Jump to content
The Education Forum

The lonesome Parkland Doc Dr. Kenneth Salyer


Recommended Posts

If Dr. Carrico points out a wound on the back of JFK's head above his ear, perhaps you could explain his testimony to the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964:

"Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."

attachicon.gifimagesCAJI20RF.jpg

Why should I explain it when Dr. Carrico himself explained it, numerous times?

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c

On January 11, 1978, Dr. Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA staff, and specified that the head wound was "five to seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had blood and hair all around it," and was "located in the part of the parietal occipital region...above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of the head." Uhhh, this is clearly NOT the wound depicted in the McClelland drawing. In 1981, when the Boston Globe asked him specifically about the "McClelland" drawing, moreover, Carrico replied "it was a very large wound as indicated in the drawing. However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position." When asked to comment on the HSCA's tracing of the back of the head photo, in which the back of the head is intact and the wound is above the ear, moreover, he told them there was "nothing incompatible" between what he remembered and the drawing. Well, that oughta seal it, but if that's not enough, Dr. Carrico eventually made his rejection of the McClelland drawing's accuracy crystal clear. In 1992, he told single-assassin salesman Gerald Posner that if he and his colleagues had initially claimed the head wound was in the occipital bone, instead of the parietal bone, they "were mistaken." Yep. It's a slam dunk case. Dr. Carrico rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, and deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.
Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical
left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her
oral remarks, and in her drawings;
-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of
brain tissue it was;
-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,
were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.

Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical

left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her

oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of

brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,

were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Robert, Pat Speer is well aware of Nurse Bell's remarks before the ARRB but dismisses them as vagaries of a faded memory. It's too bad Pat is unable to apply that same reasoning to his own analysis of Carrico and others. Pat knows, the tremendous pressure Perry and other Dallas personnel were under to conform their memories to the official version. The worst offender may be Dr. Jenkins,who saw oozing cerebellum on Nov 22 and wrote about it on that day, but saw only cerebellar tissue after visiting the National Archives in 1988. Baxter at first said occipital bones were missing. That changed quickly. And of course Perry may be the most hardened of them all. See his letters to Brad Parker in First on the Scene. The earliest recollections from Dallas are the best, and after pressure to change rendered, IMO, the later comments worthless. Only those doctors and nurses whose testimony has remained unchanged should be given serious study. At least that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.

Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical

left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her

oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of

brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,

were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Robert, Pat Speer is well aware of Nurse Bell's remarks before the ARRB but dismisses them as vagaries of a faded memory. It's too bad Pat is unable to apply that same reasoning to his own analysis of Carrico and others. Pat knows, the tremendous pressure Perry and other Dallas personnel were under to conform their memories to the official version. The worst offender may be Dr. Jenkins,who saw oozing cerebellum on Nov 22 and wrote about it on that day, but saw only cerebellar tissue after visiting the National Archives in 1988. Baxter at first said occipital bones were missing. That changed quickly. And of course Perry may be the most hardened of them all. See his letters to Brad Parker in First on the Scene. The earliest recollections from Dallas are the best, and after pressure to change rendered, IMO, the later comments worthless. Only those doctors and nurses whose testimony has remained unchanged should be given serious study. At least that's my opinion.

How refreshing! Someone who bases his theories on the initial statements of people who later claim they were mistaken. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't pretend you are a supporter of the Parkland witnesses when you actually believe that most of them were cowards, or liars, or both.

FWIW, the "tremendous pressure" argument is pretty silly. At NO time was there more pressure on these doctors than during the Warren Commission's investigation. And yet that is when most of them made the "occipital" and "cerebellum" comments they later came to regret. So what are we really talking about, then? You're pushing that nearly all these doctors were so SCARED by Lifton's book that they immediately backed down and started pretending the wound they saw was not where they firmly believed it was. And that's ridiculous, IMO. They were emergency room doctors, well familiar with the fact that in the tradition of their chosen profession their memories are not to be relied upon, when an autopsy was performed, and there are autopsy photos which conflict with their memories. That's just how it is. They are trained to defer to autopsy photos. Period.

So...that leaves us in a quandary. The nature of the beast is that they would almost certainly defer to the autopsy photos even if they were fake or altered. So, what are we to believe?

Well, I defer to the earliest witnesses. People like Newman, Newman, Zapruder, Chaney, Burkley, and Jackson...all of whom described a large wound near the temple...EXACTLY where it is shown to be in the Zapruder film...where the Parkland witnesses failed to record such a wound...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defer to the earliest witnesses. People like Newman, Newman, Zapruder, Chaney, Burkley, and Jackson...all of whom described a large wound near the temple...EXACTLY where it is shown to be in the Zapruder film...where the Parkland witnesses failed to record such a wound...

Exactly. And the Newmans provided their account within literally MINUTES of the assassination, being interviewed on live television at WFAA-TV before 1:00 PM CST. And their account of where the large, bloody wound was located on JFK's head is perfectly matched in the Zapruder Film--and, for that matter, by Abe Zapruder himself (via his live TV interview on WFAA just two hours after the shooting).

Gayle%2BNewman.jpg .... Zapruder.png

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.

Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical

left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her

oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of

brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,

were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Robert, Pat Speer is well aware of Nurse Bell's remarks before the ARRB but dismisses them as vagaries of a faded memory. It's too bad Pat is unable to apply that same reasoning to his own analysis of Carrico and others. Pat knows, the tremendous pressure Perry and other Dallas personnel were under to conform their memories to the official version. The worst offender may be Dr. Jenkins,who saw oozing cerebellum on Nov 22 and wrote about it on that day, but saw only cerebellar tissue after visiting the National Archives in 1988. Baxter at first said occipital bones were missing. That changed quickly. And of course Perry may be the most hardened of them all. See his letters to Brad Parker in First on the Scene. The earliest recollections from Dallas are the best, and after pressure to change rendered, IMO, the later comments worthless. Only those doctors and nurses whose testimony has remained unchanged should be given serious study. At least that's my opinion.

Daniel, could you elaborate a bit on what Perry said in those letters? In Weisberg, he mentioned the "ring of bruising" and that he wiped blood from the neck wound. It appears he got a clear look at the wound.

Thanks,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree with Newman that the shot came from behind him up on the Knoll, and hit him in the temple, David?

You should have clicked the link, Ray:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Excerpts:

"Just take a look at the Bronson slide. At the time of the head shot, what location is "directly behind" the Newman family?

Answer: the pergola/peristyle area -- NOT the famous Grassy Knoll/picket fence shooting location that the conspiracy [theorists] love so well.

William Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the assassination) saying that he thought there were TWO shots, with both of those shots coming from "behind" him from the direction of the "garden" behind him, which is not the picket fence area (like it or not).

And Newman is even more specific in his 11/22/63 affidavit, when he said that the "shot" had come from "directly behind me". And there's no doubt that his "directly behind me" remark was referring to the HEAD SHOT, and Mr. Newman even confirms that fact in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum.

And during that 2003 interview, Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (Part 2, linked below, at the 6:20 mark), when Bill Newman says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".

Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this 2003 interview:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GayleN

Also:

Newman marked that map [at the 1986 Mock Trial in London] in a place where NO conspiracy theorist believes any shots came from. He marked it in an area that is to the EAST of the pergola that was behind him when the shooting occurred.

He certainly didn't mark the traditional "picket fence" or "Grassy Knoll" areas of the Plaza. Not even close. Here is where Newman marked the map, which is a point in the Plaza that would have been located to the LEFT-rear (or northeast) of William Newman:

William-Newman-Map-1986-Mock-Trial.png

When all of Bill Newman's testimony and interviews over the years is assessed, it's pretty obvious that Newman is NOT a really good "conspiracy" or "Grassy Knoll" witness at all. He heard TWO shots, both from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he admitted in his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was basing his determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a VISUAL sense rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).

And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, love to distort things. And it appears to me that they've done just that when it comes to the comments made by William E. Newman. (And Lee Bowers too.)" -- David Von Pein; July 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIJcLU5NQ64

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would someone be so good as to direct me to a site with the testimonies of Patrolmen Chaney and Jackson? I was unaware that they had given testimony before the Warren Commission, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, you both find Dr. Burkley to be a reliable witness. On JFK's death certificate, he located the back wound at the level of T3, the third thoracic vertabra. Do you consider him reliable on this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newman "the gun shot apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of he temple."

Interviewer"Do you think the first gunshot came from behind you too?"

Newman "I think it came from the same location er apparently back up on the er..knoll.. I don't know what you call it."

...

Interviewer "Do you think the shot came from up on top of the viaduct toward the President. is that correct"

Newman "Yes sir, ..No, No,not on the viaduct itself, but on top of the hill or the mound of ground [or] a garden"

"The gun shot hit him in the temple."

from the hill or mound behind him.

Which part of the above, do you not understand, David?

Edit spelling.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, watch the 2003 Newman interview.

And do you REALLY think that Bill Newman could physically SEE the bullet (in flight!) as it zoomed into JFK's head (from whatever direction it came from)?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"William Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the assassination) saying that he thought there were TWO shots, with both of those shots coming from "behind" him from the direction of the "garden" behind him, which is not the picket fence area (like it or not).

That's what I state he said.

Nor is it from the direction of the TSDB. (like it or not)

DVB "And do you REALLY think that Bill Newman could physically SEE the bullet (in flight!) as it zoomed into JFK's head (from whatever direction it came from)?

Where did I say he saw the bullet?

So you think his interview in 2003 was more likley to be correct than the interview on the day of the assassination?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor is it from the direction of the TSDB. (like it or not)

Right, Ray. That was kinda my point in my article on Bill Newman.

I.E.:

He pinpointed a location where EVEN NO CONSPIRACY THEORIST today thinks a shot originated from.

You don't think any shots came from the "garden" or "mall" behind Newman, do you Ray?

Which means -- Bill Newman was wrong. Period. So why do CTers continue to utilize those "garden" and "mall" statements of Newman's to prop up their conspiracy theories? He heard shots coming from a place that is just as close to the TSBD as it is to the infamous "Grassy Knoll". So, it's a wash. Newman's earwitness testimony is, essentially, worthless. So why use it at all?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...