Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

[Pat Speer]

The question, Cliff, is whether or not the autopsy photos would be admitted into evidence.

And the answer is a clear YES!

Should the photos have been entered into evidence by the prosecution (which would be a questionable move seeing as the photos make a clear case for more than one shooter), of course, the defense would be granted the opportunity to present witnesses whose recollections conflicted with the photos.

But how many would do that? How many of those on your list would ever have testified that the wounds in the photos were in the wrong place, and that they thought the photos were faked? Very few. Maybe none.

Which is but one of the reasons why I studied the case under the assumption the medical evidence was legit... And came to realize how clearly the evidence suggests there was more than one shooter...

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The question, Cliff, is whether or not the autopsy photos would be admitted into evidence.

Actually, the question is how four inches of JFK's clothing could bunch up entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of his neck.

Your special pleading is egregious.

Quote

And the answer is a clear YES!

That's not what the HSCA concluded.

quote on)

...(U)nder ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative.

(quote off)

Pat, you're taking the biggest pile of garbage in the case and claiming it's gold.

It just isn't true.

Quote

Should the photos have been entered into evidence by the prosecution (which would be a questionable move seeing as the photos make a clear case for more than one shooter), of course, the defense would be granted the opportunity to present witnesses whose recollections conflicted with the photos.

But how many would do that? How many of those on your list would ever have testified that the wounds in the photos were in the wrong place, and that they thought the photos were faked? Very few. Maybe none.

How the hell would you know?

Quote

Which is but one of the reasons why I studied the case under the assumption the medical evidence was legit... And came to realize how clearly the evidence suggests there was more than one shooter...

Your assumption isn't supported by the facts.

And since people like Bill Kelly and Jim DiEugenio swallow this horseshi* your assumptions are highly obfuscatory.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's you who's showing his bias, Sandy.

I believed "the Parkland witnesses ALL said it was a blow-out wound on the back of the head" myth until I took a closer look at the evidence, and realized it was a bunch of nonsense spun by people with an agenda.

 

A myth?  Ha!  Nearly every Parkland witness placed the wound at the back of the head!

 

(Note to readers:  Glance through just the sentences I've made bold. These are the the witnesses early statements. BTW, the medical terms occiput, occipital, cerebellum , and cerebellar all refer to the bone and brain tissue at the back of the head.)

 

Quotes from Parkland witnesses:          (from Dr. Aguilar's List)

1) 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."

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

Jenkins described a wound in JFK's left temple to Specter. Jenkins: "...I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." Specter: "The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins." Jenkins: "Well, I was feeling for--I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: "...I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: "Indicating the left temporal area?" Jenkins: "Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony--the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that 'the autopsy report discloses no such development')." (WC-V6:51)

In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right--rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, "...(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.".

Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of the cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that Jenkins said "occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.

When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." Jenkins responded, "Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right...". (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that "cerebellum was hanging out" (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD--see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins' and Jones' favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was 'hanging out' but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?]

Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK's left temple. "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed". p. 313)Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins' Commission testimony (cited above) proves.

As we will see, Dr. Jenkins' faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him. It is a testament to JAMA's and Posner's laxity in fact-checking that Jenkins' recollections are so unquestioningly reported. Both Breo and Posner quickly attempted to discredit those who, like McClelland, did not share their biases, and ignored many stupendous inconsistencies of "allies", such as Jenkins (see next chapter). Nonetheless, Jenkins' earliest, "un-enhanced" recollections must be given greatest weight and considered the most likely to be reliable, as in any police investigation. Fortunately, they also agree with the earliest recollections of other Parkland witnesses, an important corroborative factor.

4) CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)

In is first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, "Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?" Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present...". Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?" Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound" ...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

As with several other Parkland witnesses, Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath. In an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 8, 1992, Posner alleges Carrico reported, "We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone...". (Gerald Posner, " Case Closed , New York, Random House, p. 311) The notorious unreliability of recollections so different and so far removedfrom the original event places Carrico's more recent opinions under a cloud. It seems possible that Carrico has been persuaded that the photographs of the back of JFK's head have been "authenticated", a scientific impossibility, and therefore he should adjust accordingly his recollections to agree with this "best evidence".

5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."

6) RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered, "With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing he wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head." (WC.V.6:56) While he then expressed some doubt that a high velocity bullet would so radically change course, JFK's skull wound must have appeared to him quite posterior for him to have advanced such an hypothesis.

It is particularly noteworthy that Jones continued to believe JFK's skull suggested a rear exit of a bullet that entered from anterior. In January, 1983 he told David Lifton, "If you brought him in here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." (BE, p. 705) Jones told student, Brad Parker, on 8/10/92, again, "...if they brought him in today, I would tend - seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back of the head as seen in Six Seconds . Jones specifically denied to Parker that hehad seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't think that there was any wound -- I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the right temporal area or the right side of the upper part of the head, you know, over the -- in front of the ear say, or anything like that ". These description are fully consistent with the autopsy report of a right rear defect. If the defect did extend forward, the anterior portion was quite small. Only Gerald Posner reported Jones described JFK's wound as "a large side wound". Posner made no mention of Jones' Warren Commission testimony, testimony which is incompatible with Posner's thesis, nor did Posner ask about the statements attributed to Jones by Lifton, which Jones repeated to Brad Parker in 1992).

7) GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

8) PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324) Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed... You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

Author Gerald Posner claimed that on March 10, 1992, Peters told him, "The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 310, paperback edition.) On April 2, 1992, Peters said, "...my observations were given earlier but they're still, I think, accurate after 25 years... The wound was occipital-parietal... I saw about a 7 centimeter hole in the occiput...". (Speech by Peters, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana) While Posner seemed to wish to cast doubt on the manner Lifton represented Peters' opinions, it seems that Lifton's account was far more consistent with Peters' other statements than Posner's. Lifton still has a recording of his interview with Peters and told the author the statements Lifton cited were taken from Peters verbatim and in context.

In a speech to a gathering of Urologists in San Francisco in 1992, Peters demonstrated JFK's skull defect as he recalled it, on a human head for author Aguilar, placing the wound at the top rear portion of the skull, which, if the skull were a cube, involved the right rear corner--a location that has no defect in current autopsy photographs.

Peters apparently reported to author Gerald Posner on March 10 1992 that Robert McClelland, MD, who has steadfastly maintained the view that there was a rear skull wound of exit, was in error. "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound..." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 313) Robert McClelland, MD had diagramed a skull and indicated JFK's skull wound in the low rear portion of JFK's skull to author Thompson. Peters indicated on that same diagram complete agreement with the McClelland's low placement on 8-7-79 in a letter to author Livingstone. A copy of Peters' letter and diagram was produced in Groden and Livingstone's High Treason ". Peters' letter to author Livingstone reads in full:

"Dear Mr. Livingstone, "I have marked an "X" on the picture which more accurately depicts the wound, although neither is quite accurate in my opinion. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. Sincerely, Paul C. Peters, MD"

Peters believed that the "X" marked the point of exit for the wound in the head. In an interview with author Livingstone, Peters referred to the "X" in the aforementioned diagram and said, "...the "X" is about where the wound was. The "X" does not imply that that wound is exactly correct. The "X" applies about where I thought the wound of exit was." (transcript of interview with Peters)

The "X" is marked squarely on the right rear portion of the skull parallel with a point just below the top of the ear. (See group of photographs following page 27 in Groden and Livingstone, High Treason", for a copy of the diagram and Peters' letter.) So Peters has done a complete about face after having discussed the case with Lattimer who convinced Peters that he did not see what he had repeatedly said he saw. Moreover, Peters felt confident enough in Latimer's opinion of what Peters had seen that he was willing to reproach McClelland for his refusal to alter his recollection to agree with Lattimer as Peters himself had done. Apparently suggestion from non-witness, Lattimer, has done wonders for Peters' memory of what he saw. It may not, however, have helped his credibility.

9) CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead. Crenshaw claimed to have kept quiet about his observations out of professional and personal fear of reprisals.

As will be seen Breo took great exception to Crenshaw's account. Author Gerald Posner dismissed Crenshaw with quotations from fellow Parkland physicians: Perry stated, "I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate... He is a pitiful sight." Perry's excoriation of Crenshaw must, however, be considered in the context of his own egregious memory, and his own possible perjury before the Warren Commission. Perry, as will be discussed, denied under oath to the Warren Commission that he had made unequivocal statements to the press claiming the neck wound was a wound of entrance. He falsely accused the press of misrepresenting his comments when an exact transcript of his comments revealed that the press had accurately reported his unequivocal comments that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. Perry, to the author's knowledge, has never apologized to the press nor has he explained his untruthful testimony to the Commission. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, Perry seems to have adjusted his recollections to suit his questioner, whether Specter of the Warren Commission, or author, Posner.

10) CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter's original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present...." (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been "temporo-occipital" than "temporo-parietal", because he also recalled, "cerebellum was present". (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, "...the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table...." (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as "...a large gaping wound in the occipital area." Livingstone also reported that "(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact)."(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

Baxter's reliability has also been called into question for a comment attributed to him by Dennis Breo, staff writer for JAMA, and Gerald Posner. Baxter apparently supported Breo's suggestion that Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the recent book, "Conspiracy of Silence", (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet) was not in JFK's trauma room. JAMA wrote, "Most of those who know the facts express disgust at Crenshaw's actions and question if he was involved in the care of the President at all... None of the four (interviewed by Breo) recalls ever seeing him at the scene." (Breo, D. L., JAMA, 267:2804-2805). This claim was used by JAMA to support the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the event, and call into question Crenshaw's recollections of JFK's wounds published in his book--recollections that flatly contradicted the Commission's findings. In an interview with author Gerald Posner in 1992, Baxter said, "I don't either (remember that Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room)." (Posner, G. Case Closed, p. 312, paper version). Embarrassingly, before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, however, Baxter, under oath, listed the physicians present with him in the emergency room with JFK. The first physician he named was Charles Crenshaw. (WC- V6:40)

As if Baxter's credibility had not suffered enough, he reported to author Posner on March 12, 1992, "I never even saw the back of (JFK's) head. The wound was on the right side, not the back." (Posner, Case Closed, p. 312) Baxter would do well to read his own hand-written note, prepared on the day of the assassination, and reproduced legibly in the Warren Report, and read the transcripts of interviews he's given authors before allowing further interviews.

This fact will be explored again in the following chapter. In any case it seems that Baxter is either terribly unreliable or is often misquoted, as seem to be all of Breo's and Posner's "allies". McClelland, disparaged by the other Parkland witnesses used by Breo and Posner, is the only one of these witnesses whose opinion has not seemed to change with the wind.

11) ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

12) RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

13) ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Parkland in 1963 authored a typed summary of his care of Governor Connally on 11-25-63, Warren Commission "Gieske Exhibit #1", (WC-V20:5-7) in which he does not mention JFK's wounds. In Warren Commission testimony he described JFK's head wound as: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78) This is the only case of any witness mistaking which side the skull injuries were on. However, despite his error on the laterality, he claimed that the skull defect extended from the occiput to the front of the skull.

14) FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine, cardiology, at Parkland at the time of the assassination. Groden and Livingstone reported, "He was most insistent that the official picture was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand both on the back of Livingstone's head and his own to show where the large hole was. 'Why do they cover it up?' he repeated numerous times. 'This is not the way it was!' he kept repeating, shaking his head no." (Groden & Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.45)

15) KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...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" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?"

Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

16) PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

17) DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

18) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President's wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: "His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit." Specter, "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?" Greer: "Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off."(WCV2:124)

19) SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

20) NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. ( Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD ( High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth,in images following p. 368)

21) WILLIAM MIDGETT, MD: an Obstetrics and Gynecology resident at Parkland greeted the President's limousine pushing a stretcher. In an interview with Wallace Milam on February 8, 1993, he described JFK's wound as "right parietal" and said it was behind the right ear.

22) DON T. CURTIS, D.D.S.: an oral surgery resident was mentioned in the Warren Report (p.66), but gave no account to the Commission regarding JFK's wounds. Pre-med student, Brad J. Parker, sent Curtis a copy of McClelland's drawing showing a large right-sided defect in the rear of JFK's skull to ask his opinion about it. On October 25, 1994, Curtis wrote Parker. His letter in full read: Dear Mr. Parker, The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially by recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Best regards, Don T. Curtis, D.D.S.

 

 

[David Lifton]

On 11/29/2017 at 10:09 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Before I post this, let me insert what Larry Hancock wrote on his blog on November 25th. Larry usually does not comment on the medical elements of the JFK case.  In fact, in all the times I ever heard him speak in public, I don't recall him saying anything about it.  But he did comment on Mike's work as presented at Lancer, which was excised from  the Houston mock trial.

Finally, I have to say that for the first time in a great many years I am fairly well convinced – by Michael Chesser’s conference presentation on the enhanced HSCA skull X-rays – that there were two shots to JFK’s head and that one was most definitely from the front and into the hairline, impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. The presentation also confirmed the degree of post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have become so clear over the years.

I agree with Larry on this about Mike Chesser's work, it appears to me to advance the case.  I have never seen some of this before.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs

Jim DiEugenio:

Re "impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. "

#1: The photograph I believe you are referring to, where someone is pointing to their "own head", is the picture of Assistant Press Secretary pointing to his own head, when answering a question from the press. If there is another photo one showing a "Parkland doctor. . as he pointed to his own head," please produce that image.

#2: What is "post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have (sic). . (you mean "has", do you not). . become so clear over the years."

Are you saying that you believe that Commander Humes told the truth, in his autopsy report and testimony, and there is no disagreement between the Parkland data and what Humes described?  And that any alteration took place only to the autopsy photographs, but not to the body?  Where does this idea come from. . from Gary Aguilar and Milicent Cranor? 

Having interviewed the Dallas doctors both by telephone (going back to 1966, and extending out to 1982) and then on camera (1989, and 1990), I can assure you that they reacted quite negatively when shown either (a) the Bethesda data, as set forth in the autopsy report and autopsy testimony; and (b) the autopsy photographs, which were displayed by me and Pat Valentio to these doctors -and nurses--in the period December 1982 through January 1983.  You'd better do your homework, DiEugenio, if you are going to step into the debate as to when the medical data was altered. For example: are you not aware that when the body was first unveiled for Dr. Ebersole, at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy, that the throat wound was sutured?  That suturing (of the throat area) occurred before the autopsy even began (or are you unaware of that?). If so, then I suggest you read Chapter 23 of Best Evidence, where this is all spelled out in detail.  I have no doubt that the X-rays (and photos) do not represent the situation as it was reported in the Bethesda autopsy protocol, but neither is it congruent with the situation that was reported in Dallas, by the Parkland doctors and nurses.  In fact, and as I laid it out in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, there are three distinctly different views of the President's body, which I referred to as three different "lenses":  (1) The Dallas medical records;  (2) The Bethesda protocol;  (3) The autopsy photos and X-rays.

(1) Does not agree with (2); and (2) does not agree with (3). 

If you are trying to promote the idea that the only changes were "post Bethesda" changes--i.e., bertween the autopsy report, and the autopsy photos and X-rays and not between the Dallas observations and the Bethesda report, then you have an incomplete understanding of the record.

DSL

[Micah Mileto]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

A myth?  Ha!  Nearly every Parkland witness placed the wound at the back of the head!

 

Sandy, is there a consensus among what the underlying brain in the skull cavity looked like? A gaping cavity with large portions of brain tissue missing versus the X-rays and brain photographs?

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Sandy, is there a consensus among what the underlying brain in the skull cavity looked like? A gaping cavity with large portions of brain tissue missing versus the X-rays and brain photographs?

 

Micah,

I don't know if there is a consensus on any of those things or not. The impression I've gotten from reading a lot of witness interviews is that, in contrast to Parkland witnesses, Bethesda witnesses have differing recollections of what they saw. It is my opinion that the reason they do is because they joined the autopsy at different times. For example, witnesses who thought that the top of Kennedy's head had been blown off joined the autopsy after the scalp had been resected and the bone fragments removed.

I recall that there was one witness who said there was no brain left at all. He must have come in after the brain was removed. At least one witness said the brain simply fell out, without cutting of the spinal cord. He must have joined the autopsy a little earlier, but after the brain had been freed. (Another possibility is that the brain had been removed before the official autopsy began, and was either set back in place or replaced with another brain.)

With all the differing reports, it seems that it would have been difficult for any consensus to have formed.

 

[Micah Mileto]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Micah,

I don't know if there is a consensus on any of those things or not. The impression I've gotten from reading a lot of witness interviews is that, in contrast to Parkland witnesses, Bethesda witnesses have differing recollections of what they saw. It is my opinion that the reason they do is because they joined the autopsy at different times. For example, witnesses who thought that the top of Kennedy's head had been blown off joined the autopsy after the scalp had been resected and the bone fragments removed.

I recall that there was one witness who said there was no brain left at all. He must have come in after the brain was removed. At least one witness said the brain simply fell out, without cutting of the spinal cord. He must have joined the autopsy a little earlier, but after the brain had been freed. (Another possibility is that the brain had been removed before the official autopsy began, and was either set back in place or replaced with another brain.)

With all the differing reports, it seems that it would have been difficult for any consensus to have formed.

 

Francis X. O'Neill may or may not be a "no brain in the cranium" witness.

From online comments by David Lifton:

Quote

O'Neill's acquaintance was one Wayne Cook, a local businessman who ran Hilltop Orchards.  His wife was the CBS anchor person for the local CBS station in Hartford, Conn. (as I recall).

c) After the publication of Best Evidence, Cooke contacted me, told me he had read Best Evidence, and told me of his friendship with O'Neill. (For example: their children played basketball together. . something like that).  He offered to question O'Neill about anything I thought was relevant, and call me back, immediately, with his answers.  We did this a number of times, and my questions mostly concerned the autopsy.  But from the outset, one matter was volunteered, which had nothing to do with any question that I suggested be asked.

d) Wayne told me that when he discussed the autopsy with O'Neill, O'Neill maintained--repeatedly and emphatically, that there was no brain (!).  "Wayne, there was no brain!" said O'Neill, more than once. It was a line I repeated in our conversations, which occurred back in 1992.

e)O'Neill had a tremendous --and very personal--antipathy towards me, and Best Evidence. He was furious at the notion he and his FBI partner (Sibert) had been mislead on the night of November 22, 1963, or that they had been improperly kept out of the morgue (as their own FBI report indicates).  He didn't just "disagree"; he was furious with me personally, calling me all kinds of names, etc.

f) After the ARRB was created, and Doug Horne telephoned me (this was August 1995, when he first joined the staff), we had many telephone conversations, particularly when it became clear that witnesses would be called. I told Doug Horne about the Wayne Cooke situation, but--possibly because there were so many things on the "to do" list--Wayne Cooke slipped between the cracks. He just was never called.  So the record of what Wayne Cooke said that O'Neill said is one that I have, from my phone calls with Cooke.

g) When O'Neill was called to testify before the ARRB (in 1997), he said that only a part of the brain was there, but he seemed to deliberately contradict what was stated bu Paul O'Connor, as set forth in Chapter 26 of Best Evidence. And yet Doug acknowledged to me privately, and more than once, the anger--even hatred--that O'Neill expressed towards me and my work.  This is one area where I believe that the ARRB really dropped the ball. Cooke should have been called, or the proper affidavits taken. Then O'Neill should have been challenged, when under oath, about these reports that he repeatedly maintained, back around 1992, that there was no brain. That that was simply a fact of the Bethesda autopsy; and that he repeatedly said: "Wayne, there was no brain!".

And maybe Jim Sibert too.

From William Matson Law's book In The Eye of History:

...

Quote

After introducing him to Debra, we gathered our belongings and walked out to the parking lot, where Sibert introduced us to his wife Ester. As we rode along I remarked on how glad I was to have the opportunity to talk to him in person about his recollections of the wounds on President Kennedy's body. Ester Sibert turned round to Debra and me and said, "You know, his brains were blown out of his head." I hope the surprise on my face didn't give too much away. "That was one of the questions I was going to ask," I replied.

...

Quote

Long will I remember riding in the back seat of the Siberts' car before Deb Conway and I conducted the interview, to have Mrs. Sibert turn around and say: "You know, his brains were blown out of his head!"—information that had, obviously, come from her husband. Sibert knows the implications of there being no brain in the cranium. He understands the impact of his words when he tells us that no honor guard was present at the entry of the casket, or there was no brain in the head when he first saw Kennedy's body, or that the autopsy pictures don't match his memories of how the body looked.

...
 

Quote

 

After I returned home from Florida, I sent Mr. Sibert a copy of Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason (Laurel, 1997) (which, for me is the new cornerstone of the
literature on the assassination) as a token of thanks for granting us the opportunity to interview him. Twyman's book brings to the fore questions concerning the shipping casket versus the ornate display casket, body alteration, the forged X-ray and autopsy pictures, etc.

Weeks later, I called Jim, or Si as I now think of him, to see how he liked the book: "You tell Noel Twyman for me that his book is the best thing I've ever read on the assassination."

 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Francis X. O'Neill may or may not be a "no brain in the cranium" witness.

From online comments by David Lifton:

And maybe Jim Sibert too.

From William Matson Law's book In The Eye of History:

...

...

...
 

 

 

I looked it up and found that it was Paul O'Connor who said there was no brain. (Of course we have David Lifton to thank for having statements like his.)

That Sibert and O'Neill thought the same is eye opening. But didn't their report state that that the head wound was in the back? How could they tell that the whole brain was gone just by looking through that hole? It's possible they were asked to leave the room while x-rays were being taken, and by the time they returned the brain had been removed. And they assumed it was that way before scalp resection and removal of the skull fragments and brain.

It's complicated.

 

[Micah Mileto]

59 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I looked it up and found that it was Paul O'Connor who said there was no brain. (Of course we have David Lifton to thank for having statements like his.)

That Sibert and O'Neill thought the same is eye opening. But didn't their report state that that the head wound was in the back? How could they tell that the whole brain was gone just by looking through that hole? It's possible they were asked to leave the room while x-rays were being taken, and by the time they returned the brain had been removed. And they assumed it was that way before scalp resection and removal of the skull fragments and brain.

It's complicated.

 

Francis X. O'Neill always swore that he saw the EOP wound below the large head wound, while James Sibert says he just saw one big hole. "Back of the head", for most people, can just refer to anywhere behind the face. The "surgery to the head area, namely in the top of the skull" statement is among the earliest reference to the official wound (perhaps one of the doctors saw the bone flap and thought it looked like the kind of flap created curing a proper craniotomy?). This 2:00 AM 11/23/1963 teletype, relayed from information provided by Sibert and O'Neill, is probably the earliest proven reference to the large head wound being from a bullet that "entered the back of the head and thereafter emerged through top of skull":

 

Disclaimer: I do not believe in the occipial blowout. The "stare of death" photos shows how a large parietal-temporal wound can be mistaken for a occipital wound when viewed from a certain angle.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Francis X. O'Neill always swore that he saw the EOP wound below the large head wound, while James Sibert says he just saw one big hole. "Back of the head", for most people, can just refer to anywhere behind the face.

Surely you're not suggesting that Sibert's and O'Neill's hole wasn't on the back of the head?
 

Sibert's hole:

 

 

 

O'Neill's hole:

 

 

Ain't it funny how their drawings match what all the Parkland witnesses said?

 

 

Quote

The "surgery to the head area, namely in the top of the skull" statement is among the earliest reference to the official wound (perhaps one of the doctors saw the bone flap and thought it looked like the kind of flap created curing a proper craniotomy?). This 2:00 AM 11/23/1963 teletype, relayed from information provided by Sibert and O'Neill, is probably the earliest proven reference to the large head wound being from a bullet that "entered the back of the head and thereafter emerged through top of skull":

 

Disclaimer: I do not believe in the occipial blowout. The "stare of death" photos shows how a large parietal-temporal wound can be mistaken for a occipital wound when viewed from a certain angle.

 

 

LOL, that is cover-up nonsense! After it was decided to make Oswald the lone nut.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

It was O'Connor who said there was no brain.

 O'Neill said about half the brain was gone.  (Horne, IARRB, Vol. 3, p. 797)

Chesser brings up a different angle to this argument about how damaged the brain was.  He quotes Boswell as saying that a very large length of the falx was torn apart from the brain, "with loss of bone over the left side, yet the adjacent delicate brain tissue showed no weight loss of tissue?"   He then adds, "This defies the imagination." (See frames 41-43 of his presentation.  Sorry to get the thread back on topic.)  IMO, this is becoming one of the most ersatz parts of the official story.  I don't mean weak, or dubious.  I mean this whole issue of Kennedy's brain is becoming fraudulent.  Horne might have overreached a bit in his original essay, but he brought attention to an important point.

BTW, Chesser has been in practice for over 30 years. I like it when our side has credentialed professionals.  Most of the time they end up being pretty good e.g. the late Dr. John Nichols.

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was O'Connor who said there was no brain.

 O'Neill said about half the brain was gone.  (Horne, IARRB, Vol. 3, p. 797)

Chesser brings up a different angle to this argument about how damaged the brain was.  He quotes Boswell as saying that a very large length of the falx was torn apart from the brain, "with loss of bone over the left side, yet the adjacent delicate brain tissue showed no weight loss of tissue?"   He then adds, "This defies the imagination." (See frames 41-43 of his presentation.  Sorry to get the thread back on topic.)  IMO, this is becoming one of the most ersatz parts of the official story.  I don't mean weak, or dubious.  I mean this whole issue of Kennedy's brain is becoming fraudulent.  Horne might have overreached a bit in his original essay, but he brought attention to an important point.

BTW, Chesser has been in practice for over 30 years. I like it when our side has credentialed professionals.  Most of the time they end up being pretty good e.g. the late Dr. John Nichols.

A similar problem is with the skull photographs, but nothing has to be faked to question the contradiction of the beveled exit seen on those. 

"The beveled exit was on the margin of the skull cavity. Let's take a look at these skull photographs- ah, yes, there's the beveled exit on the margin of the skull cavity, on the focal center of the picture!" -no autopsy doctor, ever. 

[Micah Mileto]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Surely you're not suggesting that Sibert's and O'Neill's hole wasn't on the back of the head?
 

Sibert's hole:

 

 

 

O'Neill's hole:

 

 

Ain't it funny how their drawings match what all the Parkland witnesses said?

 

 

 

 

LOL, that is cover-up nonsense! After it was decided to make Oswald the lone nut.

 

 

How is the "surgery of the head, top of the skull" comment cover-up nonsense? The most common sense simple explanation for that is how the right skull flap in the autopsy photographs kind of looks like a craniotomy incision. And the right skull flap being created by the shooting would explain the Zapruder film and why Dealey Plaza witnesses described a wound on the right side of the head. So whatever the agents were there to see, they certainly saw the skull flap, which their drawing does not depict. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Michael Walton]

Can we try to get this thread back on track? I'm  interested  in the forehead black dot as well as Chesser  is because  he too states it in his PDF. And Jim D mentions the funeral  director plugging  the temple.

C Davidson proved me wrong with a shot from the underpass. But forehead dot is IMO very important. That dot has to be more than matted hair.

And Cliff V please  don't  say the photos are fake...they're  not.

What I  notice  here is whenever someone  posts something  and it goes against someone  else's own beliefs they revert to the ITS FAKE line which is a cheap lazy way to go.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

And Cliff V please  don't  say the photos are fake...they're  not.

The Fox 5 photo is demonstrably fake.

It shows a wound with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

It shows a wound location which required 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket to elevate entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar resting in a normal position just above the base of his neck.

Impossible.  You can't replicate this event, and the clothing evidence trumps the photo.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Cliff Varnell