Pat Speer- I am confused (so what else is new?)...re: JFK head wound

[David Josephs]

Pat, why not just use the coat, jacket and backwound rather than a drawing? and the facts offered.... 20 degree downward angle at the point of contact, 11 degree upward movement of the bullet, 25 degree downward movement thru JC.

Except we are talking about the headwound and what appears to be you desire to assist Bethesda and the ONI prove THEY are correct about the wounds.

JFK's head did not come apart in their hands like HUMES tells us... his condition was such that the ER staff attempted life saving procedures... if the wound was as it appeared at 8pm in Bethesda, what kind of sick sadist of a doctor preforms a tracheotomy on a man whose head is open as BOSWELL described?

Whether in the rear, right rear, or just RIGHT, how do you explain the disconnection of the brain from the skull on the LEFT side of the entire skull... so much so that the brain literally FALLS out of the opening in the skull...

Seems to me you nbeed to read the autopsy section of BEST EVIDENCE again Pat. What Humes describes and what PARKLAND saw are mutually exclusive

[Pat Speer]

Who was responsible for telling him to fabricate? do we know for sure?

Pat, I am sure they were very receptive. I once heard an audio of him (Specter) at the 2003 Pittsburg conference - a crowd pleaser as well. It should be assassination 101. I got his Passion for truth (truth?), and he comes across to me in the book as if no one can investigate the things he puts in writing. For insistence, saying more or less; Humes's excuse for burning his notes is a revelation that came out for his book. Of course the major media sucked it right up.

Anyway, so the famous pic here - before the testimony with Perry?

This photo was taken in a garage after the re-enactment on May 24, 1964. The chalk mark on the back is where Kelley and Specter saw it on the autopsy photo. It doesn't line up with the trajectory rod. Look at Specter's face.

He might very well have decided right then and there that he had to lie and pretend the wound was at the base of the neck, and that the wounds aligned with a shot from the sniper's nest.

In any event, it should come as no surprise that this particular photo wasn't entered into evidence or published by the WC.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, why not just use the coat, jacket and backwound rather than a drawing? and the facts offered.... 20 degree downward angle at the point of contact, 11 degree upward movement of the bullet, 25 degree downward movement thru JC.

Except we are talking about the headwound and what appears to be you desire to assist Bethesda and the ONI prove THEY are correct about the wounds.

JFK's head did not come apart in their hands like HUMES tells us... his condition was such that the ER staff attempted life saving procedures... if the wound was as it appeared at 8pm in Bethesda, what kind of sick sadist of a doctor preforms a tracheotomy on a man whose head is open as BOSWELL described?

Whether in the rear, right rear, or just RIGHT, how do you explain the disconnection of the brain from the skull on the LEFT side of the entire skull... so much so that the brain literally FALLS out of the opening in the skull...

Seems to me you nbeed to read the autopsy section of BEST EVIDENCE again Pat. What Humes describes and what PARKLAND saw are mutually exclusive

I've read Best Evidence and have discussed the medical evidence with David Lifton many times on this forum. We agree to disagree on this issue.

I think you (and Lifton) are right on something, by the way. In recent years, Groden and Aguilar, among others, have tried to convince people the wounds observed at Parkland and Bethesda were the same. At one point, Dr. Fetzer misunderstood my claiming they were wrong, and insisted that the large wound from front to back at Bethesda was the condition of the wound after Humes had enlarged it. I then explained to him that YIKES we agreed on this point. I then pointed out that HIS book Murder in Dealey Plaza included a chapter by Aguilar, in which Aguilar argued that the wounds were the same. Amazingly, Fetzer had forgotten that Aguilar had done so.

[John Crites]

NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON:

"...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head."


Dedicated nurse testifying to the back of the head wound.

there are just too many dedicated professionals who's only ambition was the telling the truth.

Its easy to believe the Lifton theory , because of the size of the head wound at Bethesda,

as far as Parkland, there are too many fresh witnesses statements to the back of the head being blown out

[Ray Mitcham]

I think the problem is that some posters believe (possibly) altered/fake xrays and photos, rather than the statements of the professionals who were there.

Unlike, Pat, I don't think that the surgeons at Parkland either suffered from hallucinations or were persuaded by others that what they saw wasn't what was in front of them. Professionals do not describe the wounds in the same way unless they saw them.

[John Crites]

Exactly Ray,

And as for Parkland, they were gunshot experienced doctors and Nurses.

[Don Jeffries]

The original critics of the official story relied heavily upon eyewitness testimony. They had little choice here, in that nothing productive was ever investigated by the authorities, and so much other evidence was missing, had obviously been tampered with or destroyed. This has been my argument for years- if the "neo-con" thinking prevails in the research community, we are throwing out many of the clearest indicators of conspiracy.

Yes, witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. However, can we really believe that on November 22, 1963, so many unconnected witnesses happened to be mistaken in the exact same way? And always on points that would have destroyed the lone assassin myth? So, Weitzman and Boone were both "mistaken" and identically swore that the weapon they found on the 6th floor was a German Mauser. Dozens of witnesses, unknown to each other, "mistakenly" noted that the limousine had stopped or nearly stopped at the time of the shooting. The majority of witnesses, including law enforcement, "mistakenly" thought the shots had come from the knoll area, as can be seen in all the immediate post-assassination photos. And all the medical personnel at Parkland "mistakenly" recalled an identical wound that we don't see in the official photos and x-rays of JFK.

The holes in JFK's shirt and coat, in conjunction with the location noted by Boswell on his original autopsy face sheet and Burkley on the death certificate, represent about as good a piece of evidence destroying the official version of events as we're ever likely to get. And yet we get "bunched up" theories that fly in the face of all logic and resemble the SBT and "jet effect" nonsense designed to explain the unimpeachable evidence anyone can see.

Backtracking and giving ground on any of these issues makes no sense. We should all be more certain that ever that the evidence is overwhelming JFK was felled by a very powerful conspiracy.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Don Jeffries

[Robert Prudhomme]

I can't lay my hands on it right now but, there is an interview with the mortician Tom Robinson in which he describes the only two wounds he saw on JFK's head; a 1/4" hole in the right temple and a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head.

He also goes on to say he had a discussion about these wounds with an FBI "ballistics expert" during the autopsy in which this expert told him it was highly probable for a bullet to make a large gaping entrance wound and that the 1/4" hole in the right temple was likely made by an exiting bullet fragment or piece of bone.

[Ray Mitcham]

I can't lay my hands on it right now but, there is an interview with the mortician Tom Robinson in which he describes the only two wounds he saw on JFK's head; a 1/4" hole in the right temple and a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head.

He also goes on to say he had a discussion about these wounds with an FBI "ballistics expert" during the autopsy in which this expert told him it was highly probable for a bullet to make a large gaping entrance wound and that the 1/4" hole in the right temple was likely made by an exiting bullet fragment or piece of bone.

This the one, Bob?

TOM ROBINSON: was the assistant to Joe Hagen, president of Gawler's Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy's body for his coffin. Robinson assisted with the preparations for an open casket funeral so preparation of the skull was especially meticulous. Robertson described the skull wound in a 1/12/77 HSCA interview released in 1993 conducted by Andy Purdy and Jim Conzelman: Purdy asked Robinson: "Approximately where was this wound (the skull wound) located?" Robinson: "Directly behind the back of his head." Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them." (HSCA rec # 189-10089-10178, agency file # 000661, p.3. On the day of their interview Purdy and Conzelman signed a diagram prepared and also signed by Robinson. The sketch depicts a defect directly in the central, lower rear portion of the skull. (HSCA doc # 180-10089-10179, agency file # 000662)

[Ray Mitcham]

[Malcolm Ward]

Tom Robinson was a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy following the autopsy, preparing it for burial. He was interviewed by HSCA staff members Andy Purdy and Jim Conzelman early on, during the era when Richard Sprague still headed the HSCA. Mr Robinson described a large rear head wound, "directly behind the back of his head." He also observed what appeared to be a small wound in the right temple.

Complete Recording 28:19 WMA MOV MP3

Source:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Robinson.htm

[Robert Prudhomme]

Yes, that is the one, the interview with Andy Purdy dated 12/01/77 and suppressed until forcefully released by the ARRB in the 1990's.

What I find interesting is the Secret Service or FBI agent (never identified by Robinson, though he was shown some credentials), present at the autopsy with Robinson, who was a "bullistic (sic) expert" and seems to have convinced Robinson it was perfectly normal for a bullet to make a ragged 3" diameter entrance hole and that a perfectly round 1/4" hole in the right temple could have been made by an exiting bullet fragment or a piece of bone exiting. I am frankly amazed at Robinson's gullibility, considering his profession.

Re-reading this interview clearly shows Robinson as a reliable back of head wound witness, plus a total absence of any other large head wound witness.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Andric Perez]

I think the problem is that some posters believe (possibly) altered/fake xrays and photos, rather than the statements of the professionals who were there.

Unlike, Pat, I don't think that the surgeons at Parkland either suffered from hallucinations or were persuaded by others that what they saw wasn't what was in front of them. Professionals do not describe the wounds in the same way unless they saw them.

Mr. MItcham, can you state that the professionals in the trauma room described "the wounds in the same way" after reading their statements throughout the years as documented by Pat Speer in chapter 18d of his website? Is it not true that McClelland and Baxter did not even agree with themselves?

[Andric Perez]

Tom Robinson was a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy following the autopsy, preparing it for burial. He was interviewed by HSCA staff members Andy Purdy and Jim Conzelman early on, during the era when Richard Sprague still headed the HSCA. Mr Robinson described a large rear head wound, "directly behind the back of his head." He also observed what appeared to be a small wound in the right temple.

Complete Recording 28:19 WMA MOV MP3

Source:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Robinson.htm

Did Parkland doctors see the alleged "small wound in the right temple" described by Robinson?

Edited December 22, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

What if the Parkland doctors did not see this small wound? Would we be required to believe that Mr. Robinson was not telling the truth about it?