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

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Kemp Clark - "...a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region......Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound......There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region......There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also."

Dr. Charles Carrico - "....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted."

Dr. Malcolm Perry - "A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted...."

Dr. Charles Baxter - ".....the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing...."

Dr. Marion Jenkins - "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital).....even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound."

There is more, oh so much more, just like this, and not all from the first day, and it all says the same thing; a large gaping wound involving the right occipital region of JFK's skull, with cerebellum protruding.

Why can none of this be seen in the WC's back of head photo, Pat?

A lie repeated over and over is still a lie, Pat. When are you going to learn this?

I don't really care if you accept what I came to accept...just don't push what is obviously untrue--that the head wound was on the occipital bone below the level of the ear.

As to what I've come to accept...

Kennedy was laying on his back. It seems likely that one or two of the primary physicians confused the back of the head when laying on your back (the top of the head) with the back of the head when standing, and that the others just saw a mass of bloody hair and repeated what Clark later told the nation. These kinds of mistakes are made all of the time, btw, and have been studied by cognitive psychologists.

They are one of the main reasons autopsies are conducted. The recollections of emergency room doctors just aren't very reliable.

P.S. When one actually studies this subject, one finds that the common claim doctors are "trained witnesses" and are unlikely to make mistakes is so much hooey. People, all people, are more likely to make mistakes when the mistaken idea or recollection feels familiar. Someone who's seen hundreds of gunshot wounds is thereby more likely to recall a gunshot wound in an incorrect location than someone who's seen but one.

So,,,does expertise count for anything? Yep. While the doctors were inconsistent and at odds with the autopsy photos regarding the precise location of the head wound, they were consistent on one point that related directly to their expertise, and would have to be considered a salient point for people of their calling--the wound was not survivable.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Did they imagine cerebellum oozing from the President's brain?

[Larry Hancock]

Pat, it seems to me a reasonable question is why we still have this controversy? Why don't the official autopsy photos and X Rays clearly show where the wounds were and what was a point of entry and what was a point of exit. Even if I follow your argument for admissibility in court, the defense attorney likely would still have required the Doctors substantiate their statements by referring to those autopsy materials and if the Doctors responded on the stand as they did to questioning by the ARRB it would have been pretty ugly.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat, it is almost embarrassing to see you drag out that tired old LN chestnut, namely that these trained surgeons confused the top of JFK's head with the back of his head, simply because JFK was lying on his back when they saw him.

[Al Fordiani]

Responses in blue (and trying not to just repeat my previous posts.)

And as I have been working on this in snippets of time over a few days, I apologize if I am repeating posts made in the meantime.

You have it 100% backwards. When I first started studying the case I assumed as you that the Parkland witnesses could not be mistaken. But then I looked at the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and realized that THEIR recollections supported the authenticity of the Z-film, autopsy photos, and x-rays. I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described. I then spoke to a number of cognitive psychologists who assured me it was possible for the Parkland witnesses to have been mistaken. If I recall, it was then and only then that I realized the majority of Parkland witnesses had nevertheless deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. So, really, there's no there there.

The hypothesis that I was refering to: the Dealy Plaza Witnesses, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the Z-film are correct and the Parkland doctors (and other back of head witnesses) are either incorrect or mis-interpreted. I believe that you are allowing your desire to have your hypothesis be correct color your interpretation to the extent of significant bias. It does seem to me that you will not let go of this hypothesis regardless of the evidence disproving it (or lack of evidence supporting it).

In Chapter 18d I present a number of rarely-cited Parkland witnesses whose statements do not support that the wound was as shown in the McClelland drawing.

From chapter 18d:

"Well, hold on right there," some must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake, and confuse a wound high on the head above the ear with a wound on the back of the head oozing cerebellum?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important that we establish that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple.

For one brief moment in his life, Burkley was willing to come forward to the HSCA; unfortunately, it never happened. Otherwise, at the autopsy itself wasn't Burkley the false messanger calling to limit the autopsy due to considerations of the Kennedy family?

As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head.

Interesting that you would cite Dr. Baxter's WC testimony. Are you aware of the discrepency in Dr. Baxter's WC testimony?! In Dr. Baxter's original hand-writted report dated Nov. 22, the wound is described in Dr. Baxter's own hand-writing (as previously given in this thread): "On first observation of the remaining wounds, the temporal and occipital bones were missing..." Yet when read into the record, it is changed! The WC testimony of Baxter reading this very report into the record: "On first observation of the remaining wounds, the temporal and parietal bones were missing..." [emphasis added] So we are left with 2 choices, either Dr. Baxter read his own report incorrectly into the record; or his testimony was changed after the fact.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0274a.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baxter.htm

So which should we put more stock in: the immediate, same day "occipital bone missing" report? Or the WC testimony, which is demonstrably disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst, and made when, in your words, Baxter defered to authority?

Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the "right temporal area," and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head.

From Dr. Salyer WC testimony:

I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound. [emphasis added].

Not a definite description.

While Dr. Giesecke testified before the Commission that the wound was on the left side of the head, he also claimed that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the brow-line to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others. In fact, he later admitted to Vincent Palamara that although he "did not examine the President's head and should never have said anything about the wounds," he had nevertheless concluded "all entrance wounds were from the rear."

Is this serious? So this doctor admits that he did not examine the President's head, yet you list him as a witness supporting your hypothesis?

And then there's the Johnny-come-latelys--doctors only marginally involved in Kennedy's treatment whose statements regarding the head wound location came many years later... While Dr. Don Curtis did in fact testify before the Warren Commission his recollection as to the head wound location was not recorded till many years later, when he at first told researcher Brad Parker the "McClelland" drawing was "essentially" correct, and then specified to researcher Vincent Palamara that the wound was on the "posterior lateral surface of the skull," the side of the head. Dr. William Midgett's story is similar. While his presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum that so many claim as the one true wound.

More parietal than occitpital, but behind the ear.

The wound described by Dr. Donald Seldin was also not the one true wound purported by Lifton and others. When contacted by researcher Vince Palamara in 1998, Seldin is reported to have claimed that the bullet exploded the skull, and that the "frontal, parietal, and temporal bones were shattered." He did not mention the occipital bone. While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit), he was nevertheless most adamant that his recollections not be used to spread doubts. He is reported to have told Palamara "I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

So Seldin, a witness to support your hypothesis, is in your words "confused."

This brings us to Zelditz... When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Dr. William Zelditz reported that he arrived in Trauma Room One just before the tracheotomy was performed and noted "a massive head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right posterior-lateral) of the cranium." He said the wound covered an area approximately 10-12 centimeters in diameter. Well, this is too big to be the wound in the McClelland drawing, but it appears to be close enough.

McClelland Drawing attached (from McAdams web site). While sizing the wound in the McClelland drawing is certainly inexact, I would say that 10 cm (4 in) is a very reasonable estimate.

Zelditz spoke in public at the 2003 Lancer Conference in Dallas, however, and further detailed his observations. He said Kennedy was supine (flat on his back) when he (Zelditz) came in the room. He then said the head wound was "massive--the entire posterior and right side of the head was nothing but matted hair and clots, and pieces of bone and tissue, and it was a mess. I gently palpated the area and it felt like somebody had boiled an egg and then dropped it. And then picked it up. The bones were just in crinkly pieces." He was asked about this again and added: "There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." Well, this is not the gaping hole behind the ear depicted in the McClelland drawing.

I don't understand your statement here at all. This is the wound in the McClelland drawing. Posterior and to the right, about 10 cm, that was gone.

Zelditz was then asked to depict the location of Kennedy's head wound on his own head. He placed his hand on the back of his head, with his fingers stretching from above his right ear on back to just below the top of his ear. He then admitted that beyond this area one "couldn't really tell the depth of it, or the extent of it." He was then asked if he had to rotate Kennedy's head to get a good look at the wound, and responded "No, no, there was enough of it there." He was then asked if he'd placed his hand under the head to palpate the skull, and said "No, it was in the back, and to the side." When then asked if he'd felt the extent of the wound, he admitted "No, I didn't see all of the wound. I couldn't see all of it because he was laying on that." (He then pointed to the back of his head)."

He can't see the whole wound because Kennedy's is laying on the back of the head.

He was then asked about the wound again. He put his hand back where the wound is in the McClelland drawing, and responded "It wasn't strictly straight back." He then moved his hand up to the top of his head with his fingers stretching above his right ear, and continued "It was top, back, and side."

put his hand where the wound is in the McClelland drawing...top, back, and side. I'm trying to see how this authenticates the autopsy photos.

When then asked if the skull in this area was gone, he replied "It was in pieces." When then asked if the shattered skull in this area was still attached to the scalp, he continued "I could not tell. It was covered with blood and hair and other stuff. I could feel the bones but they felt like they were (he wiggled his fingers) loose." He expanded "The bony fragments that were there were loose. And there was a spongy mass in the center of that, most obvious without bone, so I guess part of the bone was gone, but still there were fragments of bone still there." When then asked the million dollar question if he felt the autopsy photos showing the back of the head to be intact were altered, he clarified "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

How does this in any way support the notion that the autopsy photos are genuine?

Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing.

No, this in no way supports the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And this is where I believe your bias leads you so far astray. He starts his description by putting his his hand to the back of his head. Mr. Speer, you stretch so far to fit what he has to say into your scenario.

And what about Grossman? While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in 1981 with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear. Although this supports my conclusions regarding the wound locations, I nevertheless suspect Dr. Grossman is full of hooey. It just smells to high heaven that the only Parkland doctor claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was a doctor no one else remembered even being there, who failed to come forward for 17 years or more.

There's also this: while Dr. Grossman reportedly told the ARRB in 1997 that the entrance wound he saw was "a circular puncture in the occipital region...approximately 2 cm in diameter, near the EOP, centerline, or perhaps just right of center, through which he could see brain tissue which he believed was cerebellum" (which is in the same location as, but much larger than, the wound described in the autopsy report), a November 22, 2003 article by Frank D. Roylance in the Baltimore Sun based upon an interview with Grossman reported that "Grossman and Clark saw a small wound about an inch in diameter on the upper part of the back of his head, just to the right of the midline...filled with damaged brain tissue" (which would appear to be a reference to the supposed cowlick entrance). So, did Grossman move the location of the entrance wound he and he alone "saw" to kiss up to those holding the wound was in the cowlick? I don't know but it's just hard to believe anything he says...

So to your credit, you discount a witness who supports your hypothesis;.

And that's not the end of the Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Should one choose to look beyond Grossman, one can find Sharon Calloway. Calloway, an x-ray intern at Parkland on the day of the shooting, performed an oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum on 1-27-02, and claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head in the hallway before he was moved into Trauma Room One. She claimed: "The top of his head was gone... One of the doctors came down the hall shaking his head and he said it looked like someone had dropped a ripe watermelon on the floor. This is what the top of his head looked like. And we could see that. We could see his head. It wasn't draped yet."

Thanks for posting that page, Pat. It appears to destroy your argumernt.

You quote Dr Baxtwer as saying in his Warren Commisssion testimony that the wound was “temporal and parietal” yet his first statements say “On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions.

And as pointed out above, his "temporal and parietal" testimony was disingenuously put into the WC testimony record.

You quote Dr Don Curtis as saying” the wound was on the “posterior lateral surface of the skull.

Quite correct; posterior means “rear” and lateral means “away from the midline”. So the wound was at the back of the head to the right of the midline.

Dr Midgett’s comment “is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" Is reported to have told Posner!!!! Posner? ROTFLMAO And regardless of anyone's opinion of Posner, "more parietal than occipital" still implies some occipital character.

You quote Dr Seldin “While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit)”

Who said he was “somewhat confused”? “Perhaps he meant upon exit” Perhaps?!!!!

Dr Zelditz “"There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." His quote confirms where the wound was. Indeed!

If you would like, Pat, I will supply the various statements of the surgeons who said that the wound was in the occital/parital area.

You're cherry-picking, Ray. Seldin specified that he agreed with the official solution to the assassination. This rules out what you apparently would like us to believe he was saying--that he saw an entrance wound on the forehead that went unobserved by all his colleagues.

Mr. Speer, I think it is amazing to accuse Mr. Mitchum of cherry-picking. I think that is an apt description of your own tactics. You cite obscure and bit players (and stretch the meaning of their testimony at that) and ignore or choose to downplay the major players that unanamously describe an occipital wound (or occipital-temporal-parietal). Please refer to previous posts on this thread for the testimony/reports of those major players.

You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair.

As far as the others...context is everything. I readily agree that the majority of witnesses made statements indicating the wound was toward the back of the head. My argument is, and has been, that it is incredibly dishonest to take from this that they were describing the wound depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, which is BELOW the top of the ear, or that they were describing an occipital wound from which the Harper fragment was displaced. The size and shape of the Harper fragment necessitates that the wound be in the MIDDLE of the back of the head, not on the right.

McClelland drawing attached. The wound as depicted goes above the top of the ear to about the bottom of the ear.

And Mr. Speer, your argument is also that the autopsy photos are genuine. I can't see anything that you have presented that truly and honestly supports those photos. In fact, just the opposite.

So, to be clear, the Parkland witnesses, on average, described a wound at the TOP of the right side of the back of the head. NOT on the occipital bone, as claimed by many CTs.

No. This is not clear at all. And for you to say it is clear exposes your bias. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Cerebellum on the table. Wound in the occiput. Is there some variation in the exact location described? Yes. But the wound is consistently described in the back of the head. See again the same-day statements of the attending doctors: they say the wound is occipital!

NOT in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, as claimed by many others.

But how many are willing to admit this? This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 kinda stuff. And yet the vast majority of CTs embarrass themselves by continuing to pretend the Parkland witnesses described an almost exclusively occipital wound, when they did not, or a wound below the level of the ear, when they did not.

But, Mr. Speer, even if I accept your conclusion that the Parkland witnesses on average describe a wound at the top right side of the back of the head (which I do not); then WHERE IS THIS WOUND IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS?

The inability of so many CTs to accept this, and to continue to pretend the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out a wound behind and below of the ear, proves to me, and many others, I might add, that there is a cognitive disconnect in the CT community when it comes to the head wounds, much as there is a cognitive disconnect among LNs when it comes to the back wound, which they continue to pretend was at the base of the neck.

Mr. Speer, again, I applaud you for thoroughly exploring a different hypothesis, bringing out testimony of some of the more obscure witnesses. But to maintain this hypothesis, we must throw out the same-day observations of all of the major players at Parkland, all those that had the best look at the wounds, as well as the testimony of lone-nutters Sibert and O'Neill (which you never address), who also had a long and up-close look; and instead we must rely on stretching the testimony of more obscure witnesses to fit.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can support the authenticity of the autopsy photos, because I believe that in fact the testimony of some of these other Parkland witnesses strengthens the idea that the autopsy photos have been faked. But again, I do not expect to change your opinion. But for third parties out there just learning, here it all is. I know what my feeling is: the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that JFK had a large wound to the back of the head and that the autopsy photos are faked to hide that fact. Make your own judgment.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, it is almost embarrassing to see you drag out that tired old LN chestnut, namely that these trained surgeons confused the top of JFK's head with the back of his head, simply because JFK was lying on his back when they saw him.

Except...it's not an old LN chestnut. LNs have often claimed that Kennedy was lying on his back, and that the back of his head could not be seen, so that the Parkland witnesses must have been mistaken.

I was the first researcher of any stripe to study cognitive psychology and see if looking at someone while they are lying on their back would lead to confusion and to an incorrect placement of the wound. Once again, I don't care if you agree with me, but I've read most everything ever written on the Kennedy assassination medical evidence, and have also read up on forensic pathology, forensic radiology, and cognitive psychology, etc... And it's incredibly clear that the "some witnesses said they saw something so we should believe them, even though a number of other witnesses including the autopsy doctors and autopsy photographer said they saw something else, and even though the bulk of those witnesses claiming they saw something later admitted they didn't get a very good look and said they must have been wrong" argument is ludicrous, and will never withstand the judgment of history.

Almost as bad, it doesn't go anywhere, It leads people to say "well the evidence is fake." Then the other side says "No, it's not, and look at all these EXPERTS who've said it isn't." And their side wins in the eyes of most rational people.

In a Don Quixote moment I decided to dedicate a few YEARS of my life to understanding the evidence under the assumption it wasn't fake, and, by golly, it proves there was more than one shooter.

That is why they moved the back wound.

That is why they moved the entrance wound on the back of the head.

It all makes sense, medically, and historically.

But only when you realize the statements of the Parkland witnesses were not a smoking gun, but a red herring.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, it seems to me a reasonable question is why we still have this controversy? Why don't the official autopsy photos and X Rays clearly show where the wounds were and what was a point of entry and what was a point of exit. Even if I follow your argument for admissibility in court, the defense attorney likely would still have required the Doctors substantiate their statements by referring to those autopsy materials and if the Doctors responded on the stand as they did to questioning by the ARRB it would have been pretty ugly.

A smart defense attorney wouldn't waste his time challenging the admissibility of the evidence which proves his client was not a lone nut, and that there was instead more than one shooter. He would have accepted the evidence, allowed the government to present its case, challenged the government's experts using their own words, and then brought in HIS experts to interpret the evidence properly. And win.

[Pat Speer]

Responses in blue (and trying not to just repeat my previous posts.)

And as I have been working on this in snippets of time over a few days, I apologize if I am repeating posts made in the meantime.

You have it 100% backwards. When I first started studying the case I assumed as you that the Parkland witnesses could not be mistaken. But then I looked at the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and realized that THEIR recollections supported the authenticity of the Z-film, autopsy photos, and x-rays. I then took a wider look at the Parkland witnesses, and realized that a number of them did not describe the occipital wound they are purported to have described. I then spoke to a number of cognitive psychologists who assured me it was possible for the Parkland witnesses to have been mistaken. If I recall, it was then and only then that I realized the majority of Parkland witnesses had nevertheless deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. So, really, there's no there there.

The hypothesis that I was refering to: the Dealy Plaza Witnesses, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the Z-film are correct and the Parkland doctors (and other back of head witnesses) are either incorrect or mis-interpreted. I believe that you are allowing your desire to have your hypothesis be correct color your interpretation to the extent of significant bias. It does seem to me that you will not let go of this hypothesis regardless of the evidence disproving it (or lack of evidence supporting it).

In Chapter 18d I present a number of rarely-cited Parkland witnesses whose statements do not support that the wound was as shown in the McClelland drawing.

From chapter 18d:

"Well, hold on right there," some must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake, and confuse a wound high on the head above the ear with a wound on the back of the head oozing cerebellum?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important that we establish that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple.

For one brief moment in his life, Burkley was willing to come forward to the HSCA; unfortunately, it never happened. Otherwise, at the autopsy itself wasn't Burkley the false messanger calling to limit the autopsy due to considerations of the Kennedy family?

As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head.

Interesting that you would cite Dr. Baxter's WC testimony. Are you aware of the discrepency in Dr. Baxter's WC testimony?! In Dr. Baxter's original hand-writted report dated Nov. 22, the wound is described in Dr. Baxter's own hand-writing (as previously given in this thread): "On first observation of the remaining wounds, the temporal and occipital bones were missing..." Yet when read into the record, it is changed! The WC testimony of Baxter reading this very report into the record: "On first observation of the remaining wounds, the temporal and parietal bones were missing..." [emphasis added] So we are left with 2 choices, either Dr. Baxter read his own report incorrectly into the record; or his testimony was changed after the fact.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0274a.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baxter.htm

So which should we put more stock in: the immediate, same day "occipital bone missing" report? Or the WC testimony, which is demonstrably disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst, and made when, in your words, Baxter defered to authority?

Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the "right temporal area," and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head.

From Dr. Salyer WC testimony:

I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound. [emphasis added].

Not a definite description.

While Dr. Giesecke testified before the Commission that the wound was on the left side of the head, he also claimed that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the brow-line to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others. In fact, he later admitted to Vincent Palamara that although he "did not examine the President's head and should never have said anything about the wounds," he had nevertheless concluded "all entrance wounds were from the rear."

Is this serious? So this doctor admits that he did not examine the President's head, yet you list him as a witness supporting your hypothesis?

And then there's the Johnny-come-latelys--doctors only marginally involved in Kennedy's treatment whose statements regarding the head wound location came many years later... While Dr. Don Curtis did in fact testify before the Warren Commission his recollection as to the head wound location was not recorded till many years later, when he at first told researcher Brad Parker the "McClelland" drawing was "essentially" correct, and then specified to researcher Vincent Palamara that the wound was on the "posterior lateral surface of the skull," the side of the head. Dr. William Midgett's story is similar. While his presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum that so many claim as the one true wound.

More parietal than occitpital, but behind the ear.

The wound described by Dr. Donald Seldin was also not the one true wound purported by Lifton and others. When contacted by researcher Vince Palamara in 1998, Seldin is reported to have claimed that the bullet exploded the skull, and that the "frontal, parietal, and temporal bones were shattered." He did not mention the occipital bone. While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit), he was nevertheless most adamant that his recollections not be used to spread doubts. He is reported to have told Palamara "I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

So Seldin, a witness to support your hypothesis, is in your words "confused."

This brings us to Zelditz... When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Dr. William Zelditz reported that he arrived in Trauma Room One just before the tracheotomy was performed and noted "a massive head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right posterior-lateral) of the cranium." He said the wound covered an area approximately 10-12 centimeters in diameter. Well, this is too big to be the wound in the McClelland drawing, but it appears to be close enough.

McClelland Drawing attached (from McAdams web site). While sizing the wound in the McClelland drawing is certainly inexact, I would say that 10 cm (4 in) is a very reasonable estimate.

Zelditz spoke in public at the 2003 Lancer Conference in Dallas, however, and further detailed his observations. He said Kennedy was supine (flat on his back) when he (Zelditz) came in the room. He then said the head wound was "massive--the entire posterior and right side of the head was nothing but matted hair and clots, and pieces of bone and tissue, and it was a mess. I gently palpated the area and it felt like somebody had boiled an egg and then dropped it. And then picked it up. The bones were just in crinkly pieces." He was asked about this again and added: "There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." Well, this is not the gaping hole behind the ear depicted in the McClelland drawing.

I don't understand your statement here at all. This is the wound in the McClelland drawing. Posterior and to the right, about 10 cm, that was gone.

Zelditz was then asked to depict the location of Kennedy's head wound on his own head. He placed his hand on the back of his head, with his fingers stretching from above his right ear on back to just below the top of his ear. He then admitted that beyond this area one "couldn't really tell the depth of it, or the extent of it." He was then asked if he had to rotate Kennedy's head to get a good look at the wound, and responded "No, no, there was enough of it there." He was then asked if he'd placed his hand under the head to palpate the skull, and said "No, it was in the back, and to the side." When then asked if he'd felt the extent of the wound, he admitted "No, I didn't see all of the wound. I couldn't see all of it because he was laying on that." (He then pointed to the back of his head)."

He can't see the whole wound because Kennedy's is laying on the back of the head.

He was then asked about the wound again. He put his hand back where the wound is in the McClelland drawing, and responded "It wasn't strictly straight back." He then moved his hand up to the top of his head with his fingers stretching above his right ear, and continued "It was top, back, and side."

put his hand where the wound is in the McClelland drawing...top, back, and side. I'm trying to see how this authenticates the autopsy photos.

When then asked if the skull in this area was gone, he replied "It was in pieces." When then asked if the shattered skull in this area was still attached to the scalp, he continued "I could not tell. It was covered with blood and hair and other stuff. I could feel the bones but they felt like they were (he wiggled his fingers) loose." He expanded "The bony fragments that were there were loose. And there was a spongy mass in the center of that, most obvious without bone, so I guess part of the bone was gone, but still there were fragments of bone still there." When then asked the million dollar question if he felt the autopsy photos showing the back of the head to be intact were altered, he clarified "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

How does this in any way support the notion that the autopsy photos are genuine?

Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing.

No, this in no way supports the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And this is where I believe your bias leads you so far astray. He starts his description by putting his his hand to the back of his head. Mr. Speer, you stretch so far to fit what he has to say into your scenario.

And what about Grossman? While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in 1981 with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear. Although this supports my conclusions regarding the wound locations, I nevertheless suspect Dr. Grossman is full of hooey. It just smells to high heaven that the only Parkland doctor claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was a doctor no one else remembered even being there, who failed to come forward for 17 years or more.

There's also this: while Dr. Grossman reportedly told the ARRB in 1997 that the entrance wound he saw was "a circular puncture in the occipital region...approximately 2 cm in diameter, near the EOP, centerline, or perhaps just right of center, through which he could see brain tissue which he believed was cerebellum" (which is in the same location as, but much larger than, the wound described in the autopsy report), a November 22, 2003 article by Frank D. Roylance in the Baltimore Sun based upon an interview with Grossman reported that "Grossman and Clark saw a small wound about an inch in diameter on the upper part of the back of his head, just to the right of the midline...filled with damaged brain tissue" (which would appear to be a reference to the supposed cowlick entrance). So, did Grossman move the location of the entrance wound he and he alone "saw" to kiss up to those holding the wound was in the cowlick? I don't know but it's just hard to believe anything he says...

So to your credit, you discount a witness who supports your hypothesis;.

And that's not the end of the Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Should one choose to look beyond Grossman, one can find Sharon Calloway. Calloway, an x-ray intern at Parkland on the day of the shooting, performed an oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum on 1-27-02, and claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head in the hallway before he was moved into Trauma Room One. She claimed: "The top of his head was gone... One of the doctors came down the hall shaking his head and he said it looked like someone had dropped a ripe watermelon on the floor. This is what the top of his head looked like. And we could see that. We could see his head. It wasn't draped yet."

Thanks for posting that page, Pat. It appears to destroy your argumernt.

You quote Dr Baxtwer as saying in his Warren Commisssion testimony that the wound was “temporal and parietal” yet his first statements say “On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions.

And as pointed out above, his "temporal and parietal" testimony was disingenuously put into the WC testimony record.

You quote Dr Don Curtis as saying” the wound was on the “posterior lateral surface of the skull.

Quite correct; posterior means “rear” and lateral means “away from the midline”. So the wound was at the back of the head to the right of the midline.

Dr Midgett’s comment “is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" Is reported to have told Posner!!!! Posner? ROTFLMAO And regardless of anyone's opinion of Posner, "more parietal than occipital" still implies some occipital character.

You quote Dr Seldin “While Seldin, understandably considering the time involved, was somewhat confused, telling Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead (perhaps he meant upon exit)”

Who said he was “somewhat confused”? “Perhaps he meant upon exit” Perhaps?!!!!

Dr Zelditz “"There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." His quote confirms where the wound was. Indeed!

If you would like, Pat, I will supply the various statements of the surgeons who said that the wound was in the occital/parital area.

You're cherry-picking, Ray. Seldin specified that he agreed with the official solution to the assassination. This rules out what you apparently would like us to believe he was saying--that he saw an entrance wound on the forehead that went unobserved by all his colleagues.

Mr. Speer, I think it is amazing to accuse Mr. Mitchum of cherry-picking. I think that is an apt description of your own tactics. You cite obscure and bit players (and stretch the meaning of their testimony at that) and ignore or choose to downplay the major players that unanamously describe an occipital wound (or occipital-temporal-parietal). Please refer to previous posts on this thread for the testimony/reports of those major players.

You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair.

As far as the others...context is everything. I readily agree that the majority of witnesses made statements indicating the wound was toward the back of the head. My argument is, and has been, that it is incredibly dishonest to take from this that they were describing the wound depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, which is BELOW the top of the ear, or that they were describing an occipital wound from which the Harper fragment was displaced. The size and shape of the Harper fragment necessitates that the wound be in the MIDDLE of the back of the head, not on the right.

McClelland drawing attached. The wound as depicted goes above the top of the ear to about the bottom of the ear.

And Mr. Speer, your argument is also that the autopsy photos are genuine. I can't see anything that you have presented that truly and honestly supports those photos. In fact, just the opposite.

So, to be clear, the Parkland witnesses, on average, described a wound at the TOP of the right side of the back of the head. NOT on the occipital bone, as claimed by many CTs.

No. This is not clear at all. And for you to say it is clear exposes your bias. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Cerebellum on the table. Wound in the occiput. Is there some variation in the exact location described? Yes. But the wound is consistently described in the back of the head. See again the same-day statements of the attending doctors: they say the wound is occipital!

NOT in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, as claimed by many others.

But how many are willing to admit this? This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 kinda stuff. And yet the vast majority of CTs embarrass themselves by continuing to pretend the Parkland witnesses described an almost exclusively occipital wound, when they did not, or a wound below the level of the ear, when they did not.

But, Mr. Speer, even if I accept your conclusion that the Parkland witnesses on average describe a wound at the top right side of the back of the head (which I do not); then WHERE IS THIS WOUND IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS?

The inability of so many CTs to accept this, and to continue to pretend the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out a wound behind and below of the ear, proves to me, and many others, I might add, that there is a cognitive disconnect in the CT community when it comes to the head wounds, much as there is a cognitive disconnect among LNs when it comes to the back wound, which they continue to pretend was at the base of the neck.

Mr. Speer, again, I applaud you for thoroughly exploring a different hypothesis, bringing out testimony of some of the more obscure witnesses. But to maintain this hypothesis, we must throw out the same-day observations of all of the major players at Parkland, all those that had the best look at the wounds, as well as the testimony of lone-nutters Sibert and O'Neill (which you never address), who also had a long and up-close look; and instead we must rely on stretching the testimony of more obscure witnesses to fit.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can support the authenticity of the autopsy photos, because I believe that in fact the testimony of some of these other Parkland witnesses strengthens the idea that the autopsy photos have been faked. But again, I do not expect to change your opinion. But for third parties out there just learning, here it all is. I know what my feeling is: the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that JFK had a large wound to the back of the head and that the autopsy photos are faked to hide that fact. Make your own judgment.

Sorry, Al, you just don't get it. I'm not a newbie. I read Lifton, Groden, Livingstone, Aguilar, Mantik, et al, BEFORE I came to my "hypothesis". In my chapters describing my conclusions, I present the statements of the Parkland witnesses ad nauseum, and prove they do not suggest what so many think they suggest--that the drawing in your post...the so-called "McClelland" drawing, is accurate. It is not, and it wasn't even drawn by McClelland.

If you check the archives of this website you'll find that I've been through this many times before, with Fetzer, Lifton, et al. It's exhausting, and depressing. I have addressed most of the points in your post, Al, in chapters 18c and 18d on my website. In short, if you wanna make a case for a high parietal exit on the back of the head, fine, go do it. Just don't repeat the CT myth that all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was in the occipital area below the ear. All the Parkland witnesses never said that. Not even close.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Larry Hancock]

Granting that legal process, the question of why the the photos and X rays do not clearly show where the wounds were remains...as well as the issue of the Doctors inability to identify them

on the photos and X-rays. You can blame the latter on memory I suppose, but I would still expect to see the photos and X-rays support your assessment of the wounds. Do you feel they

clearly do that?

[Pat Speer]

Granting that legal process, the question of why the the photos and X rays do not clearly show where the wounds were remains...as well as the issue of the Doctors inability to identify them

on the photos and X-rays. You can blame the latter on memory I suppose, but I would still expect to see the photos and X-rays support your assessment of the wounds. Do you feel they

clearly do that?

The photos and x-rays are in total agreement. They are in agreement with much of the witness testimony as well. The early statements of the Parkland witnesses, on average, are in agreement with the photos and x-rays on the nature of the large wound, but not on its exact location. As most of those witnesses came to defer to the autopsy photos and x-rays, however, this isn't really much of a problem, from a legal and historical point of view. For years now I've been asking people to cite one case where an autopsy report signed by three doctors and confirmed by numerous others was thrown out because the emergency room doctors who didn't even take notes had a different recollection of the wounds hours after the body was no longer in front of them. It never happens, and presumably never will.

There is no similar case where a small group of people commented on a wound's location on the day of a shooting, and then a larger group months later (after their colleague's recollections had been published in a magazine) and then an even larger group many years later, (after numerous books had been published presenting a drawing showing it in the wrong location). But there is no reason to suspect the results would be any different. People's memories are frequently inaccurate, and sometimes there is a pattern to their inaccuracies.

As far as the doctors' inability to recognize the wound locations, I assume from this you're talking about the autopsy doctors' failure to point out the bullet entrance by the EOP to the HSCA, and ARRB. Well, that's pretty obvious, at least to me. The Clark Panel decreed that there was no such wound. The doctors then played dumb and tried to stay out of it, but nevertheless insisted the wound was by the EOP. The HSCA FPP then grilled Finck. And Baden and/or Petty then got word to Humes that Cornwell was gonna crucify him over his lies about the back wound if he didn't turn around and lie about the bullet entrance. He played ball.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Don Jeffries]

Pat,

With all due respect, your adherence to a theory that discounts any shots from the front, and your insistence that the Parkland medical testimony doesn't contradict the autopsy photos and x-rays is beyond my comprehension. You've clearly put a lot time and effort into this, but I think most researchers will be mystified by the way you interpret the evidence.

But then again, maybe I'm just dense....

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

Al makes a rather remarkable observation about the words in Dr. Baxter's medical report "...the temporal and occipital bones were missing..." being changed, when read into his WC testimony, to "....the temporal and parietal bones were missing....". Kudos to Al for spotting this, as this little "error" slipped right by me.

This is a rather serious bit of evidence tampering, and, in my country at least, would be dealt with rather harshly.

Are you going to ignore this, as you seem to do with most "difficult" points, or can you explain this?

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

With all due respect, your adherence to a theory that discounts any shots from the front, and your insistence that the Parkland medical testimony doesn't contradict the autopsy photos and x-rays is beyond my comprehension. You've clearly put a lot time and effort into this, but I think most researchers will be mystified by the way you interpret the evidence.

But then again, maybe I'm just dense....

I wrote a long and detailed response to your post, Don, but it disappeared just as I was about to post it.

In short, I explained that I think there could have been shots from the front, and that I readily agree that the original statements of the Parkland witnesses contradict the autopsy photos and x-rays. They contradict, but fail to refute.

[Pat Speer]

Pat

Al makes a rather remarkable observation about the words in Dr. Baxter's medical report "...the temporal and occipital bones were missing..." being changed, when read into his WC testimony, to "....the temporal and parietal bones were missing....". Kudos to Al for spotting this, as this little "error" slipped right by me.

This is a rather serious bit of evidence tampering, and, in my country at least, would be dealt with rather harshly.

Are you going to ignore this, as you seem to do with most "difficult" points, or can you explain this?

Geez, Robert. This is old old news. I'm fairy certain Baxter's changing the wording of his statement in his testimony was first uncovered back in the 60's.

It seems probable he was trying to correct an earlier error. That there was NO mass conspiracy to hide that the Parkland witnesses thought the wound was on the back of the head, after all, is easily demonstrated. Not only did some of the Parkland witnesses mention the wound's being on the back of the head for the first time in their testimony, but the autopsy doctors presented the commission with drawings showing the wound to be far further back on the head than it is shown on the autopsy photos and x-rays.

And no, I'm not being a WC apologist. It is crystal clear when one studies all the evidence that the autopsy doctors and WC staff collaborated on a MASSIVE lie about the back wound. The WC staff also pushed some whoopers about Oswald's shooting capability.

But it seems equally clear that the problem with the Parkland witnesses had slipped under their radar.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

Does this not amount to perjury? Baxter was reading an official medical report he had submitted to the Administration of Parkland Hospital. You don't just "correct" an earlier error, for Pete's sake. This was a legal document. And don't you think it a little funny he was the only one reading from his report?

How many witnesses do you know that get to go back and correct statements or affidavits? The courts are far more interested in hearing what someone stated when the event was fresh in that person's mind, not months later when their memories have faded, and God knows what people have influenced their memory. Unless, of course, the WC didn't like what was in the report, and Baxter was coerced into changing his report.

A true commission, in search of the truth, would not have a doctor "read" his report into evidence. Why not enter it themselves and avoid possible error?