Searching for the occipital-parietal head wound in the autopsy photographs

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Pat:

I read Riley's report. His report is not really a proof of anything. His claim that occipital bone is devoid of vascular grooves is false (Dr Mantik has discussed it in detail in his book) and I myself have checked quite many plates in current anatomy books, and of course, vascular grooves can be found on the interior of the squama of occipital bone.

It is quite a bit of serious work to model and fit Harper fragment into a head model, and while I started some preparatory work, this project is far from completion, and I therefore cannot show the location I currently think is the correct one  because  this location may change in the later stages of the project, and I do not wish to spread information about my unfinished project. However, even my preparatory reading was sufficient to be able to see obvious mistakes in the assumed parietal location of Harper fragment. The most obvious mistake is that the parietal bone is convex, angulated, while Harper fragment is a flat piece of bone. Therefore, it would not fit the parietal bone.

It is encouraging that we both can agree on the fact that Harper fragment was a piece of JFK's skull and that it was blasted out from his head in such a way that a hole would have been seen on JFK's head. If it would have been on the parietal bone, all Parkland staff would see it at once and would locate it by pointing to the side of their head between vertex and the ear. But they did not do that. The hole was elsewhere - in the back of the head, this is where they pointed to. 

Here is a posterior view of human skull giving a good indication of how convex the parietal bone is, unlike the squama of the occipital bone above the superior nucha which region of the skull is flat.  Harper fragment would only fit a flat bone.

 

 

This photograph (Kennedy meeting miners in West Virginia, 1960) nicely shows the (flat) back of Kennedy's head.

Oh my. If you really think the back of the head is flat, I suggest you take this tool called a hand and place it on the back of your head. You will quickly realize that the area stretching from the suture on down 2 1/2 inches is far from flat. 

Here is a 3-D presentation of the occipital bone, showing its interior aspect. It is not flat, and Mantik's suggestion Kennedy was diseased and that this flattened out the interior of his skull is disgusting and/or laughable. 

P.S. Should one want to see this image while it rotates one can view it in chapter 19a of my website. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. If you really think the back of the head is flat, I suggest you take this tool called a hand and place it on the back of your head.

 

A small flat area on the back of one's head is not uncommon. I have a 3" flat area on the back of my head.

It's a condition called plagiocephaly, a.k.a. flat head syndrome. Believe it or not.

 

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

As to what head wound the Parkland doctors and nurses could see on Kennedy's head, Dr Aguilar's narrative explains the situation in Trauma Room One. The head wound could not be seen from a side view and therefore, it could not be located on the convexity of the parietal bone, and it took some effort to observe the head wound in the back of the head:

"Author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell claimed that JFK's skull wound "was so localised at the rear of JFK's skull that, from her position on the right side on the right hand side, with Kenned's lying face up, she couldn't see any damage". It is certainly likely that a blown-out skull wound on the right side would have been visible to witnesses standing on that side. But had the skull defect been more on the back of JFK's head, rather than on the side - which, as we'll see is what virtually all the witnesses first reported - then some sense can be made of Jenkins' and Bell's comments that the wound was not visible to side witnesses. It would also help explain the similar, previously suppressed, report from a witness who was present at JFK's autopsy - General Phillip C. Wehle, Commanding Officer of the military District of Washington, D.C. After interviewing Wehle in 1978, House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA), councel D. Andy Purdy  J.D., reported that, (Wehle) noted the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up..." (page 179)

"The Boston Globe reported that "some (Parkland) doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible  since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart." 

The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

I would think at least part of the head wound would have been visible as JFK lay supline. As you know the location described and illustrated by so many put the wound on the right rear not the absolute rear.
 When Dr Peters called Dr Clark's attention to the wound he was able tell Dr Clark it looked "fatal". Dr Peters also puts the wound on the "right" occipital parietal.
Dr Clark inspected the wound well enough to say it was "mortal"(Per Perry and Peters). In his WC testimony it says  "insurviuvable"  and confirmed it was in the right* posterior.

 I have seen many instances where witnesses say "Back of the head" but then more specifically point to the right O.C. Theran Ward said "Back of the head in his report but is shown touching his fingers to the right mastoid area. Nurse Bowron said 'Back of the head" but the drawing she agreed with was in the right rear.
 The back of the head is the entire posterior half and it seems common for people to say back of the head as a generalization. I seem to recall even McClelland using the term back of the head as he pointed to the right occipital parietal. But of course we know he has placed it in the right rear all his life.
I wonder if after turning JFK's head to show Bell did Perry turn it back to face up? Or did he leave it turned a bit as the doctors would soon be inspecting it after the initial efforts of restoring breath and circulation. Bell was there very early on so if Perry left the head slightly turned it would be visible for all the doctors who saw it after Audrey Bell.
 I think it is possible all the gore, scalp and hair may have made it hard to find the wound initially. But in stark contradiction to that many staff saw the large amount of blood and brain tissue being ejected with every chest compression. Multiple staff mentioned this. So how is it they can't find the wound at first when blood comes gushing out with every chest compression? Baxter said in his WC testimony that 'literally the right* side of his head had been blown off". Specter asked him what he saw "when he arrived". Baxter said when he arrived in the room he noticed a head wound that was largely covered in blood and it's extent was not immediately determined.
 Dr Carrico who was the first doctor there said they removed his clothes then looked at he throat wound. They felt around his back for wounds then verified there was no large sucking chest wound, "then we proceeded to look at the head wound", "which had been previously observed."  When was "previously"? They had just got his clothes off and made a couple observation but someone had already looked at the head wound. In addition it should be noted that in taking his clothes off the body would have to be moved around a bit. How do you get the shirt and coat off? You have to pull the shirt and coat from under him or lift him up a little.
 So I have to assume that they could see at least part of the wound before tuning the head. I can only assume the term "Back of the head" or "posterior" were used in a general way because far too many staff put the wound on the right rear.
 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

A small flat area on the back of one's head is not uncommon. I have a 3" flat area on the back of my head.

It's a condition called plagiocephaly, a.k.a. flat head syndrome. Believe it or not.

 

This was a 2 1/2 inch triangle. There is no such flat spot on the occipital bone. The flat spot you might feel on the back of your head is from the top of your ears and up. That is largely parietal bone. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

 

 

That green thing is the external occipital protuberance (EOP). My flat area begins about 1/2" below the EOP and ends near the top of this guy's occipital bone. My flat area seems to be fully contained within this guy's occipital bone.

If you took this guy's occipital bone and cut off the top 1/2" so that it has an isosceles trapezoidal shape instead of triangular, that would describe my flat spot. In fact, I believe that my flat area is 100% occipital. And that the boundaries are the same. (However, the part of my occipital bone that is more than 1/2" below my EOP is not flat. That part of my Occipital bone wraps underneath my skull.)

I didn't realize till now that my head shape is rather odd. In this illustration the EOP is red:

In all the drawings I've seen, the EOP is on the bottom of the skull. In contrast, on my head the EOP is on the BACK of my head... and a part of my flat area.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. If you really think the back of the head is flat, I suggest you take this tool called a hand and place it on the back of your head. You will quickly realize that the area stretching from the suture on down 2 1/2 inches is far from flat. 

Human heads differ in shapes and the occipital-parietal region is one of the examples. Some people have rounded occipital bones, other people have the back of the head straight and tall. This is why I showed the view of President Kennedy in which the back of his head is clearly visible. 

Unless your head model matched Kennedy's head in size and shape - particularly in the back portion of the head, you would not be able to conclude whether the bone was flat enough or large enough to give Harper fragment. It cannot be decided without testing it. I doubt that touching own head would help too much in this process; this method looks too simple to me, given the differences in size and shape of human heads.

[Andrej Stancak]

James Jenkin's index finger points directly to the area where he saw the open head wound before the scalp was retracted. The wound as he remembers it was sized 3x2 inches. The wound would be largely in the occipital bone and spread somewhat to the parietal bone.

https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM

The image below is a screenshot of a frame at 29:45 in video interview with James Jenkins, assistant pathologist at the medical school of the Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Andrej Stancak