BIZARRE JFK medical evidence items of interest-craniotomy at Parkland, etc.

[Vince Palamara]

"Killing Kennedy" by H.E.L., pages 22 and 30 [see also "Killing The Truth", p.

652]---claims that, regarding the autopsy photos of the back of JFK’s head,

"my information that the photograph is fraudelent came from Jacqueline

Kennedy through her staff in 1979 and from representatives of the Kennedy

family"; "’This isn’t the way it was!’ This is what Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

told me through her staff…" [?!]

------------------

Dr. Donald Curtis:

9/30/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"1. The wound involving the right posterior lateral surface of the skull appeared to me to be an exit wound or a tangential entrance wound. 2. I am unaware as to the details of the "official story" therefore I am unable to comment on my interpretation." [emphasis added];

--------------------

Dr. Donald Seldin:

8/27/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered…I believe that the official story is accurate in all details." (emphasis added)[!];

---------------------

OR Assistant Supervisor Jane Caroyln Wester:

6 H 121 / testimony (see also “High Treason 2”, p. 79)---“I received a phone call from the emergency room asking us to set up for a craniotomy.”; Specter: "What doctors were in attendance of Governor Connally at that time." "…Dr. Ray, I believe, was there…"[this is the only reference to "Dr. Ray"];

--------------------------------------

Dr Gene Akin:

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---"On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that he was interviewed by the FBI during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the "historic accident" of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the governments obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a "nut." AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL's HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President's forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the Presdient's forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN's comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul's hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI's fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]" (emphasis added in italics)[for important information on SA Specht, see "JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan, pages 40-44: Specht said that he "was assigned to be a kind of custodian of the files pertaining to the Kennedy case", and was the official media spokesman for the Dallas FBI office from 1978 to 1990; in fact, as Sloan writes, he "personally wrote the memorandum that formally closed the Kennedy case from that office's point of view in 1983"!];

------------------

LARRY O'BRIEN:

His book entitled "No Final Victories: A Life in Politics from John F. Kennedy to Watergate" (1974) [see also "Reflections on JFK's Assassiantion" by John B. Jovich (1988), pages 35 and 37]---At Parkland Hospial: "It was chaotic, doctors, nurses running in and out. Medical equipment being wheeled into the room. At one point Jackie and I stepped into the adjoining room where the President's body lay. All I recall is I thought he looked as he always had." (emphasis added);

Edited December 22, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/22/2013 at 3:10 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Dr Gene Akin:

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---"On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that he was interviewed by the FBI during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the "historic accident" of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the governments obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a "nut." AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL's HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President's forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the Presdient's forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN's comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul's hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI's fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]" (emphasis added in italics)[for important information on SA Specht, see "JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan, pages 40-44: Specht said that he "was assigned to be a kind of custodian of the files pertaining to the Kennedy case", and was the official media spokesman for the Dallas FBI office from 1978 to 1990; in fact, as Sloan writes, he "personally wrote the memorandum that formally closed the Kennedy case from that office's point of view in 1983"!];

 

So Gene Akin claimed to have seen a small wound in the front of the head?

 

Is there any way you have a photocopy of this document?

 

There's also this part from High Treason 1 (1989):

 

[...Part II: The Medical Evidence, Chapter 2p: The President’s Head Wounds And The New Evidence Of Forgery, The Hole In The Back Of The Head]

 

Dr. Gene Akin was an Anesthesiologist at Parkland at the time. He told the Warren Commission that “the back of the right occipital-parietal portion of (Kennedy’s) head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”43 “I assume that the right occipital parietal region (right rear) was the exit”44 Akin reaffirmed this to the Globe team and basically did not accept the official picture. On seeing the sketch, he said, “Well in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it’s more occipital.”45 Akin further said that Dr. Kemp Clark saw the entry wound in the temple.

 

The index cites a tape accessed by the authors.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Cory Santos]

Proof of the front head entrance keeps growing it seems 

[Micah Mileto]

 

14 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Proof of the front head entrance keeps growing it seems 

So far, here's a list of named witnesses who made statements suggesting a small wound in the front of the head:

 

1. Dr. George Burkley (as relayed by Malcolm Kilduff), 2. Tom Robinson, 3. James Curtis Jenkins, 4. Dennis David, 5. Joe O'Donnell, 6. Quentin Schwinn, 7. Dr. Robert McClelland, 8. Dr. Marion Jenkins, 9. Dr. Ronald Jones, 10. Dr. Lito Porto (as relayed by Dr. Jones), 11: Dr. Gene Akin, 12. Dr. W. David Stewart, 13. Father Oscar Huber, 14. Malcolm Kilduff, 15. Hugh Huggins

 

Possible physical evidence: 1. The f8 open-cranium photos showing at least one hole in the right scalp, 2. At least three medical professionals have said the right lateral skull x-ray shows what may be a small hole in the forehead resembling a bullet entry - Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist Dr. Joseph N. Riley, and radiation oncologist Dr. David Mantik, 3.The autopsy diagram showing a "0.4 cm" and a "3 cm" mark on the left side of the head, 4. the v-shape incision, 5. the semi-circular dark shot on the photos of the right forehead next to the v-shape

Edited June 10, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11/27/1963, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, Chicago Daily News Service:

 

The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course.

 

"If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound.

 

[...]

 

Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital.

 

They said neither bullet was recovered in the hospital emergency room. One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple.

 

([link 2, The Akron Beacon Journal, 11/28/1963, What Was Correct Bullet Sequence? First 2 hit JFK, Film Indicates by Arthur J. Snider, Beacon Journal, Chicago Daily News Wire])

 

From the Boston Globe, 11/27/1963, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black:

 

The Globe has got from an unofficial but authoritative source here what is believed to be an accurate description of the course of events.

 

[…]

 

When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound.

 

This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets.

 

It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hopital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken.

 

This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this.

 

The FBI is investigating all aspects of the shooting and that is believed to be the reason why the official medical reports from the naval hospital have not been released.

 

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/30/1963, UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN DESPITE POLICE VIEW OF KENNEDY DEATH – Did Assailant Have an Accomplice? by Richard Dudman:

 

There have been two other reports of injury to the President’s head. One of the physicians who attended him in Dallas said afterward that he had noticed a small entry wound in the left temple.

 

Another person, who saw the President’s body a ‘few minutes after he died,’ told the Post-Dispatch he thought he had observed a wound in the President’s forehead. He asked that his name not be used. Reports of the temple and forehead wounds could have referred to the same injury.

[Rick McTague]

Equally fascinating to this frontal head shot evidence and observations is the total lack of anyone at Parkland describing anything close to the huge orange blob/flap shown in the extant Zapruder film.  So this is doubly convicting - JFK was shot twice from the front and the orange blob/flap was manufactured in the film.

Thanks

[Jonathan Cohen]

23 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

Equally fascinating to this frontal head shot evidence and observations is the total lack of anyone at Parkland describing anything close to the huge orange blob/flap shown in the extant Zapruder film.  So this is doubly convicting - JFK was shot twice from the front and the orange blob/flap was manufactured in the film.

False. None of the Parkland doctors determined the extent of this flap because Mrs. Kennedy had essentially pushed it back together while holding JFK's head during the ride to the hospital. Upon arrival at the ER, the doctors were completely focused on the wound in the back of the head but even then did not know its true shape and extent.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Rick McTague said:

Equally fascinating to this frontal head shot evidence and observations is the total lack of anyone at Parkland describing anything close to the huge orange blob/flap shown in the extant Zapruder film.  So this is doubly convicting - JFK was shot twice from the front and the orange blob/flap was manufactured in the film.

Thanks

Isn't the "red blob" on the Zapruder film supposed to be the bloody inner surface of a piece of skull that was hanging off the edge of the large defect? I that case, the large head wound officially be somewhere just above the red blob. On the film, it is hard to see a large head wound because of the hair, shadows, and artifacts getting in the way.

[Rick McTague]

On 6/18/2020 at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

False. None of the Parkland doctors determined the extent of this flap because Mrs. Kennedy had essentially pushed it back together while holding JFK's head during the ride to the hospital. Upon arrival at the ER, the doctors were completely focused on the wound in the back of the head but even then did not know its true shape and extent.

Well - what is seen on the Zapruder film was not described by any of the medical professionals who had ample opportunity and expertise to examine the entirety of the president's skull; a huge blob like what is shown in the film would have been mentioned by at least one of them.  Your supposition that that very large blob / wound it was no longer observable because Jackie "pushed back together" just doesn't make any sense.

Conversely, what was observed by the medical professionals at Parkland is not seen in the extant Zapruder film: a single large defect at the back of the head.

What the Z film shows and what the doctors / nurses described at Parkland are too far apart to have any reasonable explanation.

Thanks

Rick

[Pat Speer]

We can agree on some of it, Rick. 

The Parkland witnesses on average recalled a hole, not flap, but hole, at the rear of the top of the head. And the Z-film and autopsy photos show this wound to be above the right ear. So there's a dilemma. Which is more likely to be correct? The recollections of emergency room doctors or the autopsy photos taken of the deceased? The medical establishment is clear on this--it always defers to the autopsy report and photos. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

We can agree on some of it, Rick. 

The Parkland witnesses on average recalled a hole, not flap, but hole, at the rear of the top of the head. And the Z-film and autopsy photos show this wound to be above the right ear. So there's a dilemma. Which is more likely to be correct? The recollections of emergency room doctors or the autopsy photos taken of the deceased? The medical establishment is clear on this--it always defers to the autopsy report and photos. 

Not if the autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol and there is no chain of possession.

[Micah Mileto]

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not if the autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol and there is no chain of possession.

Can you remind me which source talked about that?

[Cliff Varnell]

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back)from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.  Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxiousto block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. </q>
 

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

[Micah Mileto]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back)from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.  Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxiousto block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. </q>

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

I don't see what that has to do with the chain of custody. From what I understand, the pictures and body samples from the autopsy have an alleged chain of custody until 4/26/1965.

 

Also, are there contemporaneous documents on Saundra Spencer being the one handling the photos?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I don't see what that has to do with the chain of custody.

 She was supposed to have custody of the extant photos for the purpose of developing them — which she denies, this breaking the chain of custody.

If Saundra Kay Spencer didn’t develop the extant autopsy photos — who did?

Quote

From what I understand, the pictures and body samples from the autopsy have an alleged chain of custody until 4/26/1965.
 

What’s your proof that’s JFK in those photos?

Who developed them?

Quote

Also, are there contemporaneous documents on Saundra Spencer being the one handling the photos?

So the AARB got it wrong?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=797#relPageId=12

Edited June 24, 2020 by Cliff Varnell