Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters to Gerald Posner: Dr. Robert McClelland WASN'T in the best position to see the head wound because he was on the OTHER SIDE of the table?

[Micah Mileto]

Dr. McClelland apparently told the same story throughout the years: he was standing on the head of the gurney at Trauma Room One, helping Perry and Baxter perform the tracheotomy by holding a retractor into the neck incision while it was being explored. Kennedy's head was right below him, so he was in one of the best possible positions to see the large head wound. But an undiscussed quote attributed to Dr. Paul Peters in Gerald Posner's 1993 book Case Closed seems to say otherwise:

 

[...] “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99

“I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 […]

 

Any ideas on what this is supposed to mean?

[Michael Griffith]

Dr. Peters himself said in a 1997 interview that the large head wound was "in the occipital parietal on the right side of the head" (Item 04.pdf (hood.edu).

JFK was on the operating table in the trauma room for at least 20 minutes. In his 1997 interview, Peters said McClelland was standing next to Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon, on JFK's left side. Dr. Clark "examined" JFK's head and saw the same wound that McClelland described, so Clark would have had to have moved in order to examine the head. McClelland may have moved around at times as well. He may not have stayed on the president's left side the entire time. 

Plus, once the doctors gave up trying to save Kennedy, McClelland would have surely moved around and would have had had ample opportunity to view the large head wound. 

Dr. Perry also said the large wound was in the "right occipital-parietal area" (Warren Commission, Volume VI: Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry (history-matters.com).

Thus, McClelland described the same wound--the large right occipital-parietal wound--that Peters and Perry described. So I don't see this as a major issue. 

[Gerry Down]

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Dr. McClelland apparently told the same story throughout the years: he was standing on the head of the gurney at Trauma Room One, helping Perry and Baxter perform the tracheotomy by holding a retractor into the neck incision while it was being explored. Kennedy's head was right below him, so he was in one of the best possible positions to see the large head wound. But an undiscussed quote attributed to Dr. Paul Peters in Gerald Posner's 1993 book Case Closed seems to say otherwise:

 

[...] “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99

“I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 […]

 

Any ideas on what this is supposed to mean?

Is the point here that Posner tried to suggest that McClellend was wrong about the large wound on the back of the head using Dr. Perry, even though in other testimony Dr. Perry concurred there was indeed a large hole there?

I have not read this section of Case Closed in a while so I'm not sure of the full context of this part of the book.

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Is the point here that Posner tried to suggest that McClellend was wrong about the large wound on the back of the head using Dr. Perry, even though in other testimony Dr. Perry concurred there was indeed a large hole there?

I have not read this section of Case Closed in a while so I'm not sure of the full context of this part of the book.

Posner repeatedly deceives. His treatment of McClelland and the large head wound is just one of numerous examples of what appears to be intentional deception.

One glaring example of Posner's deception is his use of Kerry Thornley to attack Oswald. As part of his effort to portray Oswald as a glory-seeking, lackluster, Marxist Marine, Posner uses Thornley's unflattering testimony about Oswald. But Posner never tells his readers that Thornley claimed that he was a N a z i breeding experiment, that a bugging device was planted on him at birth so that N a z i cultists could monitor him as he grew up, and that Oswald was a N a z i breeding experiment too (for more on Thornley, see Jonathan Vankin, Conspiracies, Cover-Ups, and Crimes, New York: Dell Publishing, pp. 18-19).

Posner rejects numerous pro-conspiracy witnesses who had infinitely fewer and less severe credibility issues, but he uses a basket case like Thornley to attack Oswald and never tells his readers about Thornley's nutty beliefs.

[Gerry Down]

19 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Posner repeatedly deceives. His treatment of McClelland and the large head wound is just one of numerous examples of what appears to be intentional deception.

One glaring example of Posner's deception is his use of Kerry Thornley to attack Oswald. As part of his effort to portray Oswald as a glory-seeking, lackluster, Marxist Marine, Posner uses Thornley's unflattering testimony about Oswald. But Posner never tells his readers that Thornley claimed that he was a N a z i breeding experiment, that a bugging device was planted on him at birth so that N a z i cultists could monitor him as he grew up, and that Oswald was a N a z i breeding experiment too (for more on Thornley, see Jonathan Vankin, Conspiracies, Cover-Ups, and Crimes, New York: Dell Publishing, pp. 18-19).

Posner rejects numerous pro-conspiracy witnesses who had infinitely fewer and less severe credibility issues, but he uses a basket case like Thornley to attack Oswald and never tells his readers about Thornley's nutty beliefs.

This is the first time i've heard of the N a z i claims. But Oswalds pro communist beliefs are not something we depend on Thornley to tell us about. LHOs own diary talks about his communist leanings. He even wrote to the CPUSA in March 1963 looking to join. 

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

This is the first time i've heard of the N a z i claims. But Oswalds pro communist beliefs are not something we depend on Thornley to tell us about. LHOs own diary talks about his communist leanings. He even wrote to the CPUSA in March 1963 looking to join. 

I think the evidence indicates that Oswald's expressions of communist/Marxist leanings were part of his cover story. We have a number of accounts from others who knew him in which he was heard attacking communism/Marxism, defending democracy, and saying capitalism was better than socialism. And there's the speech that Oswald gave at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama, in which he expressed very non-communist/Marxist views, strongly criticized the Soviet Union, and said capitalism, though flawed, was better than socialism. He also gave a conservative-leaning speech in Louisiana.

Lee Oswald: Speech at Spring Hill College in Alabama : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk)

As Lamar Waldron notes, it is very interesting, and perhaps revealing, that Oswald never tried to contact any local communist or pro-Castro organizations. He would write letters to a national HQ but made no effort to contact local chapters.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 9/3/2022 at 4:11 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Dr. McClelland apparently told the same story throughout the years: he was standing on the head of the gurney at Trauma Room One, helping Perry and Baxter perform the tracheotomy by holding a retractor into the neck incision while it was being explored. Kennedy's head was right below him, so he was in one of the best possible positions to see the large head wound. But an undiscussed quote attributed to Dr. Paul Peters in Gerald Posner's 1993 book Case Closed seems to say otherwise:

 

[...] “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99

“I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 […]

 

Any ideas on what this is supposed to mean?

Yes, as demonstrated by numerous studies, the recollections of operating room doctors are not consistent and not to be relied upon. This is why they have autopsies. Not just because initial impressions are frequently incorrect, but because one's memory of one's initial impression is frequently incorrect. 

The beef between McClelland and his fellow doctors was not that the wound was on or near the back of the head, it was that the wound was LOW on the back of the head, as depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing--which, to be clear, McClelland did not draw, and did not supervise. As reported on this website by Tink Thompson, McClelland was not consulted in the creation of that drawing. And yet over time he came to tell people he either consulted with an artist to create the drawing or created it himself. 

As for Peters. he said numerous times that the wound he saw was at the top of the back of the head. That is, in fact, the consensus of the Parkland witnesses--that it was at the top of the back of the head, roughly half-way between where it is shown on the autopsy photos and where it is shown in the so-called McClelland drawing. 

And yet...the myth of the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing continues...

 

[Chris Bristow]

We really don't need to consult drawings at all when it comes to McClelland. There are numerous photos and videos of him placing his hand where he saw the wound,.

It is often argued that we should take the opinions of the doctors performing the autopsy over the Parkland staff. I think this really ignores the fundamental basis of the CT. We doubt the validity of the autopsy because of the consistency of the Parkland staff.  But there are also a number of people at the autopsy who saw the hole in the right rear of the head. Sibert and O'Neill 's report from that day supports the WC. But I'm sure we've seen the videos they did later in which they placed the wound in the right occipital parietal

 The photographic record is very consistent as to where the Parkland staff saw the wound. Videos show many staff stating the wound was in the back of the head. But they also Place their hand in the right rear occipital parietal a second after they say back of the head. There are many instances where you can find a doctor  or nurse saying it was in the back of the head and then immediately clarifying or specifying the right rear.

I think it's abundantly clear from the Warren Commission testimony that Dr Clark made a close inspection of the head wound. He declared it was unsurvivable and with the very next words out of his mouth he told the doctors to give up the resuscitation. Of course he did, there's no reason to continue resuscitation if your opinion is that the patient  will not survive. Dr Clark testified the wound was in the right posterior. When asked at the WC to speculate on the loss of brain function that might have resulted, Dr Clark stated the loss of the right occipital and part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. So he again affirms that the wound was occipital. The arrb transcribed his notes from 11/22 and he stated that there was a large wound in the right occipital parietal region. Very consistent reports from the doctor responsible for making the decision to give up the resuscitation.

 I know I'm just repeating things that most everyone here knows. But imo an fair  examination of the Parkland testimony and subsequent statements shows there is a very strong consistency in their accounts.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

We really don't need to consult drawings at all when it comes to McClelland. There are numerous photos and videos of him placing his hand where he saw the wound,.

It is often argued that we should take the opinions of the doctors performing the autopsy over the Parkland staff. I think this really ignores the fundamental basis of the CT. We doubt the validity of the autopsy because of the consistency of the Parkland staff.  But there are also a number of people at the autopsy who saw the hole in the right rear of the head. Sibert and O'Neill 's report from that day supports the WC. But I'm sure we've seen the videos they did later in which they placed the wound in the right occipital parietal

 The photographic record is very consistent as to where the Parkland staff saw the wound. Videos show many staff stating the wound was in the back of the head. But they also Place their hand in the right rear occipital parietal a second after they say back of the head. There are many instances where you can find a doctor  or nurse saying it was in the back of the head and then immediately clarifying or specifying the right rear.

I think it's abundantly clear from the Warren Commission testimony that Dr Clark made a close inspection of the head wound. He declared it was unsurvivable and with the very next words out of his mouth he told the doctors to give up the resuscitation. Of course he did, there's no reason to continue resuscitation if your opinion is that the patient  will not survive. Dr Clark testified the wound was in the right posterior. When asked at the WC to speculate on the loss of brain function that might have resulted, Dr Clark stated the loss of the right occipital and part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. So he again affirms that the wound was occipital. The arrb transcribed his notes from 11/22 and he stated that there was a large wound in the right occipital parietal region. Very consistent reports from the doctor responsible for making the decision to give up the resuscitation.

 I know I'm just repeating things that most everyone here knows. But imo an fair  examination of the Parkland testimony and subsequent statements shows there is a very strong consistency in their accounts.

 

 

So we can agree then that the so-called McClelland drawing is not remotely accurate and that those claiming it is have been grossly deceptive. 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So we can agree then that the so-called McClelland drawing is not remotely accurate and that those claiming it is have been grossly deceptive. 

You're oh so correct about this point, Pat.

And even Dr. McClelland himself, during his 1988 NOVA/PBS television appearance, has totally contradicted his ridiculous "Huge Hole In The Back Of The Head" sketch.

In a 2012 discussion, I imparted this....

"Here's another way to try and get my point across about the absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head wounds:

At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr. McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing:



Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland generally agrees with the information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this:

How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet?

In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on November 22, 1963?



I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N. McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the President's skull."

David Von Pein
January 26, 2012

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on November 22, 1963?

 

That's obviously not JFK's head in the photo.

20 medical professional saying that there was a hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head cannot possibly all be wrong. Mass hallucinations do not happen.

 

[David Von Pein]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's obviously not JFK's head in the photo.

And just whose head do you think this is, Sandy? Groucho Marx's maybe? ....

Reminder.....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

 

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

20 medical professional saying that there was a hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head cannot possibly all be wrong. Mass hallucinations do not happen.

And what about this X-ray, Sandy? See any hole in the right-rear of the head here? Or don't you think this X-ray is really of John Kennedy's cranium either?....

 

And what about the Zapruder Film? Why don't we see any right-rear head damage whatsoever here, Sandy?....

 

In short.....

There isn't a single piece of photographic evidence to support the notion that JFK had a great big hole in the right-rear of his head. Instead, every single piece of photographic evidence (autopsy photos, autopsy X-rays, and the Z-Film) supports the fact that there was NO large "BOH" wound at all.

Edited September 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So we can agree then that the so-called McClelland drawing is not remotely accurate and that those claiming it is have been grossly deceptive. 

 

No, we can't agree on that.

Compare the "so-called" (fake) McClelland drawing to a real McClelland drawing:

The real one has the wound a little bit higher. But the fake one isn't "not remotely accurate," as you put it. And neither of them has the wound at the top-rear of the head, where you keep claiming it was located.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what about this X-ray, Sandy? See any hole in the right-rear of the head here? Or don't you think this X-ray is really of John Kennedy's cranium either?....

 

 

If that is really Kennedy's skull, then it was after someone had put the skull fragments back in place. Obviously.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Apparently both Pat and DVP believe that mass hallucination is possible.