Pat Speer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) It may be hearsay, Ray. But the notes of a respected historian granted an exclusive interview with Jackie Kennedy--and quietly released after her death--rank among the most credible sources we have to go by---far more credible, for example, than supposed interviews conducted in the 60's but never reported until the 00's because someone supposedly promised a witness he wouldn't tell anyone else what was said until the witness was dead for 25 years. I've personally spoken to three people who saw Kennedy's head wound, and one who felt it. In 2004, I spoke to Aubrey Rike, and he said he never saw Kennedy's wounds but felt the hole in the skull on Kennedy's wrapped head...on what he thought was the back of the head. I have spoken to Robert McClelland; while I didn't ask him the details he has spoken at two conferences in 2009 and 2013 which I have attended, and he described a large wound on the back and top of the head. He also claimed, strangely, that there was nothing about this wound that suggested the shot came from the front, and that his suspicion the shot came from the front came from his study of the Zapruder film. I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. And I spoke to William Newman a few weeks back, and he confirmed his many previous accounts of seeing a large gaping wound by Kennedy's right ear. Now, to me, this suggests that there was no large gaping hole on the far back of Kennedy's head--where so many conspiracy theorists wish to believe the wound was located. Pat, I understand you believe Kennedy was shot twice in the head. Do you have an opinion as to where those two shots came from? Thanks, --Tommy The bullet striking him low on the head and going down his neck would almost certainly have been a subsonic bullet fired from a different rifle than the one found on the sixth floor. I suspect this rifle was fired from an upper floor (perhaps even the roof) of the Dal-Tex Building. The fatal head shot appears to have been fired from the sniper's nest. The bullet fragments found in the car, which I believe are legit, appear to match the M/C rifle found on the sixth floor. The skin found on the bullet nose fragment found in the car, moreover, proves that this bullet impacted at the supposed exit, at the large defect shown on the Z-film at Z-313. Edited December 9, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I know Mr. Speer has invested a lot of time and study into the head wound. Still I must disagree with his analysis. Looking at the overwhelming preponderance and agreement of the eye-witness testimony of those who saw JFK's wounds, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that Kennedy had a large wound in the back of his head. Attached is a small sampling of available eye-witness depictions of JFK's head wound. There are many more witnesses to this wound. (Including the commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada (see Kurtz, The Assassinaiton Debates)). For a visual of many witnesses pointing to a read-of-head wound, see Groden's The Killing of a President. And for any naive reader who sees Mr. Von Pein's post, Mr. Von Pein relies on the thoroughly discredited autopsy photos (see for instance the ARRB Testimony of FBI agents Sibert or O'Neill. I assume that Mr. Von Pein is familiar with this testimony. What does he say about that?) As well, both Humes and Boswell, while never convicted, clearly lied and evaded repeatedly under oath about JFK's autopsy. (see Horne, Inside the ARRB) So I believe it misguided to base any opinion about the wounds on the words of the autopsy doctors. The hole in the back of JFK's head is the bedrock foundation of proof of the manipulation and falsification of evidence in the JFK murder. While the waters are muddied here and there by medical personnel who, like Humes, went along to get along, or like Parkland Drs. Perry and Carrico in the 1992 JAMA article, changed thier stories under pressure, as stated above the overwhelming preponderance and consistancy of the eyewitness testimony is proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt of the wound in the back of Kennedy's head and the falsification of his autopsy. Of course, veteran researchers all know this. But for anyone new to the study, don't be misled by fake evidence. In chapters 18c and 18d, Al, I go through the "hole in the back of the head" argument in detail, and show, beyond any doubt, IMO, that the evidence was never fake or misleading, and that the misleading was done by well-meaning researchers so desperate to believe a shot came from the front that they turned around and called most of the witnesses they used to support their position "liars" when these witnesses clarified their earlier statements, and admitted they could have been mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It may be hearsay, Ray. But the notes of a respected historian granted an exclusive interview with Jackie Kennedy--and quietly released after her death--rank among the most credible sources we have to go by---far more credible, for example, than supposed interviews conducted in the 60's but never reported until the 00's because someone supposedly promised a witness he wouldn't tell anyone else what was said until the witness was dead for 25 years. I've personally spoken to three people who saw Kennedy's head wound, and one who felt it. In 2004, I spoke to Aubrey Rike, and he said he never saw Kennedy's wounds but felt the hole in the skull on Kennedy's wrapped head...on what he thought was the back of the head. I have spoken to Robert McClelland; while I didn't ask him the details he has spoken at two conferences in 2009 and 2013 which I have attended, and he described a large wound on the back and top of the head. He also claimed, strangely, that there was nothing about this wound that suggested the shot came from the front, and that his suspicion the shot came from the front came from his study of the Zapruder film. I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. And I spoke to William Newman a few weeks back, and he confirmed his many previous accounts of seeing a large gaping wound by Kennedy's right ear. Now, to me, this suggests that there was no large gaping hole on the far back of Kennedy's head--where so many conspiracy theorists wish to believe the wound was located. Pat, I understand you believe Kennedy was shot twice in the head. Do you have an opinion as to where those two shots came from? Thanks, --Tommy Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland surgeon and part of the ER team attempting to save JFK: "The head wound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear, parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebral portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist." If the large head wound had actually been where the WCR claimed, it would have been instantly visible to Parkland physicians. Would they have made the same level of attempt at resuscitating JFK if they knew the full extent of the head wound at the beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 OK, I've posted this before and I will do it again since to me it could explain a good deal of the controversy about a rear wound. We had one of the Parkland interns speak to us at a Lancer conference. He was in the emergency room very early and was kicked out as more senior personnel arrived. He described elevating the head slightly by picking up under the rear of the skull - and feeling the skull to be literally cracked across a large area, similar to the effect from cracking the shell of a hard boiled egg. He felt it as pulpy, with the skill essentially being held together by skin and hair. If his assessment is true, certainly the efforts to save the President, combined with body transfer in Dallas and transport could well have resulted in a much more apparent rear wound than at Parkland. Or at least it seems so to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 If his assessment is true, certainly the efforts to save the President, combined with body transfer in Dallas and transport could well have resulted in a much more apparent rear wound than at Parkland. Or at least it seems so to me. Larry, how much more apparent do you want the wound to be than that seen by the surgeons at Parkland? ie. ""The head wound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear, parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebral portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Ray, first off could you cite a source and individual for that quote...always helps. Also, when in the treatment process? Certainly what the intern described could have become more visible during treatment - which had not truly begun by the time he got pushed out. Beyond that, I'm just trying to pass on first hand remarks from a witness....I long ago gave up personally debating wounds, trajectories, locations of shooters...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Larry, I largely agree with you about debating the trajectories and locations of shooters. As for the wounds, the unusual, botched nature of the autopsy colors everything in the record. My concern here is that minimizing the testimony of the Parkland medical personnel, in terms of a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, is just another way of ignoring eyewitness testimony in favor of the "official" record. Whether it's the witnesses who reported that the limo stopped or almost stopped, or the observations of the doctors at Parkland, dismissing them means another unnecessary concession to the forces that so strongly desire a "lone nut" conclusion in this case. Really, if researchers downplay the testimony of eyewitnesses, what are we left with? The "official" record, tarnished and unbelievable as it is, points towards a lone assassin, much as the tainted "evidence" found on the sixth floor and supposedly in Oswald's possession, or connected to him through the Paines, points towards him as that assassin. Declaring that shots came only from behind makes a mockery of all the initial reports about an entrance wound to the throat, and ignores the fact that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from in front. It dilutes the case for conspiracy and is really only a short jump in logic away from agreeing with the discredited conclusions of the Warren Commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland surgeon and part of the ER team attempting to save JFK: "The head wound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear, parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebral portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist." If the large head wound had actually been where the WCR claimed, it would have been instantly visible to Parkland physicians. Would they have made the same level of attempt at resuscitating JFK if they knew the full extent of the head wound at the beginning? Confusing language. An exit hole from the right rear? or... An exit hole at the right rear? Seems to me he should have said the latter... --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Yes indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland surgeon and part of the ER team attempting to save JFK: "The head wound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear, parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebral portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist." If the large head wound had actually been where the WCR claimed, it would have been instantly visible to Parkland physicians. Would they have made the same level of attempt at resuscitating JFK if they knew the full extent of the head wound at the beginning? Confusing language. An exit hole from the right rear? or... An exit hole at the right rear? Seems to me he should have said the latter... --Tommy PS Would somebody please tell me where and in what sequence Pat Speer thinks the bullets stuck Kennedy's skull? Thank you! Edited December 10, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Quote;;Larry, I largely agree with you about debating the trajectories and locations of shooters. As for the wounds, the unusual, botched nature of the autopsy colors everything in the record. My concern here is that minimizing the testimony of the Parkland medical personnel, in terms of a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, is just another way of ignoring eyewitness testimony in favor of the "official" record. Whether it's the witnesses who reported that the limo stopped or almost stopped, or the observations of the doctors at Parkland, dismissing them means another unnecessary concession to the forces that so strongly desire a "lone nut" conclusion in this case. Really, if researchers downplay the testimony of eyewitnesses, what are we left with? The "official" record, tarnished and unbelievable as it is, points towards a lone assassin, much as the tainted "evidence" found on the sixth floor and supposedly in Oswald's possession, or connected to him through the Paines, points towards him as that assassin. Declaring that shots came only from behind makes a mockery of all the initial reports about an entrance wound to the throat, and ignores the fact that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from in front. It dilutes the case for conspiracy and is really only a short jump in logic away from agreeing with the discredited conclusions of the Warren Commission..... HEAR HEAR DON.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Fordiani Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Mr. Hancock, I have read two of your books and appreciate your thoughtful approach, your thorough research, and your willingness to share your opinions here. The issue here is not necessarily the exact location or appearance of the wounds (which obviously at this time we will never know completely and exactly for sure), or how they may have looked different here or there. The issue here, in my opinion, is the veracity of the autopsy photos and other autopsy materials and whether already at 7:00 CST the fix was in to the extent of falsifying the autopsy; and who ordered it. To me the last word on this are the two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill. These men were true Lone Nutters who believed Oswald acted alone. Yet their personal integrity trumped all when placed under oath. From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB: (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.) Mr. Gunn: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF] Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy? A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way... From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB: Q: Okay. If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF] Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head? A: Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures. I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo. Remember, these two men were 18" from the body in the Bethesda morgue. They left the morgue around midnight thinking they had seen the entire autopsy, yet there is evidence that work continued on into the early morning. Mr. Speer, I have read your material on the location of the head wounds. Overall, I applaud your efforts to try to think "out of the box" so to speak. But given that, I have to disagree with your analysis. I think you try too hard to fit things into your hypothesis. While I really don't have time for a page by page analysis of your work, here are some general comments: You rely a great deal on the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Newman's, etc. Yet from my reading of their remarks/testimony for the most part they say the saw Kennedy struck in the temple. It is you who then makes the leap to say that means there was a large wound in the temple area; in my opinion you put words in their mouths. I would make the further comment that these witnesses had a fleeting look at the wound. In my opinion, you put significantly too much stock in the veracity of Humes and Boswell and the autopsy report. Personally, I find them to be evasive at best and purposely misleading at worst. Humes in particular is dismissive of any questioning at all. Humes burned his autopsy notes and the first draft! Humes refused to draw his recollection of the wounds for the ARRB! Are these the actions of a man with nothing to hide? You look at some of the witnesses that I mentioned, those in Groden's The Killing of a President. You make a great issue as to whether these witnesses remember the head wound as above or below the ear; and you disqualify many of them as "back of the head" witnesses based on their memory of the wound as being above the ear. But the issue to me is not how high on the head or how low these witnesses place the wound. The issue is whether the wound that they remember is compatible with the existing autopsy photo of the back of the head; and high on the head or not, these witness place the wound far enough toward the back of the head to be completely at odds with the back of the head autopsy photos. Mr. Speer, you question why if the conspirators were going to forge photos, etc., why would they make forgeries that still leave one with evidence of conspiracy. I think the answer to that is available time and technology. They did the best they could, hoping that no one would see the fakes for 75 years, when they would all be dead and gone. I agree that the waters are muddied by testimony of people who 1) had something to hide; 2) went along to get along; 3) thought they were performing their patriotic duty; 4) were intimidated; or had some other reason. But again, by the sheer preponderance and consistency of the eyewitnesses to Kennedy's wound: JFK had a big hole in the back of his head and the autopsy was faked to cover it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Al, I think you cut to chase on the issue and I would like to be clear - as I hope I am in the most recent edition of SWHT - that I do believe that the autopsy began to be manipulated and maneuvered, as early as the multiple arrivals at Bethesda. I find Siebert and Oneill's observations - and their contemporary report - extremely critical and I think they expose the fact that there was an ongoing process of evidence manipulation. Its important to remember that in the end, as long as the official record contained nothing absolutely confirming multiple shots, that was all that was needed. The fact that that there are no photos clearly marking the wounds, as any legal protocol would require, and that years later the Doctors could not even identify them for the ARRB....and joked about it....speaks for itself. When Clarke would tell Johnson the good news was that the Doctors had reviewed the official evidence and found nothing to contradict the single shooter conclusion, he is very literally telling the truth. Its only what is in front of the camera that counts, everything going on outside camera range does not. As with the attack itself, I'm not concerned with any attempt to prove in shooting details, there were multiple shooters. And the physical evidence was managed over a period of time to ensure that simply was not "too obvious" - given the extent to which the WC and its staff was able to ignore so many obvious problems with the official story that obviously was not really that much of a challenge. All of which is simply my opinion and contributes little to the thread other than allowing me to go on record....enough said... Edited December 10, 2014 by Larry Hancock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) I know Mr. Speer has invested a lot of time and study into the head wound. Still I must disagree with his analysis. Looking at the overwhelming preponderance and agreement of the eye-witness testimony of those who saw JFK's wounds, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that Kennedy had a large wound in the back of his head. Attached is a small sampling of available eye-witness depictions of JFK's head wound. There are many more witnesses to this wound. (Including the commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada (see Kurtz, The Assassinaiton Debates)). For a visual of many witnesses pointing to a read-of-head wound, see Groden's The Killing of a President. And for any naive reader who sees Mr. Von Pein's post, Mr. Von Pein relies on the thoroughly discredited autopsy photos (see for instance the ARRB Testimony of FBI agents Sibert or O'Neill. I assume that Mr. Von Pein is familiar with this testimony. What does he say about that?) As well, both Humes and Boswell, while never convicted, clearly lied and evaded repeatedly under oath about JFK's autopsy. (see Horne, Inside the ARRB) So I believe it misguided to base any opinion about the wounds on the words of the autopsy doctors. The hole in the back of JFK's head is the bedrock foundation of proof of the manipulation and falsification of evidence in the JFK murder. While the waters are muddied here and there by medical personnel who, like Humes, went along to get along, or like Parkland Drs. Perry and Carrico in the 1992 JAMA article, changed thier stories under pressure, as stated above the overwhelming preponderance and consistancy of the eyewitness testimony is proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt of the wound in the back of Kennedy's head and the falsification of his autopsy. Of course, veteran researchers all know this. But for anyone new to the study, don't be misled by fake evidence. In chapters 18c and 18d, Al, I go through the "hole in the back of the head" argument in detail, and show, beyond any doubt, IMO, that the evidence was never fake or misleading, and that the misleading was done by well-meaning researchers so desperate to believe a shot came from the front that they turned around and called most of the witnesses they used to support their position "liars" when these witnesses clarified their earlier statements, and admitted they could have been mistaken. The wound in the throat was the result of a shot from the front. That's a fact. Perhaps our "experts" have concluded otherwise -- but they don't rely on evidence or logic.. Edited December 10, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now