JFK: Destiny Betrayed

[James DiEugenio]

I gave Thompson's book a decidedly mixed review.  But this part of the book was pretty convincing about a shot from the right front of Kennedy:

 

"From here, the book describes the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. First off are Bill and Gayle Newman who were to the limousine’s right, at the base of the grassy knoll. They were never called by the Commission, but filed affidavits and were interviewed by the FBI. (Thompson, p. 30) They may have been the closest witnesses to Kennedy’s shooting. The couple said the shots came from behind them and Kennedy was hit in the right temple, which would be clear evidence that a rifleman was behind the picket fence. But in addition to the Newmans, Thompson adds Abraham Zapruder and Emmett Hudson, who were in the same area, to this list. He later notes that it appears the FBI altered Hudson’s original statement to the Secret Service. (Thompson, p. 43) Hudson was the first witness Thompson located who indicated that there was another shot after the fatal head shot.

II

The author transitions over to witnesses who were further away from the limousine or not in as good a position to see or hear what had happened to JFK, but whose testimony is still important. In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, he notes that it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit. In this profusely illustrated book, one can see that Martin was looking toward the president right before the firing sequence began. (Thompson, pp. 50, 58) Some have said this kind of evidence is eyewitness testimony. I disagree. It qualifies as physical evidence which indicates directionality.

Officer Joe Smith smelled gunpowder near the underpass, but this testimony was then altered by the FBI. Smith also said he met up with a Secret Service agent, which was not possible as they were all at the hospital. (Thompson, pp. 58, 59)"

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Click here and scroll down: neither of those drawings are at the bottom of the back of the head.

And they are both from Bethesda.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html

No one expects eyewitness testimony to be as precise as a marching band when there was a direct effort to suppress that testimony and  those memories within weeks of the crime.  And not only did that happen, but it has continued to happen decades later. For instance: 1988 for PBS and Nova.

Actually, it's the other way around. The testimony of the Parkland witnesses before Specter and the WC prove there was at that time no effort to lie about the head wounds. Notice I say head wounds. As demonstrated by my 2013/2014 presentations on the back wound and single-bullet theory, a decision was made to present the back wound on the Rydberg drawings in a location Specter and Warren, at the very least, would soon know was false.

It's clear, moreover, that the decision to lie about the head wounds started up in 67, when Humes was given talking points telling him the large wound he'd previously placed (in testimony and within the Rydberg drawings) at a neutral location at the top of the head, was a wound on the front of the head. 

But even that wasn't good enough. As the heat over Vietnam took its toll on Johnson, he became fearful Bobby was gonna be the next President and use the assassination to come after him. So his yes man Ramsey Clark put together a panel to double-check the medical evidence and see if they could use it to discredit the "junk" in Thompson's book. Well, chief among this junk was the argument that the supposed entrance low on the head and the supposed exit at the top of the head failed to align with a shot from the sniper's nest.

So Russell Fisher and friends, at Clark's bidding, convinced themselves (or more probably lied) that the bullet really entered near the top of the head (which, of course, simultaneously suggested that ALL the witnesses at the autopsy to report seeing this lower wound were idiots). 

Now, to me, that's one of the proofs of a conspiracy within the media. The Clark Panel report was released to disrupt and discredit Garrison's efforts to get Wecht (and/or Nichols, if I recall) into the Archives to see what was shown on the photos and x-rays. And the media uniformly lapped it up, publishing a press release claiming the Panel confirmed that the fatal shot was fired from behind without noting that in order to do this the Panel had re-appraised the the location of the entrance wound on the back of the head, and had essentially denounced the doctors who'd performed Kennedy's autopsy--from whom most of their evidence had been supplied, and upon which any claim of a shot from behind relied--as idiots.

This info, which was right in the Panel's report for anyone to read if they'd wanted to, was not reported in the mainstream media for several years later. 

I suppose few in the media actually read the report, but I'd bet that those that did were afraid reporting that a "Justice" Department--sponsored secret panel was now claiming the autopsy doctors were idiots would cause trouble on the home front, or hurt the war effort...or some such thing... Shame on them.

As you know, I discuss this in excruciating detail on my website.

Over time, of course, theorists intrigued by the statements of the Parkland witnesses, when combined with the statements of those seeing smoke on the knoll, saw the Z-film, which showed a backward movement of JFK's head. And this led to their conviction that the fatal shot must have come from the front.

But the pieces didn't add up. The Z-film failed to show a blow-out wound on the back of the head. So, voila, a whole new field of study opened up whereby the Z-film and autopsy photos and x-rays--all of which suggest a conspiracy but not the one people want to believe in where the lower part of the far back of the head was blown off--must have been faked.

The Z-film, autopsy photos and x-rays absolutely prove the fatal head shot was a tangential shot involving the top of the head, which leaves the lower entrance unaccounted for. This means there were two head shots, and almost certainly a conspiracy involving multiple assassins. This is what the American people need to know. Conjuring up entrances on the forehead (which none of the supposedly observant Parkland witnesses noticed) and claiming the bottom and possibly even left side of the back of the head was missing (when the witnesses, autopsy photos and x-rays agree it was not) serves no purpose other than to confuse people. Such claims are easily discredited by the likes of Posner, and make our side on the conspiracy/no conspiracy argument look like tinfoil hat-wearers.

The case before the public can be won on the medical evidence and historical record alone, and need not rely upon cherry-picked statements and obviously inaccurate drawings made by 70-somethings decades after the fact. 

Now, that said, I appreciate your efforts in getting information before the public that appears to be renewing interest in the case. 

[David G. Healy]

On 12/18/2021 at 6:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

LOL. I've mopped the floor with all your heroes, Dave. 

But enough with the sword fight.

I created that slide after Ms. Cranor was inspired or induced to write an attack article on me in which she critiqued my chapters on the head wounds. She spent much of the time complaining that I had created a straw man argument--and that nobody really thinks the "blow-out" wound was restricted to the bottom of the back of the head. That slide proved she was wrong, as the drawings most cited by CT's as proof of a blow out wound depicted the wound on the far back of the head, and on the far back of the head only.

If you want to make an argument the large head wound was at the top of the back of the head, then go at it. But to continue citing drawings that show it low on the back of the head as proof it was actually at the top of the back of the head is decidedly uncool, and is the kind of crap one finds in the Warren Report. 

hero's, my hero's? lmao! I make no, zero arguments -- that's your guys pastime.. If you got the crew's to testify concerning any case evidence or simply opine, your living in fantasyland... Wannabe's sitting' on the sidelines, dancing with wannabe writer twinkles in their eyes ain't gonna cut this one... I cite no drawings but I sure spent a little time in a studio reviewing certain Z frames in which the back of Kennedy's head had a certain area blacked out that suspiciously was in the neighborhood of the area you speak... I suspect even a 2nd year law student could make a case for a shot from the front.

Ya need a new broom...

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/19/2021 at 3:39 AM, Pat Speer said:

The Z-film, autopsy photos and x-rays absolutely prove the fatal head shot was a tangential shot involving the top of the head, ....

 

Nearly twenty medical professionals at Parkland Hospital said they saw the blowout wound on the back of the head. And this proves, at the very least, that the back-of-the-head autopsy photo is fake, because it shows no wound.

If one photo can be faked, any number of them can.

Here's a list of what the medical professionals at Parkland said about the blowout wound. One can quickly skim over it and read what I've highlighted in red.

Quote

Note 1:  "Occipital" and "cerebellar" 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.

Note 3:  Credit for this list goes to Dr. Gary Aguilar.

 

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

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nearly twenty medical professionals at Parkland Hospital said they saw the blowout wound on the back of the head. And this proves, at the very least, that the back-of-the-head autopsy photo is fake, because it shows no wound.

If one photo can be faked, any number of them can.

Here's a list of what the medical professionals at Parkland said about the blowout wound. One can quickly skim over it and read what I've highlighted in red.

 

Ahh...Gary's list... One of the biggest surprises of my life was reading John McAdams' response to that list, and realizing he  (a man I considered a big fat L) was right about a lot his complaints, and that my friend Gary had in fact oversold the case. This led me in time to go through ALL the statements of the so-called back of the head witnesses, and realize they were a huge distraction for the CT community. And this led to my writing Chapters 18c and 18d at patspeer.com, which runs through all the early statements about the head wounds, and the subsequent statements, and pastes together the oddly compelling story that the CT community has been largely led astray by overzealous researchers determined to prove that the fatal shot head came from the front. 

And, no, this wasn't a pet theory reflecting what I wanted to believe. It was an unwanted conclusion based upon 1) the total historical record, 2) numerous writings on the field of cognitive psychology, and 3) discussions with cognitive psychologists. It turned out the wide-spread assumption emergency doctors could not be mistaken about the location of a head wound was balderdash, and not remotely based upon reality. It also turned out that many if not most of the so-called back-of-the-head witnesses actually pointed out a location more in keeping with the wound location shown on the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film than on the so-called McClelland drawing, which, as it turned out, was not even created by McClelland, and was created without his participation. And it also turned out that some of the photos used by Groden etc. to show people pointing out a wound location low on the back of the head were misrepresented to indicate that that was the site of a blow-out wound, when these were autopsy participants almost certainly describing the appearance of the wound after the scalp was peeled to the side and skull fell to the table.

Anyhow, it hasn't been easy going. Whenever I bring this matter up, people attack reflexively, and accuse me of undermining the value of the witnesses or some such thing, when I am actually supporting the value of the witnesses by reading and reporting on all their statements, and not just those on Gary's list. It is relevant, IMO, that many if not most of the doctors initially claiming they saw cerebellum either recanted their recollection and said they were mistaken, or swore they saw the cerebellum by looking down into the skull and that there was no missing skull low on the back of the head. It is also relevant, IMO, that Dr. Clark, the only doctor to get a good look at the wound at Parkland, refused to add support to those pushing that the back of the head was blown off by a shot from the front, and, in fact, collaborated with Dr. John Lattimer on his LN book Kennedy and Lincoln. 

So why didn't Clark break his silence on these issues? Was he a coward, or something? I think the answer is yes, but understandably yes. He admitted in his WC testimony that in his initial impression the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. He never backed away from this. As a result, we have reason to believe he was unwilling to discuss the wounds further lest he be seen as some sort of conspiracy whacko--and suffer an attack as bad (or worse) than that received by Crenshaw. Well, this cost me hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. I read a couple of dozen books on gunshot wounds, focusing on the sections discussing tangential wounds, and I read a hundred or more articles on head wounds going back to the 1870's. (Highlights from these are presented in chapters 16b and 16c). And from this it's 100% clear the large head wound observed by Clark was a tangential  wound, aka gutter wound. Well, this leaves the small wound discovered lower on the head unaccounted for, and proof of two head shots, and almost certainly two shooters. 

The medical evidence is proof of a conspiracy, but people have been looking in the wrong place. For way too long, IMO.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ahh...Gary's list... One of the biggest surprises of my life was reading John McAdams' response to that list, and realizing he  (a man I considered a big fat L) was right about a lot his complaints, and that my friend Gary had in fact oversold the case. This led me in time to go through ALL the statements of the so-called back of the head witnesses, and realize they were a huge distraction for the CT community. And this led to my writing Chapters 18c and 18d at patspeer.com, which runs through all the early statements about the head wounds, and the subsequent statements, and pastes together the oddly compelling story that the CT community has been largely led astray by overzealous researchers determined to prove that the fatal shot head came from the front. 

And, no, this wasn't a pet theory reflecting what I wanted to believe. It was an unwanted conclusion based upon 1) the total historical record, 2) numerous writings on the field of cognitive psychology, and 3) discussions with cognitive psychologists. It turned out the wide-spread assumption emergency doctors could not be mistaken about the location of a head wound was balderdash, and not remotely based upon reality. It also turned out that many if not most of the so-called back-of-the-head witnesses actually pointed out a location more in keeping with the wound location shown on the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film than on the so-called McClelland drawing, which, as it turned out, was not even created by McClelland, and was created without his participation. And it also turned out that some of the photos used by Groden etc. to show people pointing out a wound location low on the back of the head were misrepresented to indicate that that was the site of a blow-out wound, when these were autopsy participants almost certainly describing the appearance of the wound after the scalp was peeled to the side and skull fell to the table.

Anyhow, it hasn't been easy going. Whenever I bring this matter up, people attack reflexively, and accuse me of undermining the value of the witnesses or some such thing, when I am actually supporting the value of the witnesses by reading and reporting on all their statements, and not just those on Gary's list. It is relevant, IMO, that many if not most of the doctors initially claiming they saw cerebellum either recanted their recollection and said they were mistaken, or swore they saw the cerebellum by looking down into the skull and that there was no missing skull low on the back of the head. It is also relevant, IMO, that Dr. Clark, the only doctor to get a good look at the wound at Parkland, refused to add support to those pushing that the back of the head was blown off by a shot from the front, and, in fact, collaborated with Dr. John Lattimer on his LN book Kennedy and Lincoln. 

So why didn't Clark break his silence on these issues? Was he a coward, or something? I think the answer is yes, but understandably yes. He admitted in his WC testimony that in his initial impression the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. He never backed away from this. As a result, we have reason to believe he was unwilling to discuss the wounds further lest he be seen as some sort of conspiracy whacko--and suffer an attack as bad (or worse) than that received by Crenshaw. Well, this cost me hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. I read a couple of dozen books on gunshot wounds, focusing on the sections discussing tangential wounds, and I read a hundred or more articles on head wounds going back to the 1870's. (Highlights from these are presented in chapters 16b and 16c). And from this it's 100% clear the large head wound observed by Clark was a tangential  wound, aka gutter wound. Well, this leaves the small wound discovered lower on the head unaccounted for, and proof of two head shots, and almost certainly two shooters. 

The medical evidence is proof of a conspiracy, but people have been looking in the wrong place. For way too long, IMO.

Pat S.--

You've chosen a hard row to hoe, but I admire your earnest pursuit of the truth. 

Every time I look at the horrible Z film, it sure looks like JFK was shot from right and front. But bodies do not always react to bullet strikes as popularly thought. 

Does this mean you think Tink Thompson, although wrong on the direction of shots that actually struck JFK, may be right that there was a second head shot that struck JFK at frame 328, after the strike at frame 313? 

And, of course, there may have been diversionary gunfire from the Grassy Knoll, pergola-colonnade area, as I suspect, at a minimum. 

BTW, I think Thompson is obviously wrong when a bullet struck Connally, which I place at frame ~295.  

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Pat S.--

You've chosen a hard row to hoe, but I admire your earnest pursuit of the truth. 

Every time I look at the horrible Z film, it sure looks like JFK was shot from right and front. But bodies do not always react to bullet strikes as popularly thought. 

Does this mean you think Tink Thompson, although wrong on the direction of shots that actually struck JFK, may be right that there was a second head shot that struck JFK at frame 328, after the strike at frame 313? 

And, of course, there may have been diversionary gunfire from the Grassy Knoll, pergola-colonnade area, as I suspect, at a minimum. 

BTW, I think Thompson is obviously wrong when a bullet struck Connally, which I place at frame ~295.  

 

My research led me to conclude the fatal shot hit JFK on the top right side of the head above the right ear. The response shown on the z-film is consistent with this shot having come from both the sniper's nest area, and in front of JFK, but I strongly lean to its coming from behind due to the sudden jerk downward at the beginning of the reaction shown in the Z-film, the bullet fragments and windshield damage found in the front of the limo, and the beveling apparent on the Harper fragment. Of course, there's also James Tague, whose wound appears to have been caused by a bullet fragment without a copper casing, as opposed to an intact bullet. Tink's years-later epiphany telling him the forward motion of JFK's head was nothing but an optical illusion is unfortunate, IMO.

As far as the timing, the blur analysis--which is by no means an exact science--indicates a loud sound following the head shot around Z-318, as I recall. This corresponds nicely with the many witness recollections of a bang-bang at the end. The source for the final sound would seem to have been the knoll, moreover. Among the many tidbits I discovered along the road was that Japanese and German snipers used diversionary devices (essentially firecrackers) during WWII, and that this tactic would have been a perfect fit for Dealey Plaza, where a diversionary explosion on the knoll would attract attention away from the actual location(s) of the shooters. This possibility also corresponds with the sighting of smoke on the knoll. 

In short, then, I am firmly in the CT camp, but disagree with many of the most popular snippets of the prominent theories. I have been to Tink's presentations where he insists there is no forward motion between 312 and 313, and where he insists you can see a second head shot at 328 or so. And my eyes couldn't see it. And so I asked others if they saw it. They all said no. Now sometimes years later you look at something and suddenly see it differently. But I doubt that's gonna happen. 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My research led me to conclude the fatal shot hit JFK on the top right side of the head above the right ear. The response shown on the z-film is consistent with this shot having come from both the sniper's nest area, and in front of JFK, but I strongly lean to its coming from behind due to the sudden jerk downward at the beginning of the reaction shown in the Z-film, the bullet fragments and windshield damage found in the front of the limo, and the beveling apparent on the Harper fragment. Of course, there's also James Tague, whose wound appears to have been caused by a bullet fragment without a copper casing, as opposed to an intact bullet. Tink's years-later epiphany telling him the forward motion of JFK's head was nothing but an optical illusion is unfortunate, IMO.

As far as the timing, the blur analysis--which is by no means an exact science--indicates a loud sound following the head shot around Z-318, as I recall. This corresponds nicely with the many witness recollections of a bang-bang at the end. The source for the final sound would seem to have been the knoll, moreover. Among the many tidbits I discovered along the road was that Japanese and German snipers used diversionary devices (essentially firecrackers) during WWII, and that this tactic would have been a perfect fit for Dealey Plaza, where a diversionary explosion on the knoll would attract attention away from the actual location(s) of the shooters. This possibility also corresponds with the sighting of smoke on the knoll. 

In short, then, I am firmly in the CT camp, but disagree with many of the most popular snippets of the prominent theories. I have been to Tink's presentations where he insists there is no forward motion between 312 and 313, and where he insists you can see a second head shot at 328 or so. And my eyes couldn't see it. And so I asked others if they saw it. They all said no. Now sometimes years later you look at something and suddenly see it differently. But I doubt that's gonna happen. 

Pat S.

Thanks for your reply. I have read through your excellent website a few times, and will do so again. I am reading Larry Hancock's SWHT now. 

The Tague shot has always been a puzzle. Is there a straight and clear line from JFK's head to the curb-strike near Tague? The windshield does not get in the way? 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/21/2021 at 2:00 AM, Pat Speer said:

It also turned out that many if not most of the so-called back-of-the-head witnesses actually pointed out a location more in keeping with the wound location shown on the autopsy photos, [etc.]....

 Only Pat Speer sees that. Almost everybody else sees the Parkland doctors and nurses pointing to the the back of the head. (On the right side.)

I just had my 11 year old look at the image with the doctors pointing to the wound, and she noted that almost every one of them was pointing to the back of the head. No surprise there.

There seems to be something goofy with Pat's sense of position. I think it's that he (subconsciously?) wants to believe that the back-of-head autopsy photo, which shows no hole on the back, isn't fake. And as a result his brain won't let him see any of these witnesses pointing there.

Furthermore, as I showed above with Dr. Aguilar's list, nearly all the witnesses at Parkland are on record saying the wound was on the back. I'm not sure how Pat explains this. I think he claims that the were all confused due to the fact that JFK was lying on his back rather than standing upright. But it's just nonsense to claim that twenty medical professional can confuse en masse the back of the head with the top.

The documentary is right in indicating the wound was on the back of the head. And so the back-of-head autopsy photo must be fake.

 

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 Only Pat Speer sees that. Almost everybody else sees the Parkland doctors and nurses pointing to the the back of the head. (On the right side.)

I just had my 11 year old look at the image with the doctors pointing to the wound, and she noted that almost every one of them was pointing to the back of the head. No surprise there.

There seems to be something goofy with Pat's sense of position. I think it's that he (subconsciously?) wants to believe that the back-of-head autopsy photo, which shows no hole on the back, isn't fake. And as a result his brain won't let him see any of these witnesses pointing there.

Furthermore, as I showed above with Dr. Aguilar's list, nearly all the witnesses at Parkland are on record saying the wound was on the back. I'm not sure how Pat explains this. I think he claims that the were all confused due to the fact that JFK was lying on his back rather than standing upright. But it's just nonsense to claim that twenty medical professional can confuse en masse the back of the head with the top.

The documentary is right in indicating the wound was on the back of the head. And so the back-of-head autopsy photo must be fake.

 

And a Merry Christmas to you, Sandy. 

 When I first dredged up this mess 15 years ago or so, a number of people agreed with me that, yessiree, most of the so-called back of the head witnesses were not pointing to the back of the head between the ears--which was at that time the supposed location of the "blow-out" wound exposing cerebellum. Among those to defend me was Tink Thompson.

It seems to me you're missing the context. CT's wanted all the pieces to fit. They wanted there to have been a blow-out wound low on the back of the head. That way they could say the doctors--some of whom had retracted their claims of seeing cerebellum--really did see cerebellum, and that the Harper fragment was in fact occipital bone. But then I came along and took a look and realized--holy smokes--many if not most of the so-called back-of-the-head witnesses were pointing at a location well above or to the side of the occipital bone and cerebellum.

And there's nothing goofy about it. It's an anatomical fact. If you look at Groden's witnesses supposedly pointing out the wound location many if not most of them are pointing out a location at the rear top of the head, above the ears, not far back of the head between the ears. In fact, it's worse than that. Several of Groden's "back-of-the-head witnesses were describing the skull missing during the autopsy, after the scalp had been reflected and skull fell to the table. And he took one frame from these interviews in which they were pointing to the rearward part of this large defect, and made it seem like they'd claimed there was a hole of scalp and bone in that location at the beginning of the autopsy.

I discuss this in detail on my website. I spend a lot of time discussing the deceptions pulled by the likes of Livingstone and Groden. Here's a little-known fact. When the Parkland witnesses were shown the so-called McClelland drawing in the early 80's, and asked which was closer to their recollection--that drawing, or the autopsy photos--neither one gained much support, but the McClelland drawing fared worse. And yet Livingstone and Groden went on to claim these witnesses had confirmed the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing. That's a hoax, Sandy.

And now we have people claiming since an aged Stringer didn't recognize the brain photos that means they've been faked. They then deduce there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head, and that the back-of-the-head photo has been faked... 

But this is sloppy at best. Stringer, the very source for their doubt about the brain photos, always swore he took the back-of-the-head photos, and that they were an accurate depiction of Kennedy's wounds.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Pat,

I hope you're having a great holiday season!

As for the topic at hand....

The above image is from Pat's website.

Everybody can see that nearly all of these blowout wound witnesses are pointing to the back of the head, just below the cowlick area. (And to the right side of the head.) They are NOT pointing to the top of the head, just forward of the cowlick area, which is where Pat believes the blowout wound is. (This, again, to the right side of the head.)

Now, it is true that the witnesses are pointing to a spot that is high on the back of the head, a little higher than what is indicated in the McClelland drawing (as illustrated by artist Philip Johnson). But I doubt very much that many of the wound witnesses knew or could remember precisely where the hole lie along a line running from the cowlick area to the bottom of the skull. But what they clearly remembered was that the hole was on the back of the head, on the right side.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 6:16 PM, Pat Speer said:

 When I first dredged up this mess 15 years ago or so, a number of people agreed with me that, yessiree, most of the so-called back of the head witnesses were not pointing to the back of the head between the ears--which was at that time the supposed location of the "blow-out" wound exposing cerebellum. Among those to defend me was Tink Thompson.

 

The transcribed testimonies and statements of the Parkland medical professionals make it clear that the wound was low enough that cerebellar tissue was exuding from it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the cerebellum itself was exposed, because damaged cerebellar tissue may have oozed out from the skull as follows:

 

Imagine this were JFK's brain, and imagine that the cerebral tissue in the back had been blown out. If the gaping wound were at the very back of the cerebrum, the force of gravity would cause damaged cerebellar tissue to ooze out the wound. Because the wound would be at the lowest point of the skull when JFK was lying down.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

I hope you're having a great holiday season!

As for the topic at hand....

The above image is from Pat's website.

Everybody can see that nearly all of these blowout wound witnesses are pointing to the back of the head, just below the cowlick area. (And to the right side of the head.) They are NOT pointing to the top of the head, just forward of the cowlick area, which is where Pat believes the blowout wound is. (This, again, to the right side of the head.)

Now, it is true that the witnesses are pointing to a spot that is high on the back of the head, a little higher than what is indicated in the McClelland drawing (as illustrated by artist Philip Johnson). But I doubt very much that many of the wound witnesses knew or could remember precisely where the hole lie along a line running from the cowlick area to the bottom of the skull. But what they clearly remembered was that the hole was on the back of the head, on the right side.

 

 

The transcribed testimonies and statements of the Parkland medical professionals make it clear that the wound was low enough that cerebellar tissue was exuding from it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the cerebellum itself was exposed, because damaged cerebellar tissue may have oozed out from the skull as follows:

 

Imagine this were JFK's brain, and imagine that the cerebral tissue in the back had been blown out. If the gaping wound were at the very back of the cerebrum, the force of gravity would cause damaged cerebellar tissue to ooze out the wound. Because the wound would be at the lowest point of the skull when JFK was lying down.

We're actually getting somewhere. It appears you agree that the wound described by the witnesses was not low on the back of the head, and that the cerebellum was not just laying there exposed with no bone covering it.

In other words, it appears you agree that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. If it had been 1) the cerebellum or what was left of it would have just been sitting there, and 2) the wound observed by the witnesses would have been centered on the back of the head and not on the right side. 

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

When I first read Pat's comments I immediately thought of Bobby Hargis getting splattered and how that played into what he is saying. It seems Hargis thought it could have been a shot from behind as well. I'd appreciate Pat expanding on that.

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

When I first read Pat's comments I immediately thought of Bobby Hargis getting splattered and how that played into what he is saying. It seems Hargis thought it could have been a shot from behind as well. I'd appreciate Pat expanding on that.

I collect Hargis' statements regarding the head wounds in Chapter 5b. It's clear to me that if he saw the back of JFK's head get blown off he would have said as much. 

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (Note: as so many use Hargis' words to support that the fatal bullet impacted on the front of Kennedy's head, or that the limo stopped on Elm Street, I have highlighted quotes touching upon these issues.) (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald. Note: in 1995 Hargis would tell researchers Ian Griggs and Mark Oakes that he didn't write this article and that it must have been based on a conversation he'd had with a reporter in a hallway) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot… I felt that the Governor was shot first." (Undated typescript of interview with Hargis found within the Dallas-Times-Herald's photograph collection, as reported by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, 1994. This is almost certainly the basis for the 11-22 article) "I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped almost immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed. I racked my cycle and jumped off. I ran to the north side of Elm Street to see if I could find where the bullets came from. I don't think the President got hit with the first shot, but I don't know for sure. When I heard the first shot, it looked like he bent over. I feel that the Governor was shot first. I could be wrong. Right after the first shot, I was trying to look and see if the President got shot. When I saw the look on Connally's face, I knew somebody was shooting at the car...The fatal bullet struck the President in the right side of the head. I noticed the people in the Texas School Book Depository were looking up to see the top. I didn't know if the President stopped under the triple underpass or not. I didn't know for sure if the shots had come from the Book Depository. I thought they might have come from the trestle." (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-23-63 article in the Houston Post) "A Dallas motorcycle officer who was riding two feet from the presidential car described to the Houston Post Friday what he saw when a sniper fired the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally. 'When the first rifle bullet spewed into the open limousine,' said Patrolman J.H. Hargis, 'The President bent forward in the car.' Hargis, a nine-year veteran of the force, said the first shot hit the governor. 'Then immediately after that,' Hargis said, 'the second shot was fired, striking the President in the right side of the head.' The Secret Service man driving the car immediately picked up the phone inside the car and said "Let's go to the nearest hospital.' Hargis said he jumped off his motorcycle and began a search of the building from which the shots were fired. 'I knew it was high and from the right. I looked for any sign of activity in the windows, but I didn't see anybody.'" (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot."

(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.” (When asked about the blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going' or 'get going.'" (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from." (8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, investigators working on behalf New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (a 1971 interview of Hargis by "Whitney," someone working for researcher Fred Newcomb, as presented by Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzer on the Veterans Today website, 4-3-14) (When asked how long the limo stopped) "Oh – you mean after that first shot?...Only about uh, oh 3-4 seconds. Maybe about 5-6. That’s all...but you won’t find that in the Warren Commission report." (When asked if it said the limo stopped) "Ah no I don’t think it didn’t – you’ve seen a rolling stop have you? It’s going less than one mile an hour?...Well that’s what he was doing he wasn’t completely stopped or dead still."

The next three reports were posted on the Education Forum by Chris Scally, 6-21-11. (Interview by HSCA investigators James Kelly and Harold Rose on 10-26-77, notes transcribed 11-16-77, JFK document #003300, RIF 180-10107-10243) ""When they turned left on Elm from Houston, he was watching the President's car. Shortly afterwards, he heard a shot. He saw President Kennedy slump forward and Governor Connally turn. He felt at the time that Connally might have been hit and the President was leaning forward to find out what happened. He said the first shot sounded to him like a firecracker. The second shot hit JFK in the head. The presidential car had slowed almost to a stop. After the second shot, the car accelerated rapidly and sped to Parkland Hospital. Hargis said he pulled over to the curb at the grassy knoll. He got off the bike and went up the hill on the grass. He didn't see anyone with a gun, so he went over to the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm Street and helped other police officers seal it off." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty dated 8-8-78, notes transcribed 8-23-78, JFK document #014362, RIF 180-10113-10272) "When the first report sounded, he was "about one-third of the way down Elm", having made the last turn from Houston. It sounded like a firecracker, but he was unable to tell where it came from. He looked to his right and saw Connally turning and the President appeared to be leaning forward as if he was trying to hear what the Governor was saying. He had seen JFK lean forward in like manner during the motorcade as he and Connally had been conversing. This time, though, the President had an expression of pain on his face. When the second shot was fired - no doubt gunfire this time as it hit the President's head - the limousine slowed so much it practically stopped and he had to put his feet down to maintain balance. Then the driver accelerated and several motormen started the escort. Hargis remained behind parking his bike where it stood in the left side of Elm now about one half way down the hill. He ran to the grassy knoll and continued until he had reached the top section of the underpass. Finding nothing significant, he returned to his bike - still on the stand with the radio on (and working) and the engine off. He started the bike and drove back up Elm and parked just west of the front door of the TSBD where he joined Brewer as they became part of the effort to seal off this building, although, he adds, at that time no-one was certain just where the shots had come from." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty, 12-29-78, JFK document # 014224, RIF 180-10109-10354). "Reached Mr. Hargis at his new residence... today and developed the following additional information. At the sound of the first shot, he was "in position" - some five to six feet from the left corner of the rear bumper of John F. Kennedy limousine. At the sound of the second shot, he was a bit closer (the limousine slowed and nearly stopped) - perhaps four feet. By the third shot (although he doesn't recall the actual, but saw John F. Kennedy's head explode), he was "almost even with Jackie - no more than two or three feet, if that."

(Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (5-14-92 video-taped interview with Mark Oakes) "I was trying to catch up to my assigned station when the first shot rang out...I saw Connally turn around...I thought he had been shot. It sounded like a firecracker but then when I saw Connally's face I thought he'd been shot. Which he had...The second shot made his head like a ripe tomato when you shoot it with a gun on the ground. It explodes. That's how his head did. It exploded. Now you got brain matter, blood, and everything else on you" (6-26-95 video-taped interview with Mark Oakes and Ian Griggs) (On the explosion of Kennedy's head) "It didn't only hit me...It showered everything in the car behind it...You put a ripe tomato, and you shoot it with a gun and it splatters. That's what it was...But the first shot sounded like a firecracker...I've been fired at like five times and every one of them sounded like a firecracker--to me..." (Later, after voicing his support for the single-bullet theory) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two. One got him through the back and one got him through the head. That's it...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open. That's it." (On William Greer, the driver of the limo) "That guy slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down, slowed down almost to a stop." (11-23-95 Dallas Morning News article found in the Herald Journal) "'I'm the only one living who was beside the car,' said Detective Hargis, now 63. 'When he was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter, and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview within an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.” (Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 9-24-10) (When asked if his observations suggested that the fatal shot came from in front of Kennedy) "No." (When asked if it bothered him that people use his statements to suggest there'd been a conspiracy) "Yeah, it does...There was no conspiracy, whatsoever. There was two shots fired, and both shots, we found the bullet." (On the possibility there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll) "To me it sounds ludicrous." (11-22-13 article in The New York Post) "Few people were closer to President Kennedy’s assassination than the Dallas motorcycle cop who got splattered with his blood and gore. Bobby Hargis was riding a Harley-Davidson just behind and to the left of the Lincon Continental convertible that carried Kennedy through Dealey Plaza. The motorcade was moving so slowly, Hargis said, that “I had a hard time holding my Harley up. I never let it fall, but I had to use my kickstand quite a bit.” “People were so happy and they were crowding into the street,” Hargis said — until the shots that killed Kennedy cracked the air. “I saw him being struck. Big plume of brains and blood. I rode right through the plume. I didn’t even notice it,” said Hargis, 81. As chaos erupted, Hargis parked the bike and ran into the Book Depository looking for the shooter. Later, he recalled, “Another officer said to me, ‘You’ve got something on your lip.’ It was part of (Kennedy’s) brains.” Hargis said the shooting left him feeling guilty that and his colleagues had failed to protect the president. “Until then, I was real proud to be a police officer,” he said. “It seemed like we didn’t have it all together. We could have done better.” He also can’t forget how quickly things changed when Oswald opened fire. “One minute (Kennedy’s) so happy. They’re smiling and everybody’s happy. The crowd was happy,” he said. “And it was all just destroyed.”

Edited December 28, 2021 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

We're actually getting somewhere.

It appears you agree that the wound described by the witnesses was not low on the back of the head, and that the cerebellum was not just laying there exposed with no bone covering it.

 

Well, I said that the blowout wound could have been higher, the way you describe it here. But it could have been lower. I haven't seen enough evidence (or the right kind of evidence) to convince me one way or another with respect to this.

But I do feel comfortable in supposing, for now, that the wound was higher.

 

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In other words, it appears you agree that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. If it had been 1) the cerebellum or what was left of it would have just been sitting there, and 2) the wound observed by the witnesses would have been centered on the back of the head and not on the right side.

 

I'm not sure if the Harper fragment is occipital or not. The HSCA declared it as parietal, but I don't know if we can trust the HSCA on this, as I've seen many lies/mistakes reported by them.

What I believe is that the large wound in the back was made up of primarily two bone fragments, the Harper Fragment and another that I call the Clay Pot Fragment. Sam Kinney said that he found the latter fragment in the president's limousine when it was being transported back to Washington. He said it looked like a little clay pot, and thus the name I gave it.

I believe that the Clay Pot Fragment is the very same fragment as the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that arrived late to the autopsy, as reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. It was put back in place by Humes on the back of the skull.

As for the Harper fragment... I believe that it fell out late and was never put back in place where it belonged, next to the Clay Pot fragment. This left a hole in the back of the head that the embalmer noted. I believe that it was never put back in place because it was confiscated by the FBI for a particular purpose.

When it was decided to move the back-of-head hole to the top of the head, in order to support the lone assassin narrative, someone in the FBI got the great idea of changing the location of where the back-of-head Clay-Pot Fragment had been found. It had been found BEHIND where the limousine was when Kennedy was shot in the head. This location indicated a shot from the front and thus a conspiracy. To support the lone assassin narrative, the FBI flew the smaller Harper Fragment back to Dallas on the night of the 22nd, and discreetly dropped it in a location AHEAD of where Kennedy was shot so that a witness could find it the following day and report its (faked) location.

Unfortunately for the FBI, the Harper boy who found it had medical connections and it was identified as occipital. (Who would have thought that that would happen??) So the FBI and later the HSCA had to clean that mess up.

My hypothesis here is backed by a lot of evidence and reasoning. It explains what happened to the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that seems to be ignored by researchers. It explains why the Harper fragment wasn't found on the day of the assassination. It explains what happened to the fragment found by the kid in the unfortunate location. It explains the missing fragment on the back of the head that required a rubber dam at the morgue.