JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[James DiEugenio]

Pat, its in The Parkland Doctors.

If you have not seen the show its because it got pulled.  CBS had an option on it.  The problem was the guy who wrote the option was Leslie Moonves.  And when he left, the project was not picked up.  The reason I got to see it was because when we were doing the film, Tanenbaum showed it to me, since he is the host of the program. 

Martin Steadman was a reporter for the NY Herald Tribune at the time of the assassination.  Anyone can find that article online.  But that info is backed up by what Dr. Donald Miller says in JFK Revisited.  Which, of course, matches the transcript which the Secret service lied about. I really don't know how many sources one needs on this.

 

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I got sucked into this thread because I didn't remember McClelland telling the ARRB that an "agent" told Perry not to say the throat wound appeared to be an entrance. I looked back through McClelland/Perry's joint interview with the ARRB and didn't find McClelland saying as much. Instead, I found McClelland's insistence the phone call with Humes took place on Saturday, mid-morning. If you could point out where McClelland said he saw an agent grab Perry I would be appreciative.

Now, in an attempt to be clear, let me explain what I think happened. The doctors were told by their supervisors not to talk too much or share too many details about what they witnessed, beyond the basics of the President's care. This is not surprising. This is what one would expect from a prestigious hospital. I have spent much of the last year in a hospital and I would expect the doctors engaged in my treatment to keep mum for the most part, and not attempt to gain any publicity from my illness or any other patient's illness. So that was one form of pressure brought to bear on the doctors.

Secondly, there was the Secret Service. The Secret Service, in the form of Elmer Moore, thought the doctors should know that, according to the autopsy, the throat wound was officially an exit wound. He later expressed concern he was wrong in doing so. But it's really simple when you think about it. There was a lot of conflicting info in the press. The SS and Moore thought they could minimize this by bringing the Parkland doctors in the loop and did so. Now, was this pressure? One might see it that way. But one might also see it as someone telling you you have toilet paper on your shoe, or that your fly is open. The Parkland staff, it seems to me, were appreciative of Moore's visit, and not fearful. To repeat myself, doctors routinely defer to the expertise of others. Perry's subsequent statements make clear he thought the throat wound looked like an entrance, but was willing to believe it was an exit. Even late in life, long after he'd acknowledged it could have been an exit, he insisted that it did look like an entrance. In other words, he felt his mistake was not in his observation, but in sharing his speculation with the media. The observations of ER doctors are not conclusions. They don't have time to make conclusions. They do their best to keep the patient alive. It is the job of pathologists and coroners to establish the exact cause of death. Now, not to get side-tracked, but, much as Cyril Wecht has challenged his fellow pathologists to find a bullet believed to have done as much damage as CE 399 and to have remained so pristine, I have challenged my fellow researchers to find one instance where the recollections of an emergency room doctor were presented in court to challenge the findings of a pathologist or coroner. And have received no response. And there's a reason why. It does not happen. An emergency room doctor challenging the findings of a pathologist or coroner in a court of law would be shredded by the opposing lawyer. What is your expertise? How many autopsies have you performed? How long did you study the patient? Did you open him up and study the bullet trajectories? Did you even turn the body over? 

Third, there's the WC. Specter's job was to make things add up. He knew there were problems. So he constructed a ludicrous question asking the Parkland staff if, assuming the bullet traveled on the trajectory outlined in the autopsy protocol, they would accept that the bullet traveled on the trajectory outlined in the autopsy protocol. It was a meaningless question, but it created the illusion there was no dispute about the throat wound, etc. Now, was this pressure? Of course it was. But did the doctors see it as much? Most would say no. Evidently he was charming and polite and just doing his job, which was to shut doors, not open them. 

And then there's what came after. What a lot of researchers miss is that many witnesses have succumbed to pressure from the research community. I personally witnessed people try to bully James Jenkins into saying the back of the head was missing, which he vehemently denied, only to later publish a book in which he succumbed to their pressure and wrote that the back of the head was missing. McClelland is another example. He demonstrated on camera his best recollection of the wound location numerous times. And always placed the wound at the top of the back of the head, within two inches or so of where he'd placed it before. And then later in life he sold (?) or provided drawings to people in which he depicted the wound on the far back of the head, at the level of the ear, which is to say low on the back of the head, inches lower than where he'd previously placed the wound. Well, why would he do this? Because that's where it is shown in the so-called "McClelland" drawing, a drawing made for Tink Thompson based on McClelland's testimony, the accuracy of which McClelland would disavow when asked by The Boston Globe and ARRB. Late in life, after becoming a darling for the CT community, however, he not only told people he had helped create the drawing for Thompson (which Thompson confirmed on this forum was simply not true) but that he drew it himself. And so, yeah, one can now find drawings by McClelland on eBay purporting to show where he saw the wound that closely mirrors the location shown in a drawing he did not create...whose accuracy he had previously disavowed.

Now, did McClelland give in to pressure? You bet he did. It's human nature. My beef is that so many on my side of the fence, which is to say the CT side of the fence, are unwilling to recognize their double-standard--where every time a witness tells a government investigator or an Oswald did-it writer what he wants to hear that person is giving in to pressure, but every time a witness tells a CT writer what he wants to hear he/she is a courageous truth-teller. It's just not so. People try to please those questioning them, and people are highly prone to suggestion. So, if a writer approaches a witness and says "Hey, all the other witnesses said they saw blank, did you see blank?" it's highly likely the witness would say "Y'know, I think I saw blank." (There's a ton of clinical studies demonstrating this tendency, many of which I discuss on my website.) In other words, the latter-day statements of witnesses can not be taken at face value, and must be weighed against previous statements, with added weight to their earliest statements.  

 

Much of your response is your personal opinion of peoples behavior and motivations. I don't agree with a number of points.
"The doctors were told by their supervisors not to talk too much or share too many details about what they witnessed, beyond the basics of the President's care. This is not surprising"
 Yes but asking a doctor not to talk about the neck wound is too specific not to be considered pressure regarding a specific aspect of his testimony.

  "There was a lot of conflicting info in the press. The SS and Moore thought they could minimize this by bringing the Parkland doctors in the loop and did so. Now, was this pressure? "
 What was not conflicting was the opinion that the wound was "occipital parietal" or more generally 'Right posterior". That was the large majority speaking. That would be more like witness tampering if he asked them to agree with the autopsy.

"The observations of ER doctors are not conclusions. They don't have time to make conclusions. They do their best to keep the patient alive. It is the job of pathologists and coroners to establish the exact cause of death"
 This is an often used argument that ignores the fundamental premise of the CT. It is because the Parkland accounts stand in stark contrast to the autopsy, and because they are consistent in doing so, that it raises  doubt about the authenticity of the autopsy.
 So yes we would usually defer to the pathologists at Bethesda, but not in this case. First someone has to give a credible explanation for all those Parkland staff members making the same mistake, give or take and inch or two. I have heard all the explanations and they all fall flat, mostly due to the WC testimony.

"Now, did McClelland give in to pressure? You bet he did. It's human nature. My beef is that so many on my side of the fence, which is to say the CT side of the fence, are unwilling to recognize their double-standard-."
  Did McClelland give in to pressure? cases like this are pure conjecture on your part. But you still conclude "You bet he did."  You base it on him putting the wound a couple inches higher in the beginning then altering it later. The accounts of the wounds vary by a couple inches vertically throughout the Parkland accounts. I once saw a video of Jones in which he puts his hand on the back of his head then re adjusts it upward twice before he feels the right location with his fingers. They should be expected to vary some but even with that 2 inch variation they all put the wound in the rear. The autopsy shows no hole anywhere near their locations.
 Witnesses can give false answers to go along with the crowd. But in the case of these medical professionals who are at the center of a controversy it is less likely they will be willing to start making things up. And if McClelland did make up or imagine the incident about the agent grabbing and threatening Perry, why did Perry sit there silently and not discount or at least question Dr McClelland? Best guess would be because it did happen.
    They were coerced, they lied to go along with the crowd, they were too busy to really see the wound, all this is just  conjecture and refuted by their sworn testimony at the WC.
  Dr Clark who located the wound in the occipital parietal in his notes from 11/22 undeniably took a close inspection of the brain. This was corroborated by many doctors like Perry, Peters, Bashour and Clark himself in the WC testimony. He declared the wound "mortal" as he and Jenkins stood there inspecting it. The word mortal is definitive. It means he inspected the wound closely enough to conclude JFK was as good as dead. The very next thing he did was to instruct the staff to stop the resuscitation efforts! The claim they never got a good look when Dr Clark literally gave up on JFK immediately after declaring the head wound as "mortal" is obviously wrong. I think when it comes to the head wound location Dr Clarks testimony is an utter refutation of the false notion that   "They don't have time to make conclusions."
 I will look for the quote from McClelland about Perry, I never saved it but saw it recently.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

22 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I have combed through every Crenshaw statement, and I could not find one instance of him claiming to have knowledge of a specific cover-up. Just Dr. Baxter's self-admitted ban on commercial benefit, and the Secret Service agents explaining to them the autopsy conclusions. Crenshaw always said that the "conspiracy of silence" he was referring to was fearing for their careers.

I never read his book and have never seen any of the claims he was said to have made. Don't know who said what but would like to see some verification that the other doctors talked trash about him as is claimed.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat, its in The Parkland Doctors.

If you have not seen the show its because it got pulled.  CBS had an option on it.  The problem was the guy who wrote the option was Leslie Moonves.  And when he left, the project was not picked up.  The reason I got to see it was because when we were doing the film, Tanenbaum showed it to me, since he is the host of the program. 

Martin Steadman was a reporter for the NY Herald Tribune at the time of the assassination.  Anyone can find that article online.  But that info is backed up by what Dr. Donald Miller says in JFK Revisited.  Which, of course, matches the transcript which the Secret service lied about. I really don't know how many sources one needs on this.

 

But who said it? I strongly suspect it was not Perry.

FWIW, I was at the Lancer Conference when three of the doctors interviewed for the Parkland Doctors were in attendance.  I talked with them after their presentation. Dr. Joe Goldstrich indicated that he didn't get a view of the head wound. But doctors Kenneth Salyer and Peter Loeb both said they got a look at the head wound and said it was on the right side of the head, where it is shown in the autopsy photos. 

Within the hour of my conversation with these men, I had talks with William Newman and James Jenkins. They also claimed the large wound they saw was on the top right side of the head where it is shown in the autopsy photos. So that was 4 for 4. 4 witnesses. 4 men telling me they did not believe the autopsy photos were fakes, and that people believe they are because "people will believe what they want to believe," to quote Jenkins. 

So much for the supposed unanimity of the early witnesses to Kennedy's head wound. It's smoke. People cherry-pick latter-day witnesses like Crenshaw, Bell and O'Donnell because it helps them believe what they want to believe. But we should do better. When one studies the medical evidence under the assumption it is authentic it is incredibly clear there were two head wounds, and that more than one shooter is likely. So no "faking" of the evidence was needed. Not when men like Humes, Fisher and Baden et al were willing to ignore the facts before them and concoct ridiculous scenarios in which one bullet hit the back and exited the neck, and one bullet transited the skull. 

[Ron Bulman]

On 1/20/2022 at 9:15 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Both times I "watched" JFK Revisited were late in the evening.  The first I was very sleepy the last quarter or so.  The second I dozed off somewhere in the last third.  This afternoon I watched it again, fully awake all the way through!  As I mentioned in another post, there is a Lot of info in it (even just the 2/3-3/4 I'd really watched before).

From the first watching I did remember appreciating seeing Jim Gochenauer interviewed and confirming what I'd read before about his conversations with SSA Elmer Moore pressuring Dr. Malcom Perry to change his story about the front throat entrance wound.

This kind of hit home with me regarding the only personal contact I ever had with anyone actually involved in the in the activities on 11/22/63.  About 12-15 years ago Dr. Robert McLelland came to Tarleton State University to give a talk on his assisting Dr. Perry with the tracheotomy/tracheostomy and other observations.  This took place in the Nursing building auditorium which holds mabe 200, across the reflecting pool from where I worked in the Science building.  

I got there early for a good seat on the third row (slightly elevated, not in his face).  When he showed up about 10 minutes early, after others had greeted him I went down and did so too. After I introduced myself by name and as a University employee I thanked him for coming.  Then said, If I leave before you're done I don't mean to be rude but I'm supposed to meet my wife in an hour and couldn't reach her to tell her I might be late.  He said oh, ok and actually thanked me for coming. 

The place filled up.  SRO, people sitting in the aisle, standing against the wall.  He talked about the exit wound he saw in the back, where, the size.  Assisting Dr. Perry, more.  I was enthralled.  I didn't leave (my wife wasn't mad as she understood my obsession).

When done and he asked if there were any questions I stuck my arm up.  He pointed to me first, surprising me.

I said well, uhm Dr. McLelland, Dr. Perry said the afternoon of the assassination in a press conference Three times the wound in the throat was an entrance wound.  He later said it could have been an exit wound.  Do you think anyone influenced his change in opinion from his initial observation?

He paused several seconds.  When he said Yes, there was an audible gasp in the hall.   

When I created the above post it got too long with my story about Dr. McLelland for the rest of what I wanted to say regarding Gochenauer and Moore.

Being sleepy near the end the first time watching JFK Revisited then dozing off the second I didn't realize Gochenauer is interviewed twice in it.  The first part about Moore and Perry I'd read of before, see above.

The second part, near the end was news to me.  Gochenauer asks Moore if he ever heard of another attempt on JFK in Chicago.  He says yeah.  He then asks him if he ever heard of a suspect named Vallee.  Moore pulls his gun out, lays it on the table and loudly asks, Jim, who are you working for?  Jim says I'm just a graduate student, an independent researcher.  Moore says Washington wouldn't let me see the file on him.  Jim asks if he'd ever heard of an Abraham Bolden.  Moore after a long pause says "we finally got him".  Got who? 

From memory (the third time, early afternoon) and very brief notes.  Correction appreciated.

It seems to confirm a Chicago plot.  The earlier interview in the film confirms other reports regarding Perry.  Gochenauer seems sincere and honest, not out to make a buck or seeking fame.  

Moore did go to Dallas and talk to the doctors.  Then he became Earl Warren's best buddy on the Warren Omission until it was over.

  

[Micah Mileto]

On 1/23/2022 at 4:16 PM, Pat Speer said:

O.K. Back to square one. Where did Perry say he received threatening calls on the night of the shooting? It seems to me this is all second-hand info received decades after the fact. I've watched and read a number of Perry interviews and have no recollection of him saying such a thing. 

As to the disappearance of the Parkland transcript, I agree, this was no coincidence. But it wasn't because those making it disappear knew the shots came from the front, but because they were concerned what the public might think if Perry's initial perception was made public. So Specter put on a show, and "helped" Perry pretend the newspaper articles quoting him had misquoted him. It was all part of a dog and pony show. But it's silly, IMO, to pretend this was all part of the plot to kill the President. There was the plot to kill the President and then there was a coordinated effort to make Oswald look like a lone assassin. I see them as two separate events, with those involved in the second event not privy to what really happened, and presumably believing Oswald actually did the crime. 

Do you suspect that some of the early "entry wound in the forehead" news reports were an unintended artifact of trying to convince people AGAINST a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza?

Edited January 25, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Russ Baker did a nice series on JFK at Who What Why?

Thanks Russ.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/why-were-revisiting-the-jfk-assassination/

As for Pat Speer, I don't know who one gets around those drawings the ARRB declassified. That is not smoke. And anyone who expects Perry to call a public press conference and say, I was intimidated out of my story is simply not being realistic about how this process works.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Paul Bleau, the guy who talked about the Chicago and Tampa plots in the film, is going great guns in Quebec.

He had two stories about him and the film in regional papers and now he was on Radio X in Quebec CIty, which has nearly 500,000 listeners.

And Ron, I had no idea Jim Gocheanaur was going to say some of the stuff he did on the program.  Oliver did most of the interviews, but I did that one.  But what Jim was saying was so interesting that Oliver came out of his office, and for a few minutes, we both conducted that interview. 

There will be even more from him in the book. 

 

PS Paul is now getting TV COVERAGE in Quebec.  Look at this, he is on for over three minutes starting at the 6:20 mark.  Wish I knew French.

https://www.noovo.ca/emissions/noovo-le-fil-quebec-50211/le-fil-quebec-24-01-2022-lactualite-par-noovo-info-s2e96

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

This is actually a series of pieces on Revisited.  Five of them, the opening by Russ Baker (Family Of Secrets).  Then one by Dick Russell (the Man Who Knew Too Much) and another by Peter Janey (Mary's Mosaic).  Two more coming on Wednesday and Thursday.

Why We’re Revisiting the JFK Assassination - WhoWhatWhy

Why 'JFK Revisited' Is Necessary - WhoWhatWhy

On JFK: Washington Post Deserves Pinocchio Award - WhoWhatWhy

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Russ Baker did a nice series on JFK at Who What Why?

Thanks Russ.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/why-were-revisiting-the-jfk-assassination/

As for Pat Speer, I don't know who one gets around those drawings the ARRB declassified. That is not smoke. And anyone who expects Perry to call a public press conference and say, I was intimidated out of my story is simply not being realistic about how this process works.

 

ARRB drawings? Like this one, where Custer specified that the top and back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp, but that the occipital bone was intact?

 

Or these ones, where Crenshaw and Bell demonstrated that they had no understanding of anatomy?

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

So much for the supposed unanimity of the early witnesses to Kennedy's head wound.

 

Oh really? Well....

Let's look at what the medical professionals at Parkland hospital said:

Note 1: "Occipital" refers to the lower back of the head. "Temporal" refers to the low area around the ear.

Note 2:  As can be read below, nearly all the Parkland professionals said early on that the gaping wound was at the lower back of the head. But some changed their minds when it came to their attention that the Warren Commission contradicted them, saying that the gaping wound was at the top of the head.

 

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)

😎 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.

Credit: Dr. Gary Aguilar

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

People cherry-pick latter-day witnesses like Crenshaw, Bell and O'Donnell because it helps them believe what they want to believe.

 

I think it's clear

that it is Pat Speer

who's doing the cherry picking around here

 

(I'm a poet and don't know it.  😋)

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I think it's clear

that it is Pat Speer

who's doing the cherry picking around here

 

(I'm a poet and don't know it.  😋)

 

You couldn't be more wrong, Sandy. While I'm friends with Dr. Aguilar I decided to double-check his list of "back of the head" witnesses 15 years ago or so, and was extremely annoyed that John McAdams was largely correct on this point and that many of the statements had been taken out of context, or only told part of the story. I then took another look at Groden's "back of the head photos" and realized that these witnesses were for the most part not pointing to the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing, and that the location many of them were pointing to was as close or closer to the wound location shown in the autopsy photos than the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing. Around this time, Tink Thompson joined this forum and confirmed, moreover, that McClelland had had nothing to do with the creation of the McClelland drawing, beyond that an artist had made the drawing in an attempt to depict the wound described by McClelland in his testimony. Well, this was a problem seeing as McClelland had in recent years become a darling of the CT research community, whilst simultaneously claiming he'd either drawn the McClelland drawing himself, or had advised Thompson on the creation of the drawing. And here was Thompson confirming that the man's memory was shot. I then started wondering if the so-called blow-out wound on the back of the head was a CT myth, much as the single bullet "fact" was an LN myth. I spent six months reading dozens if not hundreds of articles on cognitive psychology and memory, and consulted with two of the top professors in this field. This convinced me that the impressions of some of the doctors could have been mistaken, and that the other doctors could have been engaged in group-think. This became clearer when I started writing about this topic in chapters 18c and 18d. I found that, oh by gosh by golly, the only "back of the head witnesses" to place the head wound below the level of the ear on the back of the head were witnesses who made no early statements, and who were almost certainly familiar with the McClelland drawing prior to their ever demonstrating the wound location. While writing these chapters, moreover, I also came to realize that Harry Livingstone and Robert Groden had been grossly deceptive in their presentation of the back of the head witnesses in their books. While researching Livingstone, for example, I discovered that many of the Parkland witnesses were shown the autopsy photos and McClelland drawing in the early 80's, and thought the autopsy photos more accurate. Well, this was the opposite of what Livingstone and Groden had reported. Even worse, I later came to realize that Groden had found an autopsy photo showing a large head wound on the back of a head, and had then photo-shopped this wound onto a photo of the back of Kennedy's head, and had then sold this image from his stand in Dealey Plaza while claiming it was a previously unseen photo of Kennedy before the doctoring of the official autopsy photos. 

In short, then, I acknowledge that there is some disagreement on the location of Kennedy's large head wound. But the idea that ALL the witnesses placed it in the same spot, and this spot is shown in the McClelland drawing, is just not true. It is also crystal freaking clear that the widespread belief the medical evidence is fake is a huge red herring preventing people from realizing that the autopsy photos and x-rays when assumed to be authentic are clear-cut evidence for multiple head shots, and almost certainly multiple shooters. 

 

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 I then took another look at Groden's "back of the head photos" and realized that these witnesses were for the most part not pointing to the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing, and that the location many of them were pointing to was as close or closer to the wound location shown in the autopsy photos than the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing. Around this time, Tink Thompson joined this forum and confirmed, moreover, that McClelland had had nothing to do with the creation of the McClelland drawing, beyond that an artist had made the drawing in an attempt to depict the wound described by McClelland in his testimony. Well, this was a problem seeing as McClelland had in recent years become a darling of the CT research community, whilst simultaneously claiming he'd either drawn the McClelland drawing himself, or had advised Thompson on the creation of the drawing. And here was Thompson confirming that the man's memory was shot.

 

If this bit of information "confirms" that McClelland's memory was "shot", then maybe he could be wrong about the Saturday morning phone call from Humes.

[Jonathan Cohen]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Even worse, I later came to realize that Groden had found an autopsy photo showing a large head wound on the back of a head, and had then photo-shopped this wound onto a photo of the back of Kennedy's head, and had then sold this image from his stand in Dealey Plaza while claiming it was a previously unseen photo of Kennedy before the doctoring of the official autopsy photos. 

Pat - I'm glad you brought this up, because apparently the research community has just given Groden a free pass on this unconscionable act of evidence forgery. Let's also not forget that he printed another clearly fake photo in his most recent book, alleging that it too was a "newly discovered" JFK autopsy image.