A little factoid about Parkland doctor Marion Jenkins

[Chris Bristow]

On 9/30/2021 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Chris B.--

I largely agree with you, but there has been some progress on recent decades regarding the JFKA.

1. CE 399 has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt by the work of Gary Aguilar, John Hunt, Josiah Thompson and others. The CE 399 bullet was almost certainly, and beyond reasonable doubt, entered into the evidentiary record by the FBI. 

2. A review of the Z film shows JBC was shot by about one second before Z-313, the fatal head shot. Ergo, the narrative of one gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle does not hold water. 

3. Recently re-surfaced are photos of the rear bullet hole in JBC's shirt, at the Texas Archives, but also excellently photographed by researcher Gary Murr. The bullet hole in the JBC shirt rear was measured by the Texas Archive at 3/8ths of an inch by 3/8ths of an inch, and that measurement was after cloth was removed for testing. Ergo, the tumbling bullet striking JBC on its long side narrative cannot hold water. The weight of evidence, again approaching the beyond reasonable doubt standard, is that JBC was shot directly, and from behind. 

4. Researchers such as Larry Hancock and John Newman have deepened the background on LHO and the Miami office of the CIA, through real primary document research and interviews. 

So, yes, the real story, the actual mechanics the JFKA remain agonizingly out of reach.  And yes, we often chase our tails here on the EF, and I plead guilty to some of that. 

BTW, Larry Hancock is preparing an article entitled "Red Bird" that will likely add to the understanding of the JFKA on practical levels. 

So, not all is wrong with the world. A lot, but not all.  Anyway, I felt like saying something positive. 

 

 

 

I always thought Nellie's and JBC's account combined with his turn around well after 226 while still clutching his hat, put the issue beyond reasonable doubt for me. Your piece on the lack of real evidence for the bullet tumbling was another great addition to the knowledge base. It also highlights the dishonesty of the WC and folks who supported that myth. Dr Shaw having done surgery on 900 WW2 solders is another great factoid that you noted.
 Personally I think John Costella's Stemmons pincushion distortion argument may be absolute measurable proof the Z film is tampered with. Even solid theories can fall as time goes on but no one has debunked it.  I keep looking for ways to test it and it always holds up.
 The other issue for me is Oswald's lean in 133a. The stance could be duplicated but you are on the verge of falling over and the right knee hurts bad. That is if you allow the right hip to angle back at 20 to 30 degrees. That has always been the standard and even the Dartmouth stability model put the hips back around 30 degrees.
But there are two measurements possible in 133a that both show the hips were almost straight forward, no more than 5 degrees angled. First as you move the right hip back your center line marked by the fly flap or the button above it skews off the to the right by 1 3/4 inches when the hip is just 22 degrees back. The fly flap in 133a shows the pants button is only 1/2 inch off center.
The second proof that gives the same result is the shadow of the telephone lines across Oswald's hips. It is 9 degrees off of the shadow on the ground that emerges from his hip  shadow. If Oswald was facing West (22 degrees away from the camera) the long axis of his hips would be parallel to the telephone lines and the shadow on his hips would also be parallel to the shadow on the ground from the cameras view. But turning his hips 22 degrees to face the camera causes the shadow to rise up 9 degrees relative to the ground shadow. This confirms his hips were facing almost directly towards the camera.
 Not angling the hips back at least 20 degrees makes the stance impossible. I think it takes it beyond reasonable doubt when you try to match the hip angle.
  I know people will point to photographs of the stance being duplicated but I have never found a case in which the parameters of the stance were correctly reproduced. the biggest fail is how far they swing the right foot out. when perspective distortion is accounted for his right foot swings 45 degrees out from the cameras view(The distortion causes it to read about 65 degrees). But if a person swings their foot way out to maybe 70 degrees it becomes very easy to exceed Oswald's lean because you can put weight on the ball of the right foot.
1) Right foot should be at 45 degrees
2)right shin should align under the right knee.
3)Center line of body at the waist(The pants button) should be no more than 1 inch to the right(Camera views right) of the vertical shin/knee alignment line.
4) The last and weirdest alignment is that although Oswald is leaning so far as to be almost falling over he does not counter balance his upper body at all! You can draw a line from his Adams apple right down to the waist and below the fly flap to the ground and when it passes the waist it is perfectly centered. This only happens when the upper body has no counter lean and when the hips are not angled back. So the straight line from throat to waist and through the fly flap is another proof of the hip angle. When you try to duplicate the stance and find how absurd it is the fact he does not counter balance at all is just nuts. Stand in a position where you are almost falling over and try not to automatically counter balance, it really is nuts.
 My original thread on this is a few years old so I had to rant about it again. I still think it is crazy and maybe measurable proof of the stance being impossible with the hips at 5 degrees angle. The graphic below illustrates the mechanics of the shadow angles. The diagrams on the left are overhead views of the photo on the right.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I always thought Nellie's and JBC's account combined with his turn around well after 226 while still clutching his hat, put the issue beyond reasonable doubt for me. Your piece on the lack of real evidence for the bullet tumbling was another great addition to the knowledge base. It also highlights the dishonesty of the WC and folks who supported that myth. Dr Shaw having done surgery on 900 WW2 solders is another great factoid that you noted.
 Personally I think John Costella's Stemmons pincushion distortion argument may be absolute measurable proof the Z film is tampered with. Even solid theories can fall as time goes on but no one has debunked it.  I keep looking for ways to test it and it always holds up.
 The other issue for me is Oswald's lean in 133a. The stance could be duplicated but you are on the verge of falling over and the right knee hurts bad. That is if you allow the right hip to angle back at 20 to 30 degrees. That has always been the standard and even the Dartmouth stability model put the hips back around 30 degrees.
But there are two measurements possible in 133a that both show the hips were almost straight forward, no more than 5 degrees angled. First as you move the right hip back your center line marked by the fly flap or the button above it skews off the to the right by 1 3/4 inches when the hip is just 22 degrees back. The fly flap in 133a shows the pants button is only 1/2 inch off center.
The second proof that gives the same result is the shadow of the telephone lines across Oswald's hips. It is 9 degrees off of the shadow on the ground that emerges from his hip  shadow. If Oswald was facing West (22 degrees away from the camera) the long axis of his hips would be parallel to the telephone lines and the shadow on his hips would also be parallel to the shadow on the ground from the cameras view. But turning his hips 22 degrees to face the camera causes the shadow to rise up 9 degrees relative to the ground shadow. This confirms his hips were facing almost directly towards the camera.
 Not angling the hips back at least 20 degrees makes the stance impossible. I think it takes it beyond reasonable doubt when you try to match the hip angle.
  I know people will point to photographs of the stance being duplicated but I have never found a case in which the parameters of the stance were correctly reproduced. the biggest fail is how far they swing the right foot out. when perspective distortion is accounted for his right foot swings 45 degrees out from the cameras view(The distortion causes it to read about 65 degrees). But if a person swings their foot way out to maybe 70 degrees it becomes very easy to exceed Oswald's lean because you can put weight on the ball of the right foot.
1) Right foot should be at 45 degrees
2)right shin should align under the right knee.
3)Center line of body at the waist(The pants button) should be no more than 1 inch to the right(Camera views right) of the vertical shin/knee alignment line.
4) The last and weirdest alignment is that although Oswald is leaning so far as to be almost falling over he does not counter balance his upper body at all! You can draw a line from his Adams apple right down to the waist and below the fly flap to the ground and when it passes the waist it is perfectly centered. This only happens when the upper body has no counter lean and when the hips are not angled back. So the straight line from throat to waist and through the fly flap is another proof of the hip angle. When you try to duplicate the stance and find how absurd it is the fact he does not counter balance at all is just nuts. Stand in a position where you are almost falling over and try not to automatically counter balance, it really is nuts.
 My original thread on this is a few years old so I had to rant about it again. I still think it is crazy and maybe measurable proof of the stance being impossible with the hips at 5 degrees angle. The graphic below illustrates the mechanics of the shadow angles. The diagrams on the left are overhead views of the photo on the right.

Go ahead and rant. Sometimes we have to do that. 

[Pat Speer]

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but my experience with doctors--both those involved in JFK research and those involved in my cancer treatment--has led me to believe--no, scratch that...KNOW--that doctors frequently talk out of their butts and use big words in an effort to show how smart they are, when they are frequently relying upon mis-impressions and faulty memories.

There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back.

Now, about the back. I've done a lot of reading and thinking and writing about this and it's quite clear that people say the back of the head when they mean the top and/or side of the head, particularly if the blow came from behind. I was mugged once and the bastard kept hitting me on the back of the head, except when we looked at the cut his ring left on my head the cut was right behind my right ear--which most would call the side of the head. 

So, yep, unfortunately, a lot of the confusion about the medical evidence comes from the imprecision of language, and people wanting to believe doctors are above such imprecision. When experience tells me the opposite...that doctors are no more likely to be precisely correct about such things as your average layman...

 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but my experience with doctors--both those involved in JFK research and those involved in my cancer treatment--has led me to believe--no, scratch that...KNOW--that doctors frequently talk out of their butts and use big words in an effort to show how smart they are, when they are frequently relying upon mis-impressions and faulty memories.

There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back.

Now, about the back. I've done a lot of reading and thinking and writing about this and it's quite clear that people say the back of the head when they mean the top and/or side of the head, particularly if the blow came from behind. I was mugged once and the bastard kept hitting me on the back of the head, except when we looked at the cut his ring left on my head the cut was right behind my right ear--which most would call the side of the head. 

So, yep, unfortunately, a lot of the confusion about the medical evidence comes from the imprecision of language, and people wanting to believe doctors are above such imprecision. When experience tells me the opposite...that doctors are no more likely to be precisely correct about such things as your average layman...

 

 

 

 

Pat, this is long but only the first part is in response to your post. I go on to address other popular Parkland issues for whoever is interested.
Dr Grossman made the same point that the term occipital is used in a general way to mean back of the head. This argument does not hold water when trying to explain the Parkland issue. First, most of The Parkland staff used the more specific term 'occipital parietal'. Second many of them have been photographed showing the location and others have done drawings.
  Whatever term they used they disagreed with the official location. The Parkland issue would have been resolved decades ago if it was just a matter of loose terms being used.   The first time any of those doctors saw the official location they would have simply said "Yes that's the location I meant regardless of the term I used at the time." But they do not agree with the official location to this day. It was not just confusion regarding what they meant to indicate. 
 Regarding Dr Jenkins letter calling the wound temporal and occipital I find it strange that he would not use the term parietal since the official wound was almost all in the parietal.
 There are several hypothesis about the staff not being good at anatomy or not having the time to locate the wound or not being accurate because JFK was in a supline posture. I know you did not mention the supline position but I mention that argument because I want to point out that pretty much every patient that they have treated in the ER was in a supline position. So it does not make sense that his posture would throw them all off.
 Because 20 of 25 staff who claimed to see the wound disagreed with the official location I find very unlikely that they would all place the wound in similar positions within a couple inches if they were all mistaken. I'm sure we would agree sometimes some people talk out their ass but 20 of 25 is far too many staff to claim they were just all talking out their ass. I have heard similar arguments like 'they just lied" or "they got it wrong and were so embarrassed that they continued the lie for decades".  To support these arguments there has to be more than a hypothesis about the doctors lack of integrity. There has to be examples of these doctors and staff being dishonest in the past. But not just accusations against a few of them. I would accept that maybe as high as 4 out of every 20 people may have the lack of character needed to lie. But that fails to explain 20 of 25. It does not even start to explain the high numbers. All the explanations are unsupported ad hominem hypothesis with nothing to support the fact that 20 of 25 lied or all made the same mistake.
 I do not see how your example about your own head injury adds to your point. If you were hit in the back of head many times it is likely that at least one hit glanced off after hitting the back of the head or just missed the head and raked your ear. If you had injuries in both places it could simply mean you were hit in both places. If you mean you thought the strikes were back of the head but were on the side it is just the impressions you experienced while being beaten. What your body told you was happening is a world apart from the doctors looking at a persons wounds.
   There is no plausible explanation for the high number of staff that disagreed with the official version. 20 staff is too high a number to be explained away as them being dishonest or bad at anatomy.

I'm going to touch on some very popular skeptics claims that you did not bring up.
If you have an opinion feel free but I am not posing theses question as a challenge for you to address.

The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound.
1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response.
2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat.
3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL!
 How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the  monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal?
 Many skeptics point to the sound bites from the famous Nova doc of the doctors at the National Archives inspecting the x-rays and or photos. Dr's Jenkins and McClellend explain why they would not have looked closely at the wound. But Dr McCellend was referring to the beginning when they were trying to establish the airway and breath. He is right it is unethical and irresponsible to go looking at the head when they are still trying get the patient breathing. In Dr Jenkin's sound bite he says it would have been wrong to inspect the head wound but he specifically says 'after the president was dead'. Those two soundbites mislead people because Clark's head wound inspection was after inserting the tracheotomy tube  and before he was pronounced dead.
 Often Dr Perry's statement that he was not able to do a detailed examination is used to prove they never got a close enough look to really see the head wound. Dr Perry starts the sentence with the word "but". That is often left out of the quote. Perry first gives a very accurate description of the wound consistent with the other reports and testimonies, it's location and size, its avulsed nature and the brain tissue being visible. Then he continues with "But I was not able to do a detailed examination." That fact he says he did not do a 'detailed' examination, yet still provided all those facts that corroborate the other staff members, should prove that a detailed examination was not needed to located and describe the wound.
 Some claim they got the location wrong because the scalp was shoved back. But the fact that JFK's face and right ear were not mutilated or displaced gave  the Dr's an easy road map to the location of the wound relative to the ear.
 Last point is about the variance of the exact location by different staff members. I have a clip(Can't find it right now) of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. When his hands first touch his head it is very low temporal occipital. Then as he feels his fingers on the back of his head he readjusts the wound upwards twice and ends up about 2 1/2 inches higher. I saw a similar thing with Aubrey Bell. When they have to feel around on their head for the right location it suggests  the wound location can vary some even when they all looked at the same patient.
We should expect them to vary a bit but none of them come close to the official location even when you allow for the variance. For all of them the bottom of the wound was nowhere near the official location.  in the well known image of a dozen staff from Parkland and Bethesdsa the skeptics point to Theran Ward because it looks like he is pointing to the right ear as the location. In his statement he said the wound was in the back of the head(He was not a doctor) and never mentions the ear. But I think it is clear he is touching the wound location with his 4 fingers and is landing on the mastoid. That puts the palm of his hand over the ear but his own words support where the 4 fingers were touching.

 
 
 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Chris Bristow

[David Lifton]

On 11/15/2020 at 5:49 PM, Chris Bristow said:

As I recall O'Connor said he noticed most of the brain missing as soon as he unwrapped JFk's head.

DSL Response, 10/02/2021 6:30 PM PDT: Outside of the HSCA, I believe I was the first person to interview the late Paul O'Connor, a Bethesda medical technician present at JFK's autopsy, on the night of 11/22/21. 

  The date  of my interview --a phone interview --was late August, 1979.  I concealed from O'Connor the tremendous legal significance of his observations, because I did not want my questions to frighten him, or effect his responses.   O'Connor told me that --when the body bag in which KFK's body arrived was opened, "the cranium was empty."  This information was so critical that my publisher --Macmillan -- agreed to finance a re-interview, this time (October 1980) a professionally filmed interview with O'Connor.  The film was to be utilized when my book was published (Jan. 1981) .   The result was a 37 minute documentary film, now available on the Internet.  (See: "Best Evidence: The Research Video.")

A cautionary note:  Some years after  Best Evidence was published (in January 1981) --O'Connor was invited to a number of JFK research conferences; by which point he had transformed himself from an important -- but rather shy -  witness, to an important "researcher" in his own right.  

The result:  when asked to comment, he was no longer the "naive witness" that I had interviewed .  He now was a "media star" of sorts.  He had his own views, and was not shy about expressing them.   Of course, I would have preferred if O'Connor remained the "naive witness" that he was when I first  met him. but life moves on.   Paul O'Connor died in August 2006.

Edited October 3, 2021 by David Lifton

[John Deignan]

David,

  What happened when you interviewed James Jenkins? I know his story differed on the brain but did his story also waiver when talking to you?

 Thanks,

    John

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

DSL Response, 10/02/2021 6:30 PM PDT: Outside of the HSCA, I believe I was the first person to interview the late Paul O'Connor, a Bethesda medical technician present at JFK's autopsy, on the night of 11/22/21. 

  The date  of my interview --a phone interview --was late August, 1979.  I concealed from O'Connor the tremendous legal significance of his observations, because I did not want my questions to frighten him, or effect his responses.   O'Connor told me that --when the body bag in which KFK's body arrived was opened, "the cranium was empty."  This information was so critical that my publisher --Macmillan -- agreed to finance a re-interview, this time (October 1980) a professionally filmed interview with O'Connor.  The film was to be utilized when my book was published (Jan. 1981) .   The result was a 37 minute documentary film, now available on the Internet.  (See: "Best Evidence: The Research Video.")

A cautionary note:  Some years after  Best Evidence was published (in January 1981) --O'Connor was invited to a number of JFK research conferences; by which point he had transformed himself from an important -- but rather shy -  witness, to an important "researcher" in his own right.  

The result:  when asked to comment, he was no longer the "naive witness" that I had interviewed .  He now was a "media star" of sorts.  He had his own views, and was not shy about expressing them.   Of course, I would have preferred if O'Connor remained the "naive witness" that he was when I first  met him. but life moves on.   Paul O'Connor died in August 2006.

I have never tried to unravel the strange varying reports of people present at the autopsy. The timeline of who left then returned or the observation of the body before and after Custer and other were asked to temporarily leave is confusing. How Jenkins ends up weighing  a nearly complete brain when Connor said the brain was mostly gone is a mystery. 

[John Butler]

Chris,

Many years ago, during my misspent youth in college, I took a psychology class, Physiological Psychology, in which we studied the human head, bones of the skull, brain structures and functions (as known at that time), major blood vessels, and nerves of the brain, spinal cord, and body, both pyramidal and extrapyramidal.

That said, my memory of those things is very shallow.  But, upon thinking about and researching those memories came back.  Well, enough to be useful.  So, when you said,

“The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound.
1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response.
2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat.
3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL!
 How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the  monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal?”

Dr. Clark was correct on the wound call.  IMO, he could have called this at the first instance.  The first statement about not getting any muscular or neurological response and no heart beat is due to the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum were destroyed.  Dr. Clark knew this from the very beginning.  If I am recalling correctly, some of the doctors at Parkland noticed a portion of the cerebellum protruding or at least visible through the wound cavity at the occipital/parietal area.  The following description from the Encyclopedia Britannica:  

“Brainstem, area at the base of the brain that lies between the deep structures of the cerebral hemispheres and the cervical spinal cord and that serves a critical role in regulating certain involuntary actions of the body, including heartbeat and breathing. The brainstem is divided into three sections in humans: the midbrain (mesencephalon), the pons (metencephalon), and the medulla oblongata (myelencephalon).

The brainstem houses many of the control centres for vital body functions, such as swallowing, breathing, and vasomotor control. All of the cranial nerve nuclei, except those associated with olfaction and vision, are located in the brainstem, providing motor and sensory function to structures of the cranium, including the facial muscles, tongue, pharynx, and larynx, as well as supplying the senses of taste, equilibrium, and hearing. The brainstem also has nuclei important for sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic functions. All efferent and afferent pathways between the cerebrum and cerebellum course through the brainstem, and many of them decussate, or cross, within this structure.”

In other words, you can’t live with the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum destroyed.  Things in the body will simply not work due to nerve damage in that area.

The moment President Kennedy was shot in the head he was killed.  It may have taken the body a few moments to realize that.  Essentially, he was dead on arrival at Parkland.  The Parkland Doctors did what they were trained to do in trying to resuscitate the body, but it was a hopeless cause.  Dr. Clark called a halt to the proceedings when, I would say, most knew the outcome of their efforts.

I made this statement long ago to a somewhat hostile reception.  I will repeat it again.  President Kennedy was shot and killed at the moment that rifle round went through his head.  The major functions of his brain was destroyed.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Many years ago, during my misspent youth in college, I took a psychology class, Physiological Psychology, in which we studied the human head, bones of the skull, brain structures and functions (as known at that time), major blood vessels, and nerves of the brain, spinal cord, and body, both pyramidal and extrapyramidal.

That said, my memory of those things is very shallow.  But, upon thinking about and researching those memories came back.  Well, enough to be useful.  So, when you said,

“The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound.
1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response.
2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat.
3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL!
 How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the  monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal?”

Dr. Clark was correct on the wound call.  IMO, he could have called this at the first instance.  The first statement about not getting any muscular or neurological response and no heart beat is due to the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum were destroyed.  Dr. Clark knew this from the very beginning.  If I am recalling correctly, some of the doctors at Parkland noticed a portion of the cerebellum protruding or at least visible through the wound cavity at the occipital/parietal area.  The following description from the Encyclopedia Britannica:  

“Brainstem, area at the base of the brain that lies between the deep structures of the cerebral hemispheres and the cervical spinal cord and that serves a critical role in regulating certain involuntary actions of the body, including heartbeat and breathing. The brainstem is divided into three sections in humans: the midbrain (mesencephalon), the pons (metencephalon), and the medulla oblongata (myelencephalon).

The brainstem houses many of the control centres for vital body functions, such as swallowing, breathing, and vasomotor control. All of the cranial nerve nuclei, except those associated with olfaction and vision, are located in the brainstem, providing motor and sensory function to structures of the cranium, including the facial muscles, tongue, pharynx, and larynx, as well as supplying the senses of taste, equilibrium, and hearing. The brainstem also has nuclei important for sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic functions. All efferent and afferent pathways between the cerebrum and cerebellum course through the brainstem, and many of them decussate, or cross, within this structure.”

In other words, you can’t live with the brainstem and portions of the cerebellum destroyed.  Things in the body will simply not work due to nerve damage in that area.

The moment President Kennedy was shot in the head he was killed.  It may have taken the body a few moments to realize that.  Essentially, he was dead on arrival at Parkland.  The Parkland Doctors did what they were trained to do in trying to resuscitate the body, but it was a hopeless cause.  Dr. Clark called a halt to the proceedings when, I would say, most knew the outcome of their efforts.

I made this statement long ago to a somewhat hostile reception.  I will repeat it again.  President Kennedy was shot and killed at the moment that rifle round went through his head.  The major functions of his brain was destroyed.

I think several doctors had stated it was hopeless from the start. But you're not going to just give up on the president without going through the motions. They agreed the wound was mortal so to me it doesn't matter much exactly when they consider him dead  or what qualifications they put on declaring him dead. The wound being mortal he was as good as dead from frame 313 on.