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

[Al Fordiani]

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.

Please, Mr. Speer, I get it just fine. I have never suggested that you are a newbie, in fact my first post acknowledges that you have spent considerable time studying the head wound. It seems you feel that you are the only one here who "gets it" and the rest of us are spinning our wheels. I have read your chapters 18c and 18d. You make your arguments. I get your arguments. I just disagree with your analysis and conclusion.

You say:

"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."

And this all sounds all fine and good. But we all know that in the Kennedy assassination, a researcher can find witnesses who said just about anything. So we are forced to critically evaluate the witnesses. That is just the way it is. And the most qualified people with the best view, save for the autopsy doctors, agree that the main wound on the head was occipital-parietal in nature.

In spite of your protestations, you do not "prove" anything. You are forced to resort to supposition. Here is your "proof" that the Parkland doctors were incorrect:

"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."

Hmmmm. The doctors confused the back of the head with the top of the head because Kennedy was laying on his back.

Yet here is sworn testimony from Dr. McClelland (ARRB):

"So I was standing where I was looking down intently in the wound and really had nothing to do but that because I -- it didn't take much attention to pull the retractor, And so I could clearly see what the wound looked like over a good period of time.....It was a very large wound and I would agree that it was at least seven or eight centimeters in diameter and was mostly really in the occipital part of the skull. And as I was looking at it, a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull, There was already some brain there, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it, and I was that far from it (indicating).....Twelve to 18 inches. [emphasis added]

Does that sound like one of the primary physicians was confused and the confusion was just repeated?

And the examples go on and on as pointed out in numerous posts on this thread. The credible witness testimony that you must ignore or somehow explain away is enormous. Higher on the head or lower, how many credible witnesses place the wound in the back of the head, where the autopsy photo should show it? 10? 20? 30?

So which seems to be a better explanation: numerous Parkland doctors change there testimony from their initial observations after being visited by and pressured by the Secret Service (who they witnessed brandishing their weapons in the seizure of Kennedy's body); or the doctors couldn't tell the top of the head from the back of the head?

So which seems a better explanation: LNers FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill just decided thirty years later to contribute to the conspiracy talk by making up that they thought the autopsy photographs were not authentic; or the photos are faked?

Same with Dr. Canada, head of Bethesda Naval Hospital? He just decided that it would be a great joke 25 years after his death to throw out there that JFK' wound was in the back of the head! Ha, ha, there's a good one to play on history.

To Mr. Hancock's point: Which seems to be a better explanation: the autopsy was legimate, but that there are ZERO photos taken which gives a clear picture of the head wound because everyone is incompetent; or someone in high authority didn't want us to have a clear picture of the wound.

Which seems more likely: Humes burned his notes and the first draft of the autopsy report because it had blood on it; or he had to sanitize the result? And seriously, how can anyone trust Humes. His testimony is at all times evasive. And we know that Finck wrote a CYA memo to his superior as he recognized that the autopsy was so much garbage, and testified to limitations placed on the procedure by an army general.

Mr. Speer begins with the premise that the autopsy photos are legitimate. Look at the lengths he has to go to maintain that premise.

In my mind, it just doesn't hold up.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Al

The more I dig into WC testimonies, HSCA interviews and ARRB testimonies, the less truth there seems to be to the myth that the majority of BOH witnesses "changed" their stories later on.

[Al Fordiani]

How are you, Mr. Prudhomme,

Keep up the good work.

[Robert Prudhomme]

[Pat Speer]

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?

There is virtually no circumstance under which a doctor misreading (or correcting) a previous report he'd written, that was separately entered into evidence, would be considered perjury. If he was the only doctor to observe something, and it could be shown that he lied about what he'd written in his report, that would be one thing. But Baxter's subsequent statements suggest he was at worst merely clarifying what he'd observed, and the WC did enter Baxter's original report into evidence. That's how we know about it.

As far as the notion the WC somehow coerced Baxter into changing his report, that's just silly, IMO. As stated, and I just can't stress this enough, McClelland discussed a wound on the LEFT TEMPLE in his original report, but was allowed to describe a gaping wound on the back of the head in his testimony. That would never have happened if there was some grand conspiracy to lie about the head wound.

So how could this happen? Specter and the autopsy doctors were not allowed to review the autopsy photos prior to their creation of the Rydberg drawings. The doctors remembered that the skull fell apart when they peeled back the scalp, but apparently had no recollection of the extent of the wound before they peeled back the scalp. As a result, the hole on the head in the Rydberg drawings was further back on the head than shown in the autopsy photos. As a result Specter didn't bat an eye when the Parkland doctors described a wound on the back of the head.

Should one not believe me on this, moreover, one should read through the testimony of the Parkland witnesses and note how Specter forces them to jump through hoops when discussing the throat wound, but lets them say whatever they want about the head wound.

As far as statements and affidavits...this is a problem I discuss on my website. We KNOW some of them were changed late in the Warren Commission's investigation by members of the WC staff and FBI. It seems the FBI felt that the FBI agents who testified were testifying as representatives of the FBI, and that this allowed FBI officials to change their testimony as desired. Some of the original statements of these agents, of course, had already been mentioned in internal WC memos. And that's how we know they were changed.

[Pat Speer]

AL: Please, Mr. Speer, I get it just fine. I have never suggested that you are a newbie, in fact my first post acknowledges that you have spent considerable time studying the head wound. It seems you feel that you are the only one here who "gets it" and the rest of us are spinning our wheels. I have read your chapters 18c and 18d. You make your arguments. I get your arguments. I just disagree with your analysis and conclusion.

PAT: I don't mean to be insulting, but it's clear to me you don't even understand my analysis and conclusion.

AL: You say: "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." And this all sounds all fine and good. But we all know that in the Kennedy assassination, a researcher can find witnesses who said just about anything. So we are forced to critically evaluate the witnesses. That is just the way it is. And the most qualified people with the best view, save for the autopsy doctors, agree that the main wound on the head was occipital-parietal in nature.

PAT: Yep, and when asked to show where they were talking about, they almost uniformly placed the wound at the TOP of the back of their head. This is not where most CT writers place the wound. So why aren't you disgusted by these writers who continue to lie about what these witnesses believed, and described?

AL: In spite of your protestations, you do not "prove" anything. You are forced to resort to supposition. Here is your "proof" that the Parkland doctors were incorrect: "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."

PAT: Wrong. I don't pretend to prove where the wound was. The objective of chapters 18c and 18d, as stated repeatedly, and summed up at the end of 18d, was to prove that the wound was not where it is shown in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. I do prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO. If one claims we "know" the wound was not where it is shown in the autopsy photos because the Parkland witnesses said it was on the back of the head, one can't turn around and say we "know" the wound was low on the back of the head below the top of the ears, even though the Parkland witnesses said it was at the top of the back of the head, above the ears. Not without looking like a loon.

AL: Hmmmm. The doctors confused the back of the head with the top of the head because Kennedy was laying on his back. Yet here is sworn testimony from Dr. McClelland (ARRB): "So I was standing where I was looking down intently in the wound and really had nothing to do but that because I -- it didn't take much attention to pull the retractor, And so I could clearly see what the wound looked like over a good period of time.....It was a very large wound and I would agree that it was at least seven or eight centimeters in diameter and was mostly really in the occipital part of the skull. And as I was looking at it, a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull, There was already some brain there, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it, and I was that far from it (indicating).....Twelve to 18 inches. [emphasis added] Does that sound like one of the primary physicians was confused and the confusion was just repeated?

PAT: Thank you, thank you, for bringing up McClelland. McClelland's original report, which you would like us to believe is all important, at least when it comes to Dr. Baxter, said the wound was "of the left temple." He also told Richard Dudman, a journalist who thought he saw a bullet hole in the windshield, that there was no evidence the head shot came from the front. But then, months later, AFTER his colleagues' descriptions of the head wound were published in a widely read article, he suddenly described a gaping wound on the back of the head. He's MY star witness, not yours.

AL: And the examples go on and on as pointed out in numerous posts on this thread. The credible witness testimony that you must ignore or somehow explain away is enormous. Higher on the head or lower, how many credible witnesses place the wound in the back of the head, where the autopsy photo should show it? 10? 20? 30?

PAT: You claim to have read my chapters, and yet you somehow failed to notice that the percentage of non-Parkland employees who saw the wound and said it was on the top or right side of the head was higher than the percentage of Parkland witnesses who described it as being on the far back of the head. Doctors are trained to defer to the autopsy photos. Here we have a case where the autopsy photos are supported by a large percentage of the witnesses. Unless you can find some way to explain away the many witnesses who saw the bullet's impact in Dealey, or the wound afterwards, who said it was on the top or right side of the head, it's a clear-cut case.

AL: So which seems to be a better explanation: numerous Parkland doctors change there testimony from their initial observations after being visited by and pressured by the Secret Service (who they witnessed brandishing their weapons in the seizure of Kennedy's body); or the doctors couldn't tell the top of the head from the back of the head?

PAT: You pulled this out of thin air. 1) Outside of Baxter, NONE of the Parkland doctors changed their testimony from their original report to be less suggestive of a wound on the back of the head. McClelland, as stated, went the opposite direction. 2) Few, if any, of the doctors witnessed the Secret Service brandishing their weapons when seizing Kennedy's body. 3) Of course, they could tell the top of the head from the back of the head. But no one was taking notes in which the wound location was described. The question is, and always has been, if we should assume they'd recall the wound in its actual location when their focus was on saving his life, and none of them described the wound location for some time afterward. Cognitive psychology researchers say no.

AL: So which seems a better explanation: LNers FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill just decided thirty years later to contribute to the conspiracy talk by making up that they thought the autopsy photographs were not authentic; or the photos are faked?

PAT: Sibert and O'Neill saw the wound after the scalp was peeled back and the damaged skull removed. They always thought the large wound they saw was an exit for a shot from the rear. When asked to demonstrate the wound location, moreover, O'Neill pointed to the top of the back of his head. As a result, they are not remotely witnesses for the large occipital wound claimed by most CTs.

AL: Same with Dr. Canada, head of Bethesda Naval Hospital? He just decided that it would be a great joke 25 years after his death to throw out there that JFK' wound was in the back of the head! Ha, ha, there's a good one to play on history.

PAT: Canada never said any such thing. It seems certain that Kurtz just made it up.

AL: To Mr. Hancock's point: Which seems to be a better explanation: the autopsy was legimate, but that there are ZERO photos taken which gives a clear picture of the head wound because everyone is incompetent; or someone in high authority didn't want us to have a clear picture of the wound.

PAT: The entrance wound on the back of the head and large exit in front of the ear are in fact depicted in the autopsy photos. The doctors made a mistake in not shaving the head to make the photos more clear, but the wounds are there, nonetheless.

AL: Which seems more likely: Humes burned his notes and the first draft of the autopsy report because it had blood on it; or he had to sanitize the result? And seriously, how can anyone trust Humes. His testimony is at all times evasive. And we know that Finck wrote a CYA memo to his superior as he recognized that the autopsy was so much garbage, and testified to limitations placed on the procedure by an army general.

PAT: Welcome to my world. I have discussed Humes' testimony in detail in numerous posts on this website, and at a number of national conferences. He was clearly lying about the back wound, and quite possibly about the likelihood there were two head wounds. But, prior to 1967, there is no evidence he was lying about the location of the large head wound.

AL: Mr. Speer begins with the premise that the autopsy photos are legitimate. Look at the lengths he has to go to maintain that premise. In my mind, it just doesn't hold up.

PAT: The notion that I "began" with the premise the autopsy photos are legit is just not true. As you should know, seeing as you've read chapters 18c and 18d and all, I initially believed the back of the head photo was a fake. It was only after realizing that 1) there are many witnesses rarely if ever cited by the likes of Lifton, Groden, and Aguilar (all of whom I respect and with whom I remain friendly, by the way) who suggest the wound was where it is depicted in the autopsy photos; 2) the photos of the witnesses pointing out the location of the wound in Groden's book actually pointed out a wound inches away from where Groden claims they point, 3) most of the Parkland witnesses in time deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and 4) the face sheet, which depicted a wound on Kennedy's back and was so damaging to the single-assassin theory, did not show a large wound on the back of the head; that I came to the conclusion that I'd quite possibly been misled by the conspiracy literature. I then decided to study the medical evidence under the assumption it was accurate, and came to the realization that the medical evidence ALWAYS suggested there was more than one shooter, and that this led the government's experts to at first move the entrance on the back and then later move the entrance on the back of the head. That, I am convinced, is the real scandal. And yet it goes largely unnoticed by most CTs, who prefer to kneel before the image of the "McClelland" drawing, without realizing that 1) it was disowned by McClelland, 2) it is at odds with the statements of almost every witness to see the head wound, and 3) it wasn't even drawn by McClelland.

[Ray Mitcham]

Dr Clark

KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

How incompetent this Director of Neurological Surgery must have been to have seen all this when it wasn't there.

[Al Fordiani]

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...

Mr. Hancock, somehow I missed this response. Thank you for your reply.

[Pat Speer]

Dr Clark

KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

How incompetent this Director of Neurological Surgery must have been to have seen all this when it wasn't there.

Naro came out of nowhere, claimed he spoke to Clark, claimed Clark told him all sorts of things, and then disappeared. I've been asking around about him for years, and none of the top researchers on the medical evidence, of any stripe, will vouch for him.

As far as Clark...Clark signed off on the conclusions of the Warren Commission. He befriended Dr. Lattimer, and helped Dr. Lattimer conduct experiments purportedly showing the shots came from behind. He only broke his silence twice, that I have found. Once was to complain about conspiracy theorists to a newspaper. Once was to talk to Arlen Specter for his memoirs.

While I suspect Clark went to his grave believing the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, I can not prove it. Nor can it be proved he thought the autopsy photos were fakes, and that the wound was really on the back of the head.

He's a mystery, all right.

But no one pushing that Clark was mistaken about the head wound location has ever pushed that he was incompetent. Now, how is that, you might ask? It's actually quite simple. Emergency room doctors are paid to save lives, not accurately recall the nature or precise location of the wounds on dead patients. That's just not what they do. A number of published studies have demonstrated this, moreover. Emergency room doctors can't tell an entrance from an exit, etc. etc.

That's the job of a forensic pathologist.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

I would have thought that the Director of Neurological science could tell whether or not cerebellar tissue was oozing from a wound, wouldn't you?