Jump to content
The Education Forum

The lonesome Parkland Doc Dr. Kenneth Salyer


Recommended Posts

No, David, it means only that YOU think he was wrong.

As he said in the 2003 interview that the shot that came from behind him was "a bit closer to the picket fence than the TSBD"

He also said "What we had to say that day is more important than what we might say in an interview 40 years later."

He said in 1963 that the bullet hit JFK in the temple.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's the difference, Ray? We've got the info on videotape (live on TV) from Bill Newman prior

to 1 PM on Nov. 22. You can't get much better "testimony" than that.

And we know that Bill Newman was not describing the "Knoll" as a shooting source. So what difference does it make that Bill never testified?

Or did you just feel like the WC was overdue for another jab from a CTer? :)

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

DVP "And we know that Bill Newman was not describing the "Knoll" as a shooting source. So what difference does it make that Bill never testified?"

Complete rubbish. Newman actually said the knoll behind him. Listen carefully to the video, David.

DVP "Or did you just feel like the WC was overdue for another jab from a CTer?"

What a poor comment.

I notice you say nothing about Newman saying that the bullet hit JFK in the temple. Then again, you must be right as you weren't there and he was.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one full of rubbish, Ray.

You're making out Newman to be a great "conspiracy" and/or "Knoll" witness, and his interviews prove he was not. Simple as that. Why fight it? He didn't KNOW where the shots were coming from.

And, again, how would Newman KNOW that the bullet hit JFK "in the temple"? Please explain.

He couldn't SEE the flight of the bullet. He had no idea where the small wound of entry was. He saw the blood & gore "in the temple" and thought that's where the bullet entered. A logical error, but it's certainly an error.

And I see you're going to completely ignore Mr. Newman's MORE detailed explanation in his 2003 interview, when he said 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".

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

No. YOU say he saw the blood and gore in the temple. He said he saw the shot HIT the temple. You are speculating. As I said earlier, he was there, you weren't.

Just because you say he was mistaken means chicken s*it. That is just your opinion. I'd rather go with the evidence.

Just to repeat what he sadi in 2003

"What we had to say that day is more important than what we might say in an interview 40 years later."

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"pretty silly" is standard boilerplate for "I have no real answer for your position." Or, as we mathematicians say, just "hand waving."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us take a very critical look at your argument, Mr. Von Pein. You are suggesting Mr. Newman had some incredible radar like sense of hearing that allowed him to pinpoint the origin of a rifle shot within a few feet?

This is the stuff of fantasy, and I seriously doubt you have spent much time in the woods hunting, or around firearms ar all, for that matter. From my personal experience, I can confidently state that, while the general location of the origin of a shot can be detected, actually pinpointing the location is almost entirely impossible. This is especially true if the shot is completely unexpected.

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

Sure Nick. On pages 32-3 in Brad Parker's First on the Scene, Brad reproduces two letters from Dr. Perry, both from May 1994. The first concerns the McClelland drawing. The relevant passage: "A drawing from recollection, not made to scale, and without measurements, is worthless. Some of the people you list in your letter had nothing to do with the resuscitation, and did not examine the wound. I fear your effort will reveal nothing of value. I'm sorry I can't help you."

The second is an hand-written undated note that would appear to be a response to Brad's obvious displeasure with the first letter of Perry. Here it is: "It is 'unfortunate' that you take differences of opinion as a personal problem. Scientific discourse is characterized by differences of opinion, and thrives on it. (Don't act defensively) Recollection immediately after an event is likely to be more accurate (although often wrong) than when made 30 years later. You are also incorrect in your evaluation of the reports. You should read the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. Included therein you will find a detailed autopsy report. Dr. Chrenshaw did not participate in the decision-making or in the resuscitation efforts. He did not examine the wounds in my presence, and his opinions are not supported by anyone involved in our work. I don't remember his even being in the room Good luck to you, MO Perry."

The most important thing to note are Perry's early and original statements about both the throat and head wound. Perry's Nov 22 handwritten report: of "a large wound of the right posterior cranium" accords well with the McClelland drawing that by 1994 Perry had come to loathe. Best, Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference, Ray? We've got the info on videotape (live on TV) from Bill Newman prior

to 1 PM on Nov. 22. You can't get much better "testimony" than that.

David, I agree with you on this one, especially as Bill Newman is a firm witness to the limo stop, which implies the extant Z-film is worthless. Glad we both like Newman. Best to you Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference, Ray? We've got the info on videotape (live on TV) from Bill Newman prior

to 1 PM on Nov. 22. You can't get much better "testimony" than that.

David, I agree with you on this one, especially as Bill Newman is a firm witness to the limo stop, which implies the extant Z-film is worthless. Glad we both like Newman. Best to you Daniel

:up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"pretty silly" is standard boilerplate for "I have no real answer for your position." Or, as we mathematicians say, just "hand waving."

Yeah, right, Daniel. There was "tremendous pressure" on the doctors to go along with the "all shots came from behind" theory in 1964, when many of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made. And there was "tremendous pressure" on them to go along with the findings of the WC, Clark Panel, and Rockefeller Commission panel in 1978, during the HSCA investigation, when many more of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made.

Their statements were seemingly immune to this "tremendous pressure." But then VOILA! David Lifton's book came out, and they started quaking in their boots, and reversing themselves willy nilly! Under pressure from... WHO, Daniel? WHO? Nova? Dr. Lattimer? Gerald Posner?

Give me a break. The facts are, quite clear, IMO, that a few of the doctors formed an impression the wound was on the back of the head, and others followed. And that, when they finally got a look at the photos they deferred to the accuracy of the photos. That is what doctors do. Every day. And that is what most all of them did.

The idea that these brave doctors--who presumably told the truth as they believed it to the Warren Commission and HSCA--suddenly turned chicken when GADZOOKS!!! Public Television asked them what they saw is ridiculous, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few of the doctors formed an impression the wound was on the back of the head, and others followed. And that, when they finally got a look at the photos they deferred to the accuracy of the photos.

No, they most certainly did not do that, Pat. (At least not the 4 doctors in the NOVA/PBS special in 1988 anyway.)

Those 4 doctors saw the photos at the National Archives and then came back and said the photos of the President's wounds looked pretty much EXACTLY the same as when the doctors saw JFK at Parkland in '63.

IOW, those doctors (with the exception being Pepper Jenkins, who never does place the wound all the way into the REAR of the head--even for NOVA) claimed in '88 that the photos they saw CORROBORATED what they had always said they saw at Parkland -- which, of course, would mean the pictures were really showing a great-big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head. But, of course, they show no such thing.

Not ONE of those doctors said anything like this --- "Well, I guess I was wrong about the location of that head wound. Sorry about that."

Two of them DID reverse themselves completely on the "cerebellum" matter, but none of them said they were initially wrong about WHERE on Kennedy's head the big wound was. (But, as mentioned, Jenkins didn't really need to do that as much as Dulany, McClelland, and Peters, because Jenkins puts the wound much more to the SIDE of the head in the first place.)

And McClelland's "pulled scalp" explanation is just flat-out weird. Here's why:

The Strange Tale Of The Parkland Hospital Doctors

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

Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson

Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone) Wounds: Large gaping hole in back of head.

patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it.

Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris. Smaller wound in right temple.

Crescent shped, flapped down (3") (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.

Packed with wax. Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.

To the right of the back bone. Adrenlin gland and brain removed. Other organs removed and then put back. No swelling or discoloration to face.

(Died instantly) Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask.....

"How much longer???"

He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)

"Take your time." Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all.

(Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly" HOW COULD THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD NOT SUBPOENA THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON AND HEAR THIS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVES, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS A CONSPIRACY? The sad part is that the ARRB report is supposed to renew the American people's trust in their government.

Above is the transcript of a telephone converstan with Thomas Evan Robinson from May 26, 1992. He was the mortician who, along with two other morticians, prepared JFK for burial.

As the saying goes, the undetaker is the last man to let you down, and in this case, Mr. Robinson would be one of the last persons to view JFK's head wound (and back wound) prior to his burial. What Mr. Robinson saw should put to rest any arguments about alteration to the body and about where the large head wound and the back wound were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes, Robert! Tom Robinson is not a good "back of the head" witness.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com:

One of the strangest "back of the head" witnesses, in my opinion, is Tom Robinson, one of Kennedy's morticians. The stealth with which conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to acquit Lee Harvey Oswald, present Robinson's words to suggest Kennedy was shot from the front, is truly a wonder to behold.

This is how researcher Michael Griffith presents Robinson in his online essay The Head Shot from the Front.

Tom Robinson the mortician. He reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy. He reports that there was still a visible defect in the back of the head even after the inclusion of some late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas.

After discussing Dr. Burkley's claim the bullet entered Kennedy's temple, and pretending that Burkley's words suggest a separate exit on the back of the head, Griffith further discusses Robinson: "
This was very probably the same small temple-entry hole that was described by some of the Parkland doctors and that was filled with wax by Tom Robinson."

Well, this suggests that Robinson not only saw an exit on the back of the head and an entrance on the front, but that the Harper fragment--the only large bone fragment not recovered by the end of the autopsy--was occipital bone, correct?

Well, maybe, but what Griffith presents is not a fair presentation of Robinson's words.

When asked, on 1-12-77, by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy if he could tell what percentage of the large hole on the back of Kennedy's head he'd observed had been caused by bullets, as opposed to the doctors, he responded: “Not really. Well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would say probably about [the size of] a small orange.”

He is basing his guess, then, on the size of the hole left on the back of the head after reconstruction. He
doesn't even realize that three large bone fragments had been retrieved and added back into the skull, and that the size of the hole after reconstruction does not reflect what he thinks it does...

He also offers no reason to believe the reconstruction was accurate. Morticians are not forensic anthropologists. They are not trained to piece shattered skulls back together. They are cosmeticians. They stretch and sew torn scalp together to hide head wounds. They use packing material and rubber to reconstruct skulls, not super glue. In this case, moreover, they were hired to make the body presentable at a State Funeral. So, OF COURSE the hole left over at the end of the initial phases of reconstruction -- which Robinson did not even perform, nor pay much attention to (he observed the autopsy from a location on the left side of the President's body and had no recollections of a large wound on the right top side of the President's head)--was on the back of the head (where it could be hidden in a pillow should the President have been given an open-casket funeral), and not the right top side of the head, from whence the Harper fragment almost certainly derived.

That the wound during the autopsy was not where Robinson saw it at the end of the autopsy is supported, moreover, by Robinson himself. Consider the summary of Robinson's interview with the ARRB, written by Doug Horne, which reveals: "Robinson said he had a '50 yard line seat' at the autopsy...He said the President's head was to his right, which means that he was on the anatomical left of the president during the autopsy. He said that most of the pathologists and their assistants were opposite him, on the anatomical right of the president during the autopsy." Well, why would the autopsy team be standing on the right side of the body, if the wound was at the middle of the back of the head?

But that's not the only reason to doubt the hole in the middle of the back of the head seen by Robinson was the exit wound seen at Parkland. For one, he said this hole on the skull was "circular." Well, who believes the triangular Harper fragment--as stated, the only large bone fragment still missing by the end of the autopsy--would leave a circular hole on the skull? No one. When asked by Doug Horne and the ARRB in 1996 to further describe this hole and mark the location of this hole on a drawing, moreover, Robinson contended that he believed this hole was an entrance wound, and placed it in the middle of the occipital bone, inches away from where conspiracy theorists Robert Groden and David Mantik hold the Harper fragment erupted.

The strangeness surrounding Robinson's testimony, or at least most theorists' interpretation of his testimony, however, is best illustrated through a discussion not of Robinson's ARRB testimony, but Saundra Spencer's ARRB testimony. In Volume 2 of his 5 volume opus, Doug Horne writes:
"Before the photograph that Saundra Spencer developed was exposed, a head-filler...was used to restore shape and structure to the severely damaged cranium; after a 'rubber dam' was located to help seal the large cranial defect and prevent body fluids from leaking from the cranium inside the casket, the remaining scalp was stretched back into place as much as possible and sutured together (as well as into the rubber dam material) outside the now hardened and reconstructed skull. The two-inch diameter 'wound' that Saundra Spencer recalls seeing squarely in the middle of the back of the head in one photograph, high in the occipital bone, simply represented the small area that the undertakers could not repair and close."

Robinson's fellow mortician John Hoesen described a similar hole on the back of the head. According to Horne, Hoesen claimed "it was roughly the size of a small orange...located in the center of the back of the head." Horne then proceeds to assert that Hoesen, as Spencer, was describing the small hole remaining after skull reconstruction.

And yet he maintains that Robinson, who described a hole in the exact same location, in nearly identical terms, (it was the size of a "small orange") was describing the head wound at the beginning of the autopsy! What? Where does he get that?

He gets that from Robinson's HSCA and ARRB interviews, and his claim the head wound was enlarged by Dr. Humes to remove the brain (something Humes actually testified to). Apparently, Horne assumes Robinson's description of the wound prior to being enlarged was based upon an independent observation, and not on speculation derived from its appearance during reconstruction. Well, as we've seen, this just isn't true.
When asked if he could estimate the size and location of the wound at the beginning of the autopsy, before the enlargement of the wound and removal of the brain, Robinson told the HSCA's Andy Purdy: “Not really. Well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would say probably about [the size of] a small orange.”

"
Not really. Well, I guess I can because..." Horne's "Epiphany" that Robinson saw an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, and that Dr. Humes then enlarged this wound to hide its real size (as opposed to simply pulling out the brain), is thus exposed as smoke. If the hole started out as orange-sized, and was then expanded for the taking of the autopsy photos, and then reconstructed with the addition of the three large skull fragments flown in from Dallas, how could it be orange-sized at the end?

No. Nothing strange there.

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.


PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
PURDY: On his right side?
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
PURDY: Approximately what size?
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When asked one last time what he thought caused the wound, furthermore, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel.
This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

So why pretend otherwise?

I mean, Griffith, a fairly conservative researcher, has presented the exact same nonsense spewed by the far from conservative James Fetzer in his online posts, and has indicated that Robinson saw 1) an exit on the back of the head (when he in fact said he thought it was an entrance), and 2) an entrance on the front of the head (when he in fact said it was to his mind an exit for a small fragment, and possibly even a nick from shrapnel).

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Robinson is far from the only "back of the head" witness whose stories fail to support what is claimed of them.

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...