Back of Head Wound AGAIN!

[David Von Pein]

C'mon. The President of the United States, the leader of the Free World, the most powerful individual on planet Earth has just been shot to pieces, and the U.S. Government can't do better than Humes and Boswell?

As for Jackie "primarily" selecting Betheda, the best extant AF-1 tape reveals clearly just how hard McGeorge Bundy pushed for Bethesda. The idea Jackie pushed for Bethesda because Jack was a navy veteran always has been bunk; Jackie was clearly, according to all accounts, in a state of shock and was hardly capable of making any argument.

Good job, Jon. Let's blame McGeorge Bundy now. And let's add him as "Plotter #199" in the cover-up scheme.

The CTers of the Internet are so EAGER and so amazingly WILLING to blame almost ANYONE they can blame in order to advance the notion of the make-believe conspiracy in the JFK case. No proof required. Let's just point SOME kind of finger of guilt or blame at McGeorge Bundy. (And let's not even ask ourselves WHY Bundy would want to engage in such a charade regarding the autopsy of the President.)

And with respect to WHO made the decision to have the autopsy done at Bethesda, I guess Jon Tidd wants to totally ignore the Warren Commission testimony of Ken O'Donnell [at 7 H 454-455]....

KENNETH O'DONNELL -- "We arrived at Andrews and meanwhile the Attorney General had been notified, the decision had been made that he would go to Bethesda."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who made that decision, by the way?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "Mrs. Kennedy."

MR. SPECTER -- "That the autopsy should be performed?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "I don't think she knew anything about an autopsy. The question is where the body went. We didn't tell her there was to be an autopsy. And the choice was Walter Reed or Bethesda. He being a Navy man, she picked Bethesda."

MR. SPECTER -- "She chose Bethesda, as between Bethesda and Walter Reed?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "She did."

MR. SPECTER -- "Who made the decision there would be an autopsy, if you know?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "I don't know who made the decision. I just think we all agreed--we arrived at Bethesda. The Attorney General was there. I think it was just our assumption that this was a necessary part."

Edited October 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

Didn't O'Donnell admit to Tip O'Neill that he dissembled before the W.C.?

[David Von Pein]

DVP,

Didn't O'Donnell admit to Tip O'Neill that he dissembled before the W.C.?

So Ken O'Donnell, one of JFK's best friends, is part of the plot and/or cover-up now? Is that what you're suggesting, Jon?

Edited October 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

Thanks, but you appear to ignore the importance of authority in late 1963.

Today, internet commenters are critical.

In late 1963, few were critical of the government. Authority ruled. You know this, certainly.

The W.C. played on this faith in authority.

[David Von Pein]

DVP,

Thanks, but you appear to ignore the importance of authority in late 1963.

Today, internet commenters are critical.

In late 1963, few were critical of the government. Authority ruled. You know this, certainly.

The W.C. played on this faith in authority.

What has that got to do with Kenny O'Donnell's testimony and the fact that O'Donnell said that Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy herself was the person who chose Bethesda Naval Hospital as the location for JFK's autopsy?

Do you think O'Donnell was lying here?....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who made that decision [to take JFK's body to Bethesda], by the way?"

KEN O'DONNELL -- "Mrs. Kennedy."

Edited October 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

DVP makes a valiant attempt to have us all chasing our tails over who ordered the body be taken to Bethesda. Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is still the large gaping wound seen by many witnesses in the right rear of JFK's head, and if you can't stay on topic, DVP, I kindly invite you to go start another thread.

[David Von Pein]

DVP makes a valiant attempt to have us all chasing our tails over who ordered the body be taken to Bethesda. Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is still the large gaping wound seen by many witnesses in the right rear of JFK's head, and if you can't stay on topic, DVP, I kindly invite you to go start another thread.

Yes, sir, Sergeant Prudhomme! ~salute~

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html

Edited October 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

So what's with an entry wound at the left temple (McClelland). I'd like to know more about that. (It could certainly account, I assume, for a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the head, depending on where the shot came from.)

[Pat Speer]

Chris, twenty years ago certainly does feel wrong...not sure if it seems longer or shorter than that though. The individual who presented was not a practicing Doctor at the time of the assassination, only an intern - wish I could remember his name but he presented well after that summary was done, at least ten years or more. I'll ask Deb and see if she remembers him....

From patspeer.com, chapter 18d:

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. 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. 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 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." 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."

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.

Wouldn't the wound described by Zelditz be visible in the Back of Head autopsy photo? In Zelditz's own words, "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."

How could such a wound be cleaned up to appear to be in a pristine state in the BOH photo?

When pushed, he explained it at the end. He said "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."

He had thereby supported the statements of the autopsy doctors, and James Jenkins, etc, and the authenticity of the x-rays. The scalp at the back of the head was intact but the bone was shattered beneath the scalp.

[Pat Speer]

So what's with an entry wound at the left temple (McClelland). I'd like to know more about that. (It could certainly account, I assume, for a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the head, depending on where the shot came from.)

Nope. The Parkland witnesses saw one head wound. Clark, the only one to take a good look, presumed this was a wound of both entrance and exit. McClelland wrote, moreover, that the wound was "of the left temple" and not an entrance wound "to the left temple" that presumably might have exited elsewhere. It follows then that McClelland thought, if only for a short period, that the one wound observed by himself and others was by the left temple.

Of course, he was looking at him upside down, and may have got his left and right mixed up. It is most intriguing then that within weeks--perhaps even days--of the shooting, the article written from the first day reports of the Parkland doctors quoted McClelland as claiming it was a wound of the right temple, not left.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Chris, twenty years ago certainly does feel wrong...not sure if it seems longer or shorter than that though. The individual who presented was not a practicing Doctor at the time of the assassination, only an intern - wish I could remember his name but he presented well after that summary was done, at least ten years or more. I'll ask Deb and see if she remembers him....

From patspeer.com, chapter 18d:

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. 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. 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 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." 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."

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.

Wouldn't the wound described by Zelditz be visible in the Back of Head autopsy photo? In Zelditz's own words, "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."

How could such a wound be cleaned up to appear to be in a pristine state in the BOH photo?

When pushed, he explained it at the end. He said "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."

He had thereby supported the statements of the autopsy doctors, and James Jenkins, etc, and the authenticity of the x-rays. The scalp at the back of the head was intact but the bone was shattered beneath the scalp.

Once again, did they wash all of this mess away before they took the BOH photo? That hardly seems likely, Pat.

[Robert Prudhomme]

So what's with an entry wound at the left temple (McClelland). I'd like to know more about that. (It could certainly account, I assume, for a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the head, depending on where the shot came from.)

Nope. The Parkland witnesses saw one head wound. Clark, the only one to take a good look, presumed this was a wound of both entrance and exit. McClelland wrote, moreover, that the wound was "of the left temple" and not an entrance wound "to the left temple" that presumably might have exited elsewhere. It follows then that McClelland thought, if only for a short period, that the one wound observed by himself and others was by the left temple.

Of course, he was looking at him upside down, and may have got his left and right mixed up. It is most intriguing then that within weeks--perhaps even days--of the shooting, the article written from the first day reports of the Parkland doctors quoted McClelland as claiming it was a wound of the right temple, not left.

This is from the medical report written by Dr. Kemp Clark regarding JFK:

"Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx."

"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."

Two problems here, Pat. Nowhere in his report does Dr. Clark say he presumed this large wound in the rear of JFK's head was a wound of entrance and exit. He also states that he saw cerebral AND cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound, and that the wound was in the occipito-parietal region.

Cerebellum (source of cerebellar tissue seen by Dr. Clark) seen at lower rear of cranial cavity

[Robert Prudhomme]

So what's with an entry wound at the left temple (McClelland). I'd like to know more about that. (It could certainly account, I assume, for a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the head, depending on where the shot came from.)

Nope. The Parkland witnesses saw one head wound. Clark, the only one to take a good look, presumed this was a wound of both entrance and exit. McClelland wrote, moreover, that the wound was "of the left temple" and not an entrance wound "to the left temple" that presumably might have exited elsewhere. It follows then that McClelland thought, if only for a short period, that the one wound observed by himself and others was by the left temple.

Of course, he was looking at him upside down, and may have got his left and right mixed up. It is most intriguing then that within weeks--perhaps even days--of the shooting, the article written from the first day reports of the Parkland doctors quoted McClelland as claiming it was a wound of the right temple, not left.

Here is what Dr. Robert McClelland actually wrote in his medical report, 4:45 PM, Nov. 22/ 1963:

"At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone."

Note that McClelland states ".....cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" If the massive brain injury was from the gunshot wound, I seriously believe McClelland is telling us he believed there was a gunshot wound in JFK's left temple. However, Pat, you believe whatever you want to believe.

"There are none so blind, as those who will see only what they wish to see."

Edited October 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

So what's with an entry wound at the left temple (McClelland). I'd like to know more about that. (It could certainly account, I assume, for a gaping exit wound in the right rear of the head, depending on where the shot came from.)

Nope. The Parkland witnesses saw one head wound. Clark, the only one to take a good look, presumed this was a wound of both entrance and exit. McClelland wrote, moreover, that the wound was "of the left temple" and not an entrance wound "to the left temple" that presumably might have exited elsewhere. It follows then that McClelland thought, if only for a short period, that the one wound observed by himself and others was by the left temple.

Of course, he was looking at him upside down, and may have got his left and right mixed up. It is most intriguing then that within weeks--perhaps even days--of the shooting, the article written from the first day reports of the Parkland doctors quoted McClelland as claiming it was a wound of the right temple, not left.

This is from the medical report written by Dr. Kemp Clark regarding JFK:

"Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx."

"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."

Two problems here, Pat. Nowhere in his report does Dr. Clark say he presumed this large wound in the rear of JFK's head was a wound of entrance and exit. He also states that he saw cerebral AND cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound, and that the wound was in the occipito-parietal region.

Cerebellum (source of cerebellar tissue seen by Dr. Clark) seen at lower rear of cranial cavity

I'm not disputing that Clark said he saw cerebellum, Robert.

As to his impressions regarding the wound, this is what he had to say in the press conference conducted BEFORE he wrote his report.

"I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...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."

He later testified as to what he meant by tangential wound.

Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time?

Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"?

Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?

Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking?

Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile---

Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.

Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.

P.S. Dr. McClelland has been asked about his left temple comment on several occasions. He tries to blame Dr. Jenkins, who apparently pointed to his own left temple when McClelland first came into the room. But this doesn't hold water, IMO. McClelland has long claimed to have gotten a good look at the wound, and to have stared down into it. He wrote "of the left temple" not "to the right temple". It follows then that he thought the large wound he viewed was "of the left temple." I have read dozens of autopsy protocols and have never read one where a doctor describes the fatal wound by where he PRESUMED the bullet entered, and failed to mention the large gaping hole he personally observed. That would be incompetent to the extreme, IMO, particularly in that emergency room doctors are trained not to make presumptions about entrance and exit, and to leave that to those performing the autopsy.

Dr. McClelland saw the wound depicted in the autopsy photos. He will never admit this, of course. But I'm convinced that will be the verdict of history.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary:

"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple"

Dr. Stewart

Dr. David Stewart was in attendance in Parkland Memorial Hospital when the President and Governor Connally were brought in for emergency treatment. He spent most of his time with Governor Connally. He was interviewed on KNEW television by John Dolan in 1967.

"Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the statement about the shot that killed the President coming from the front'. Stewart said, " Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front".

Father Huber

Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye.

Malcolm Kilduff

In 1963, Malcolm Kilduff was JFK's Press Secretary. In a 1991 interview with Harrison Livingtsone, Kilduff gives this remarkable response:

"Livingstone: As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear.

Kilduff: Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side."