Asking for some info on the JFK autopsy photographs.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 4/14/2022 at 6:23 PM, Pat Speer said:

To add on to what Micah said in his reply, I would say this is close to what the skull looked like AFTER the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. I talk about this on my website. Groden went back and forth between a large hole on the back of the head and two large holes, one in front and one in back, and ultimately settled on this massive hole from front to back. The problem, of course, is that in trying to accommodate both the Parkland witnesses and the Bethesda witnesses, he proposed they were all wrong--as not one witness, other than perhaps Giesecke who said there was large hole on the left side, described a wound this large at the beginning of the autopsy.

Now, to be clear, I've met Bob Groden a couple of times, and think he's a nice person and greatly appreciate his efforts. But he has made and promoted some questionable claims--some of them demonstrably false. So I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like the wound depicted above has been confirmed by multiple witnesses, or some such thing. But he's just wrong. 

One should note, moreover, that he has also claimed that ALL the witnesses he's spoken to have confirmed the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Well, he can't have it both ways, can he? 

To me this post encapsulates the disagreement in the autopsy research conclusions. The 'McClelland' drawing comes with strong witness agreement. Pat Speer does not agree with the location and provides a detailed explanation. I am not persuaded by it. To me the witness testimony supports it too strongly, from casual observers, to trained medical experts who are not casually referring to the wrong place (in my view). What I would suggest is that you CAN have it both ways. I think it is possible that Hulmes peeled back a torn, matted scalp. Some of the scalp had returned to its closed position during handling of the body, and whilst Hulmes peeled downwards the loose skull fragments fell, obscuring/confusing the large blow-out. He stated he found no entry wounds during the peeling untli he came to the alleged entry (Rydberg drawing entry wound). That can be true, if what he means is he only found shattered scalp, with no evidence of bullet wounds.

I would posit he didn't find any other bullet wounds because he never saw the Harper fragment. Why? because it had been blown out of the hole depicted in the 'McLelland' drawing and he claims he never saw this fragment.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Eddy Bainbridge

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

To me this post encapsulates the disagreement in the autopsy research conclusions. The 'McClelland' drawing comes with strong witness agreement. Pat Speer does not agree with the location and provides a detailed explanation. I am not persuaded by it. To me the witness testimony supports it too strongly, from casual observers, to trained medical experts who are not casually referring to the wrong place (in my view). What I would suggest is that you CAN have it both ways. I think it is possible that Hulmes peeled back a torn, matted scalp. Some of the scalp had returned to its closed position during handling of the body, and whilst Hulmes peeled downwards the loose skull fragments fell, obscuring/confusing the large blow-out. He stated he found no entry wounds during the peeling untli he came to the alleged entry (Rydberg drawing entry wound). That can be true, if what he means is he only found shattered scalp, with no evidence of bullet wounds.

I would posit he didn't find any other bullet wounds because he never saw the Harper fragment. Why? because it had been blown out of the hole depicted in the 'McLelland' drawing and he claims he never saw this fragment.

Only it's just not true that the McClelland drawing comes with strong witness agreement. It's a myth. Just look at the witnesses Groden presents as support for the McClelland drawing. The drawing, as you can see, presents the wound on the far back of the head almost entirely below the level of the ear. I count four witnesses who support the drawing: Crenshaw, Bell, O'Connor, and Custer. But there's a problem with this. Both O'Connor and Custer described a large wound from front to back, and Groden took a snippet from their interviews in which they were pointing at the back. This was deceptive. They were not pointing out a blow-out wound observed at the beginning of the autopsy but a large wound apparent later on, after Humes peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table. (To drive this home, Custer later authenticated the x-rays showing no such blow-out on the back of the head.) As far as Crenshaw and Bell, their recollections were almost certainly clouded after having been shown the McClelland drawing by researchers who'd told them that was what McClelland and others recalled--when McClelland had actually said it was inaccurate and that the wound was up above the ear. Crenshaw was trying to recall something he'd seen for a split second roughly 20 years earlier. And that leaves Bell. Bell has no credibility whatsoever. Her story about walking up to the head of the table and being shown the wound by Perry is ridiculous beyond belief. 

So that's 18 witnesses, only two of which supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. And the statements of both of those two are questionable, at best. 

[Michael Crane]

I have a soft spot for Crenshaw because,someone in Washington didn't want anybody to acknowledge his presence in Trauma Room 1.He also accepted the phone call from LBJ to get a deathbed confession from Oswald.They targeted him,and that kind of makes me want to believe him the most.

I'm always going to with the Parkland Dr's first & others.Lot's of back of the head witnesses.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I have a soft spot for Crenshaw because,someone in Washington didn't want anybody to acknowledge his presence in Trauma Room 1.He also accepted the phone call from LBJ to get a deathbed confession from Oswald.They targeted him,and that kind of makes me want to believe him the most.

I'm always going to with the Parkland Dr's first & others.Lot's of back of the head witnesses.

 

 

 

 

I would agree that Crenshaw was targeted after his book came out, but not by Washington. Some of his fellow doctors were angry that he'd made out they were cowards and that he, only he, the great Crenshaw, had the guts to tell the truth. This was upsetting to them for obvious reasons. For one, he never recorded his initial recollections for posterity and they thought such a minor player in that day's events had pushed himself out onto center stage. It would be like someone who's posted 5 times on this forum going on TV and saying he and his colleagues on this forum had solved the Kennedy assassination but the rest of us were too scared to come out and tell the country what happened. 

As far as standing by the Parkland doctors...I understand the sentiment. But the problem is that most take from this that the McClelland drawing--which was not drawn by McClelland--is an accurate depiction of Kennedy's wounds...when that just isn't true. Just ask the Parkland doctors...

From Chapter 18c at patspeer.com:

 

By June of 1981, Livingstone had convinced Ben Bradlee, Jr. of the Boston Globe to pick up where he'd left off, and interview the Parkland witnesses for himself. Bradlee's summary of these interviews can be found in the Weisberg Archives. They reveal that Bradlee focused on the recollections of 16 witnesses, and that 8 of the 14 he interviewed for the story cast doubt on the authenticity of the photos, and 6 largely supported their authenticity. This was a journalist at work, and not a theorist. And he believed barely more than half the witnesses suggested the photos were at odds with the wounds. This was far from the ALL claimed by Livingstone.

The witnesses Bradlee thought disagreed with the official description of the head wound were:

• 1. Dr. Robert McClelland, who is reported to have claimed that the drawing he approved for book publication is still how he "vividly remembers" the wound appearing.

  2. Dr. Richard Dulany, who is reported to have "told the Globe that he recalled seeing a wound four to six inches in diameter squarely in the back of the head, in a location quite distinct from that depicted in the official autopsy report and photograph."

  3. Patricia Gustafson, who repeated what she'd earlier told Livingston, that the wound she'd observed was at the "back of the head."

  4. Doris M. Nelson, who "drew an illustration of the head wound that placed it high on the back, right side. The wound she drew was in the parietal area, but it extended well toward the rear of the head and appears to conflict with the autopsy photograph. Shown the tracing of that photo, Nelson immediately said: 'It isn't true.' Specifically, she objected to the photograph showing hair in the back of the head. 'There was no hair,' she said. 'There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" (Note: Bradlee was more specific than Livingstone regarding Nelson's recollections, and reveals that, while disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, she nevertheless felt the wound was at the top of Kennedy's head, and not on the far back of the head, where Livingstone and others placed the wound.)

  5. Margaret Hood, who "sketched a gaping hole in the occipital region which extended only slightly into the parietal area."

  6. Dr. Ronald Jones, who "refused to make a drawing of the wound on a plastic skull model, saying he never had an opportunity to define the wound's margins. With his finger, however, he outlined the wound as being in the very rear of the head. He said the official autopsy photograph of the back of the head did not square with his recollection, but that the McClelland drawing was 'close.'" (Well, this is interesting. Jones clearly saw where this was headed, and tried to make clear that his recollection wasn't worth all that much.)

  7. Dr. Paul Peters, who "made a drawing that appeared to place the head wound entirely in the parietal region, but he insisted that he meant for it to overlap into the occipital region as well. 'I think occipital–parietal describes it pretty well,' he remarked. He said he had a good opportunity to examine the head wound. Shown the official tracing of the autopsy photograph, Peters remarked: 'I don't think it's consistent with what I saw.' Of the McClelland drawing, Peters said: 'It's not too far off. It's a little bit (too far) down in the occipital area, is what I would say...But it's not too bad. It's a large wound, and that's what we saw at the time.'" (Well, this is also quite intriguing. Peters placed the wound in the parietal area, but, one can only presume, recalled Clark's description of it as occipito-parietal, and thought better of it. Note also that two of the witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos--Nelson and Peters--had disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing as well.)

  8. Diana H. Bowron: A British registered nurse. Bradlee couldn't find her but quoted her testimony before the Warren Commission.

  9. Dr. William Kemp Clark. Clark refused to be interviewed but Bradlee quoted his previous reports and testimony.

  10. Dr. Gene C. Akin, who "at first recalled that the head wound was 'more parietal than occipital'" but who equivocated after being shown the McClelland drawing, and said "Well, in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it's more occipital.'" (Holy smokes. This confirms that at least one back of the head witness deferred to the accuracy of McClelland's drawing, without realizing the drawing had not been made by McClelland, and without the foresight to realize McClelland himself would come to dispute its accuracy. There's also this. Of the 8 witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, three--Nelson, Peters, and Akin--also initially disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.)

This, then brings us to the six witnesses Bradlee spoke to who "tended to agree with the official description of the head wound that emerged from the autopsy and Warren Report."

• 1. Dr. Charles Baxter, who, despite his earlier statements and testimony, drew "a large wound in the parietal region" on a model skull, and "said the official autopsy photo of the back of the head did not conflict with his memory."

  2. Dr. Adolph Giesecke, who "placed the head wound in the right parietal region, saying it extended about three or four centimeters into the occiput. Though this would appear to make the wound visible in a rear-view photo, Giesecke said the official autopsy photograph was nonetheless 'very compatible' with what he remembered. He explained this by saying that in the photograph it appeared to him that a flap of scalp blown loose by a billet was being held in such a way as to cover the rear-most portion of the skull wound. Giesecke said the McClelland drawing did not reflect what he remembered of the wound." (So Giesecke was being reasonable; the photo didn't reflect exactly what he remembered but it was close enough for him to assume it was legitimate. Meanwhile, he totally dismissed the McClelland drawing.)

  3. Dr. Charles Carrico, who was not interviewed, but answered questions by letter, and said in his first letter "that the official autopsy photograph showed 'nothing incompatible' with what he remembered of the back of the head. But he conceded that 'we never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound.' In his second letter, Carrico said he agreed with the size of the wound shown in the McClelland drawing, but not its location, since '...we were able to see the majority. if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back in a hospital gurney.'"

  4. Dr. Malcolm Perry, who, like Carrico, declined to be interviewed, but responded by letter. "In the first letter. Perry said that while he gave only a 'cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions,' the autopsy photograph 'seems to be consistent with what I saw.' In his second letter, Perry simply-reiterated that he had not made a careful examination of the head wound. and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark."

  5. Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, whose earlier claims he'd observed cerebellum had been widely quoted "told The Globe he had been mistaken in his statements on this. 'I thought it was cerebellum, but I didn't examine it,' he said. Jenkins refused to draw a picture of the head wound on a plastic skull model, insisting instead that a reporter play the part of the supine Kennedy so he could demonstrate what he saw and did. Asked to locate the large head wound, Jenkins pointed to the parietal area above the right ear. He said he had never looked at the back of the head."

  6. Dr. Robert G. Grossman, who "said he took up a position next to Dr. Clark at the right of Kennedy's head. In contrast to Jenkins, Grossman said the president's head was picked up by Clark. 'It was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited,' Grossman said. Besides this large parietal wound, Grossman went on to say that he had noted another separate wound. measuring about one—and—a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman was the only doctor interviewed who made such a reference to two distinct wounds. Though no occipital wound such as he described is apparent in the official autopsy photograph, Grossman nevertheless said 'it seems consistent' with what he remembered. He said the large wound depicted in the McClelland drawing 'is in the wrong place.'"

Let's reflect. Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of these 14, 8 strongly questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head, and 6 supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo. This is indeed interesting. But what's just as interesting, and just as telling in the long run, is that NINE of these 14 rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, which those focusing on this issue nevertheless propped up as a depiction of the one true wound.

Feel free to scream. And let's reflect that when ultimately reporting on these interviews, in his 1989 best seller High Treason, Livingstone and his co-author Robert Groden claimed that the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate."

So, I ask again, were we conned?

[Michael Crane]

I guess that I am in agreement with Dr Grossman.I personally believe that President Kennedy was shot twice in the head.The first bullet arrived at the back of the head low and off to the right & the second bullet entered the right temple in the front & blew the back of his head apart about a second later.The exit wound almost obliterated the entrance wound.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

Interesting any thoughts?

 

[Pat Speer]

Michael, that photo on the right is not a Kennedy assassination photograph. It is a photo of someone else that Groden has falsely claimed as (and sold as) a previously unseen photo of JFK. 

I don't know which is more disturbing--the photograph itself or Groden's deceiving people into thinking it's a photo of JFK. 

[Michael Crane]

The hair is wet & I would expect to see a gloved hand.

[Pat Speer]

Here you go, Michael.

[Michael Crane]

Once again,I wanna thank you Pat.I myself had never seen that picture until last night & thought that it was worthy of discussion.

[Sean Coleman]

 

Gruesome yet hypnotic.

Witnesses saw this wound at Bethesda? Wrapped in a towel, removed from a shipping casket? 
 

credit to John Mytton, morphed 2 pics, Riebe/Stringer?….discuss

[Michael Crane]

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

 

IMG_0714.MOV 1.02 MB · 0 downloads  

Gruesome yet hypnotic.

Witnesses saw this wound at Bethesda? Wrapped in a towel, removed from a shipping casket? 
 

credit to John Mytton, morphed 2 pics, Riebe/Stringer?….discuss

I personally can't wrap my head around it.Someone butchered Kennedy's head after it left Parkland.Doug Horne seems to think that it was Humes himself witnessed by Ed Reed & Thomas Robinson.I still don't know where that picture was taken at Bethesda.There is a Bethesda towel in some autopsy pics & not Walter Reed.The helicopter ride over? HelI,I don't know,but leaning towards it being done at Bethesda.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Sean Coleman]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

I personally can't wrap my head around it.Someone butchered Kennedy's head after it left Parkland.Doug Horne seems to think that it was Humes himself witnessed by Ed Reed & Thomas Robinson.I still don't know where that picture was taken at Bethesda.There is a Bethesda towel in some autopsy pics & not Walter Reed.

 

It’s twisting my melon man.

A fist sized head wound to the rear of the head leaves Parkland in a fancy casket and arrives at Bethesda in a galvanised dustbin with a gaping  head wound to the top of the head. 
Have you read DSL’s Best Evidence?

[Michael Crane]

Yes,I have read Best Evidence.What's on your mind?

Edited April 18, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Sean Coleman]

I like it, it makes sense, fills in a lot of gaps