawing ratified by Dr. McClelland is a reasonable approximation, just as are those of Audrey Bell, Dianna Bowron, Charles Crenshaw, Francis X. O'Neill Jr., Tom Robinson and James W. Sibert. The near unanimity of these diagrams, combined with the abundant witness testimony placing the large avulsive head wound in the occipital-parietal region would, in my view, result in the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Autopsy Protocol, and the Zapruder film being excluded from evidence were a FRE 402 Hearing to be held on their admissibility into evidence in a modern American court proceeding.