Jump to content
The Education Forum

Video: Pat Speer on JFK's fatal head shot and the autopsy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And how would you go about dismissing Clint Hill's WC testimony, in which he describes a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

No witness (or series of witnesses) can trump the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, Bob P., tell us how you go about the daunting task of totally dismissing the best evidence available regarding the true locations of JFK's head wounds---i.e., the photographs below?

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

And how would you go about dismissing Clint Hill's WC testimony, in which he describes a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

No witness (or series of witnesses) can trump the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, Bob P., tell us how you go about the daunting task of totally dismissing the best evidence available regarding the true locations of JFK's head wounds---i.e., the photographs below?

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

The photo, on the right, depicts a fairly intact head, unlike the x-ray, on the left.

The photo depicts hair shorter than JFK's full mane.

The photo does not depict an entry wound at the back of the base of the neck.

The photo depicts a natural parting of hair JFK did not have.

Neither the photo nor the x-ray is consistent with the "stare of death" photo.

None of the autopsy photographers has ever vouched for the photo, nor has the camera used to take the photo been determined.

John Ebersole, M.D., made a statement under oath contradictory to the photo and to the x-ray. Ebersole told the HSCA, "The back of the head was missing...."

For lack of a foundation, neither photo nor x-ray would be admissible as evidence in a trial court.

From both a legal and a medical standpoint, the photo and x-ray are worthless. They exist to mislead, not to elucidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how would you go about dismissing Clint Hill's WC testimony, in which he describes a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

No witness (or series of witnesses) can trump the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, Bob P., tell us how you go about the daunting task of totally dismissing the best evidence available regarding the true locations of JFK's head wounds---i.e., the photographs below?

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

And how would you go about dismissing Clint Hill's WC testimony, in which he describes a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

No witness (or series of witnesses) can trump the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, Bob P., tell us how you go about the daunting task of totally dismissing the best evidence available regarding the true locations of JFK's head wounds---i.e., the photographs below?

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

The photo, on the right, depicts a fairly intact head, unlike the x-ray, on the left.

PAT: They show the same thing--a large defect at the top of the head in front of the ear. A brief trip through a radiology textbook will teach you that the dark area at the front does not necessarily show missing skull. Dr. Mantik, for one, says that the dark area mostly depicts missing brain. As the X-ray was taken while Kennedy was lying on his back, it could very well indicate nothing more than that his brain had come untethered from the dura. This, of course, was discussed in the autopsy report.

The photo depicts hair shorter than JFK's full mane.

PAT: He is laying on his side in the photo, with his hair draped down. Kennedy's hair was long on the top but short in the back. There is no discrepancy.

The photo does not depict an entry wound at the back of the base of the neck.

PAT: Nor should it. The wound was on the back, and not in the field of view when this photo was taken.

The photo depicts a natural parting of hair JFK did not have.

PAT: The hair is wet with blood and macerated brain, and Kennedy is laying on his side. Why on Earth would his hair have a "natural parting"?

Neither the photo nor the x-ray is consistent with the "stare of death" photo.

PAT: The x-ray is consistent with the Stare of Death photo. There is a wing of bone hanging above the ear on the x-ray and Stare of Death photo, that fell off or was removed by the time they took the back of the head photo.

None of the autopsy photographers has ever vouched for the photo, nor has the camera used to take the photo been determined.

PAT: There was one autopsy photographer, Stringer. His assistant Riebe took a few photos at the beginning of the autopsy, but was stopped by the Secret Service and asked to leave. While Stringer toward the end of his life disavowed the brain photos, he repeatedly and consistently claimed he took the back of the head photos, and that there was no large hole on the back of the head. The navy located the camera and lens used during the autopsy for the HSCA, but the HSCA pathology panel rejected this as the camera and lens when they couldn't replicate one of the photos. I suspect this was the mystery photo...and that it couldn't be replicated because it shows the back of the head, and not the front of the head, as claimed by the panel.

John Ebersole, M.D., made a statement under oath contradictory to the photo and to the x-ray. Ebersole told the HSCA, "The back of the head was missing...."

PAT: Ebersole verified the accuracy of the autopsy photos and x-rays in 1966. His comment about the back of the head came more than 11 years later, more than 14 years after the shooting. He was never a conspiracy theorist, and stood by the findings of the autopsy report.

For lack of a foundation, neither photo nor x-ray would be admissible as evidence in a trial court.

PAT: This is a total myth. To be entered into a court of law, an eyewitness would have to vouch for their accuracy. Stringer, who took the back of the head photos, and Humes, who'd ordered them taken, both claimed repeatedly and consistently that they showed what they saw. Ebersole and his technicians Custer and Reed all vouched for the authenticity of the x-rays. They would thereby be admitted. Now, once admitted, a defense attorney may have tried to impeach their credibility by presenting counter-witnesses. But why would he do that, when the photos and x-rays make it clear there was more than one shooter? And who would he get to do that? Emergency room doctors do not testify against the findings of autopsy doctors, not unless they wish to become a pariah within the medical community. Their doing so would be like an arresting officer getting up in court after a judge reads his verdict, to tell the judge that he thinks the defendant is not guilty. How often does that happen?

From both a legal and a medical standpoint, the photo and x-ray are worthless. They exist to mislead, not to elucidate.

PAT: Not true. They, along with the Z-film, prove there was more than one shooter. If you believe otherwise, you have been grossly misled.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Kemp Clark, in his medical report (WCR Appendix VIII), stated that the head wound was in the occipital region of JFK's skull, and involved occipital and parietal bones.

Why can we not see this wound in the back of head photo?

Dr. Clark also reported cerebral and cerebellar tissue protruding from the head wound. As the cerebellum is a small section of the brain, found in the lower rear of the skull, how could it be protruding from the wound of the large gaping wound was NOT in the occipital region?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a 2007 discussion re: "the cerebellum"....

JOHN CANAL SAID:

Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and Vince Bugliosi's) more if you had added not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No cerebellum was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's 1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63. .... (And we all know that Mr. Canal thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of accepting.)

And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks concerning the BOH situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:

DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

~~~~~~~~

The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue (Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name two). [Although I must add, by way of footnote, that the on-camera comments made by four of the Parkland doctors for the 1988 PBS/NOVA program regarding the precise location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head are very strange comments indeed. So it's a very good idea to take everything uttered by those four physicians during that program with a large grain of salt by your side. See the link below.]

THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988

JFK-ARCHIVES.blogspot.com/search site for "Boswell" & "Cerebellum"

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

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

Tom Robinson, the mortician must also have ben hallucinating when he said to the ARRB.

"a large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp"

So many competent people who saw what wasn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hole on the back of the head observed by Robinson was the hole left over after the skull was reconstructed by Ed Stroble. Robinson said as much in his HSCA interview. Robinson's co-worker John VanHoesen described this same hole to the ARRB. He similarly said it was orange-sized.

And yet, Doug Horne, in his desperate bid to pretend someone saw Humes altering the body before the beginning of the official autopsy, claims Robinson saw an orange-sized hole on the back of the head before the autopsy, and VanHoesen saw an orange-sized hole on the back of the head after the end of the autopsy. This makes little sense at all. Three large fragments of bone were brought in by the Secret Service during the autopsy, and placed back within the skull during reconstruction. How, then, could the hole be the same size after the autopsy as before the autopsy?

Answer: it wasn't. It was the same hole, observed by two morticians working side by side, at the end of the autopsy. They were told to prepare Kennedy's corpse for an open casket funeral, so Stroble reconstructed the skull and scalp in such a manner that the hole was on the back of the head... They then dammed up the hole and buried it in a pillow. They were professionals. That's what they did...they made grossly disfigured corpses presentable.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a 2007 discussion re: "the cerebellum"....

JOHN CANAL SAID:

Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and Vince Bugliosi's) more if you had added not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No cerebellum was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's 1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63. .... (And we all know that Mr. Canal thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of accepting.)

And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks concerning the BOH situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:

DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

~~~~~~~~

The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue (Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name two). [Although I must add, by way of footnote, that the on-camera comments made by four of the Parkland doctors for the 1988 PBS/NOVA program regarding the precise location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head are very strange comments indeed. So it's a very good idea to take everything uttered by those four physicians during that program with a large grain of salt by your side. See the link below.]

THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988

JFK-ARCHIVES.blogspot.com/search site for "Boswell" & "Cerebellum"

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

perhaps you will point where the autopsied JFK's brain is today? Complete with verification and other documentation including autopsy pictures citing yes, indeed, that proves it's JFK brain? Then let the audience and laymen make their own decisions. Can you do that DVP or Pat? If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of a weird question, David Healy. I agree that the disappearance of the brain is suspicious, and that this disappearance (when taken in the context of the autopsy doctors' supposed failure to section the brain and Admiral Burkley's statements about there possibly being two gunshot wounds to the head) suggests the brain showed the likelihood of more than one shooter.

Many, however, assume the problem with the brain was that it showed a blow out on the back, and suggested a shot came from the front. When one accepts the photos and x-rays as authentic, and intensely studies the medical evidence, however, one realizes that the problem was that the damage at the base of the brain, by the EOP, was unrelated to the damage at the top of the brain, and that the brain thereby indicated two shots to the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat @ post #25:

IMO, none of the official record is reliable unless one believes the whole official record is reliable.

You have judged that a certain part of the official record is honest. Unless you have reason to believe part of the record is honest while the rest is dishonest, I have to stick with dishonesty taints the whole record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of a weird question, David Healy. I agree that the disappearance of the brain is suspicious, and that this disappearance (when taken in the context of the autopsy doctors' supposed failure to section the brain and Admiral Burkley's statements about there possibly being two gunshot wounds to the head) suggests the brain showed the likelihood of more than one shooter.

Many, however, assume the problem with the brain was that it showed a blow out on the back, and suggested a shot came from the front. When one accepts the photos and x-rays as authentic, and intensely studies the medical evidence, however, one realizes that the problem was that the damage at the base of the brain, by the EOP, was unrelated to the damage at the top of the brain, and that the brain thereby indicated two shots to the head.

indeed weird, you're non-answer even weirder... where's the brain, the PROOF! Mr. Tidd's last post is correct. Dishonesty, plus, cover up and diversion are STILL order of the day for Warrenistas and foolish, blind support for the 1964 WCR findings.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat @ post #25:

IMO, none of the official record is reliable unless one believes the whole official record is reliable.

You have judged that a certain part of the official record is honest. Unless you have reason to believe part of the record is honest while the rest is dishonest, I have to stick with dishonesty taints the whole record.

We were never supposed to see the medical evidence and Z-film, IMO. The autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film suggested more than one shooter. This is why the location of the back wound was changed in 1964, and the location of the entrance on the back of the head was changed in 1968. This is why a list of supposed experts: Olivier, Alvarez, Guinn, Canning, Sturdivan, etc...cooked up such absolute nonsense.

If someone had FAKED the evidence, they wouldn't have had to constantly LIE about the evidence. To me, that is the heart of the case....the LIES told about the official evidence. Claiming it's all fake--or could be all fake--leads us nowhere, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of a weird question, David Healy. I agree that the disappearance of the brain is suspicious, and that this disappearance (when taken in the context of the autopsy doctors' supposed failure to section the brain and Admiral Burkley's statements about there possibly being two gunshot wounds to the head) suggests the brain showed the likelihood of more than one shooter.

Many, however, assume the problem with the brain was that it showed a blow out on the back, and suggested a shot came from the front. When one accepts the photos and x-rays as authentic, and intensely studies the medical evidence, however, one realizes that the problem was that the damage at the base of the brain, by the EOP, was unrelated to the damage at the top of the brain, and that the brain thereby indicated two shots to the head.

indeed weird, you're non-answer even weirder... where's the brain, the PROOF! Mr. Tidd's last post is correct. Dishonesty, plus, cover up and diversion are STILL order of the day for Warrenistas and foolish, blind support for the 1964 WCR findings.

The PROOF of what? The autopsy report indicated there was a bullet entrance low on the back of the head and damage to the underside of the brain. The Clark panel and HSCA FPP both declared that the damage to the brain was inconsistent with a bullet's entering low on the back of the head and exiting from the top of the head, as proposed at autopsy. They thereby proposed that EVERY one to ever see Kennedy's head wounds (in Parkland and Bethesda) was wrong, and that the bullet really entered high on the back of the head and exited near the forehead.

It was a transparent lie designed to hide that the medical evidence indicated more than one head wound--two shots to the head. And almost certainly more than one shooter. This lie, moreover, is crumbling. Most every medical expert to study the evidence in recent years has concluded a bullet entered low on the head, as described at autopsy. None of them have argued against the findings of the Clark panel and HSCA FPP on the bullet trajectory, however, and described how the damage to the brain is consistent with the bullet's entering low and exiting high.

As a consequence, the most current analysis of the best evidence suggests there was more than one shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe there were two shots that hit JFK's head, do you believe one entered near the EOP? Where do you believe the other shot entered?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
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

×
×
  • Create New...