Jump to content
The Education Forum

PARKLAND: A CASE FOR CONSPIRACY


Recommended Posts

Occasionally I hear a person say they have looked at the evidence on both sides and felt the case for the lone nut was overwhelming. I find a problem with this approach. Fundamental to the CT is the idea that the evidence has been altered. To make an unbiased inquiry you have to consider the possibility of a coverup. Before you can evaluate the evidence on face value you have to address the accusations of a coverup. You have to start by asking "Is there a large amount of credible circumstantial evidence of a coverup. That should include missing evidence or evidence that shows signs of tampering. It may include corroborated  testimony by multiple witness that contradicts the official version. 
If you find little or no evidence of a coverup you can confidently evaluate the official story vs the CT. But if you decide there is strong circumstantial evidence then you can assign the likelihood  of  a possibility of a coverup. If you think there is an 80% chance of a coverup then there is you answer regarding the assassination. Assuming any smoking gun was hidden your 80% likelihood is the closest you will ever get to an answer.
   I always felt the testimony of the Parkland staff regarding a hole in the back of the head was strong circumstantial evidence. Of course every time you listen to a debate about it the facts change. You also hear crap about how they all capitulated to the WC so CASE CLOSED! Nothing more to see right? Well there is a lot to unpack about this capitulation like after 7 of them looked at the x-rays in 65' and said "well x-rays don't lie, we were all wrong". But then for the next 50 years they said there WAS a big hole in the back! So why did they lie that one time in 65'. Well saying there was a big hole would be to claim the autopsy was bungled or faked. In 65 this would have been an Earth shaking claim that would have been headlines around the world the next day and that is not a hyperbolic statement. It would have put the doctor who said it at the center of a huge controversy. It would affect them and there family for years to come. You would not make a decision like this without careful consideration yet they were shown the x-rays then minutes later they were in front of the press being asked for an opinion. considering the awkward position they were PLACED into that day and the fact they changed their story for the next 50 years, I think this 'capitulation' did not solve the controversy that started with their WC testimony.
Another supposed 'case closed' event was the Nova doc in the 80's in which they "All" capitulated again. But it was mostly slightly of hand. They inferred that McClelland capitulated and then show a clip and if you don't listen closely you will hear McClelland say he agrees that the autopsy photo is correct. But listen closely and you realize he was not capitulating at all! He said he would agree with the photo as correct with the caveat that the only reason it does not show a hole in the back is because they are pulling the scalp up over the hole!! Yet many skeptics point to the Nova doc as case closed proof.

When Dr Crenshaw published a book in the 80's he was criticized in the Journal of American Medical Association. They said he exaggerated his role in the emergency room and they had the gall to say that "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Dr Crenshaw was even in the room that day." Well they went to far with this hit piece and got sued. That is because Nurse Henchcliffe and DR Curtis already testified at the WC that Crenshaw was in the room. Busted! But it gets even richer because Dr Baxter who took the lead in this attack article also testified to the WC about what other doctors were present. And the first one he mentions is Dr Crenshaw!!  As you unpack the skeptics arguments regarding the Parkland staff they quickly fall apart.
Another failing argument is that the doctors themselves said they never got a close look so they must all be wrong. One doctor suggested to Clark that they do open heart message but two other doctors said before you decide on that Dr Clark you need to see the head wound. Dr Clark looked at the head wound and decided the brain was too damaged for JFK to breath on his own. Based on this observation of the head wound Dr Clark decided not to do the open heart. So he made a major medical decision based on his observation. Dr Perry also said he did not do a "minute detailed" inspection of the wound and skeptics jump on this. But he includes that he just noticed a large avulsive  wound of the right occipital parietal area. So not only does this show that he saw the large head wound in the back it proves that they did not need to do a detailed examination to verify the location of the wound as being in the posterior portion of the head.
The WC testimony by 16 doctors about the hole in the back breaks down as follows. 6 were not specific about the location.
Dr Dulany, Bashour and Dr White said "Head wound"
Dr Curtis just said "Injury to cranial contents".
Dr Hunt said she "did not get a chance to see the headwound"
Dr Giesecko said the wound "went from the brow to the occiput" and he put it on the wrong side of the head.
 That leaves 10 doctors who were specific about the location.
3 doctors used either the term temporal or anterior or temporal parietal so they are in line with the official story.
That is Dr's Baxter, Jenkins and Sayler.
This leaves 7 doctors that said the hole was in the back of the head. 4 used the term occipital parietal. That was Dr's Perry, Peters. Akin and Carrico.
   Three doctors used the term "right posterior". Dr's McClelland, Jones and Clark.
        Four nurses testified at the WC. Nelson, Standridge and Henchcliffe were not specific but Nurse Bowron said "Back of head".
     So the final score from the WC is 8 staff members said back of head and 3 said temporal or anterior.
Dr Dulany later gave a more specific location and said occipital parietal so you may want to add him to the hole in the back. Dr Sayler later contradicted his WC testimony and said it was in the back so you may want to throw him out. Dr Carrico testified that it was occipital parietal in both the WC and HSCA testimony. Then 15 years later he changed it!! Make of that what you will. Mark Twain said once that it is obvious to all that as our body gets old and decays our mental functions improve.....
    The ARRB provided more testimony from the Parkland staff in which Audrey Bell stated the wound was "Occipital parietal" and Nurse Hutton said "Back of the head".
  Dr Grossman and Crenshaw never testified but Grossman has stated the hole was temporal and Crenshaw who we discussed before said occipital parietal. Finally the ambulance driver Abrey Rike who helped put JFK in the casket he had provided said the wound was in the back.
I left several people out who said they saw a hole in the back but for various reasons that puts their testimony in question I did not include them. That is Dr's Ledelitz, goldstritch and Seldin and nurse Tuhey.
So when we take all the staffs statements into account the final score is
13 staff members saw the hole in the rear
4 staff members saw the hole in the temporal area
6 staff gave no specific opinion

I should also note that 6 people at the autopsy also saw the hole in the back. And that many of the  photos and notes taken went missing according to the two who provided the noted and photos. The x-ray tech Custer also stated the x-rays in evidence do not match what he took that day.

In the end I think the Parkland staffs testimony is very strong circumstantial evidence. combine this with 6 autopsy staff coo-berating the hole in the back and the claims of evidence tampering of the x-rays, notes and photographs by Custer, Sibert and  O'neill and I think you have plenty of circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on the official story.

Here is a link to volume 6 of the WC with all the doctors testimony. I can provide page numbers to all the testimony regarding the location of the wound. CASE CLOSED as the skeptics like to say.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting analysis, Chris, thanks for sharing it.

I once did a breakdown of the Parkland observations based on @Vince Palamara 's book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda", I'll have to see if I can find it again and compare notes. One of my main takeaways was that every medical professional at Parkland who observed Kennedy's anterior neck wound prior to the tracheostomy described it at the time as one of entrance. If I recall correctly only one doctor later wavered and said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound. Everyone else stuck to their story. And this story of an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's neck was so well known early on that Life magazine reported incorrectly that the (at the time still unseen by the public) Zapruder film showed Kennedy turned around in his seat and facing the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

In my opinion, part of the problem with assessing the evidence of a cover-up before making a judgement on the possibility of conspiracy is that "they" have tried to float the idea of a "benign cover-up" - that they were trying to cover their reputations after the fact, not hide their criminal behavior beforehand. The government agencies or entities that appear to have covered certain things up were simply embarrassed by their appearance of negligence prior to the assassination, so after the assassination they fudged things behind the scenes to make themselves appear less negligent. This was a theory Newsweek magazine tried to pitch in the '90's as a way of explaining what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating a cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crenshaw was blasted regards his "LBJ" call claim as well.

Where Crenshaw states that while attending to the wounded Oswald in Parkland, LBJ himself called and was put in direct phone contact with him and asks "how is the accused assassin doing?"

And LBJ then informs Crenshaw of a man in the trauma room who is ready to take a bedside confession from Oswald if possible. Crenshaw stated he turned and saw a man who was present as LBJ described.

Later one of the Parkland switchboard operators at the time of Oswald's admission and emergency treatment there ( proven as such and at that time ) came forward to verify the LBJ call as Crenshaw claimed did come through directly to him while he was attending to Oswald.

On the other hand, I don't recall reading about "anyone" of professional position credibility in Parkland at that exact time stating Crenshaw was incorrect about this LBJ call and with proof of their presence and position there.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Interesting analysis, Chris, thanks for sharing it.

I once did a breakdown of the Parkland observations based on @Vince Palamara 's book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda", I'll have to see if I can find it again and compare notes. One of my main takeaways was that every medical professional at Parkland who observed Kennedy's anterior neck wound prior to the tracheostomy described it at the time as one of entrance. If I recall correctly only one doctor later wavered and said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound. Everyone else stuck to their story. And this story of an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's neck was so well known early on that Life magazine reported incorrectly that the (at the time still unseen by the public) Zapruder film showed Kennedy turned around in his seat and facing the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

In my opinion, part of the problem with assessing the evidence of a cover-up before making a judgement on the possibility of conspiracy is that "they" have tried to float the idea of a "benign cover-up" - that they were trying to cover their reputations after the fact, not hide their criminal behavior beforehand. The government agencies or entities that appear to have covered certain things up were simply embarrassed by their appearance of negligence prior to the assassination, so after the assassination they fudged things behind the scenes to make themselves appear less negligent. This was a theory Newsweek magazine tried to pitch in the '90's as a way of explaining what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating a cover-up.

I assumed when they were pitching the benign cover up they weren't acknowledging a big hole in the back of the head. It seems you couldn't acknowledge that and still call it benign since it implies another shooter and a falsified autopsy. Unless they were saying the benign cover-up included faking some of the autopsy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

In my opinion, the chest tube problem is an even more compelling difference between Parkland and Bethesda.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/druq3a/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_6_chest_tubes/

I got through part of that article. Definitely not a quick read. I'll save it and sort it out later. Can you give a short summary of this? A page or a paragraph or a sentence that sums it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to understand how the Parkland doctors were treated by the WC and how their testimony was obtained. They were provided with a copy of the autopsy report to read BEFORE their testimony was taken which was intended to change their recollections. They had only seen the president for at best 20 minutes and had been forcused on saving his life. So the natural reaction was to believe that of their recollection was different from the autopsy, their recollection was wrong. They also were "pre-interviewed" by Spector who employed a variety of intimidation tactics. During depositions, Spector would go off the record when a doctor started veering off the desired path. Doctors were pressured during this period or told they were wrong. On other occasions, Spector would not follow-up and ignore bad answers.   Dr. Jones said that after his deposition, Spector told him they had witnesses who believed shots had come from the front, that the WC believed these witnesses were wrong and instructed Dr. Jones not to share this with anyone.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I got through part of that article. Definitely not a quick read. I'll save it and sort it out later. Can you give a short summary of this? A page or a paragraph or a sentence that sums it up

At least fourteen medical professionals from Parkland made statements indicating that tubes were inserted into the pleural cavity. Bethesda's Humes and Boswell, however, claimed there was no tear in the pleural cavity. So I think H&B may have been lying about the internal injuries they found in Kennedy's body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

At least fourteen medical professionals from Parkland made statements indicating that tubes were inserted into the pleural cavity. Bethesda's Humes and Boswell, however, claimed there was no tear in the pleural cavity. So I think H&B may have been lying about the internal injuries they found in Kennedy's body.

Okay I get the basic idea, thanks. I feel like I would need a lot more medical knowledge to formal educated opinion on this one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Okay I get the basic idea, thanks. I feel like I would need a lot more medical knowledge to formal educated opinion on this one

Both parties were more than qualified to determine whether the pleura was punctured. Which is why I think a cover-up appears more likely than a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Both parties were more than qualified to determine whether the pleura was punctured. Which is why I think a cover-up appears more likely than a mistake.

Cyril wecht made a big deal out of the fact that Humes was a desk jockey who had little experience in autopsy. I think the Skeptics would seize on this as a reason that dr. Humes might have made a mistake. I wouldn't know how to answer that claim without having some medical knowledge myself. So I'm in the woods on this, I just don't know what to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Larry.

Specter was the gatekeeper for anything that would indicate there was a real problem with that autopsy.  But also Elmer Moore.  He diid some groundwork for Specter at Parkland along with Roger Warner.

Moore was really a rightwing nut.  In addition to what he did to turn around the Parkland doctors, he eventually Warren's aide de camp. Some have said he was his bodyguard, but as the documents out of the ARRB as described by Speer and Aguilar indicate, it was much more than that.

I like the way Moore showed up at the Church Committee hearings with a lawyer in tow.

This is how valuable the ARRB was.  I mean I think Moore was an important part of the cover up.  But how many people heard of him before 1992 or wrote about him?  He i snot even listed in Benson's mini encyclopedia. Try and find him in Lifton's book.

The ARRB releases were  so important to elucidating this kind of stuff.  Not a word of it in the MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...