VICTORY for the credibility of Parkland nurse Audrey Bell

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I guess you didn't read Bell's article, or my posts in response. It turns out that in a section excised by Micah in his first post (presumably because it didn't deal with the head wounds) Bell mentioned giving a fragment (singular) to a Department of Public Safety officer. I believe this is the official story. Years later she told the HSCA there were multiple fragments and that she gave them to the FBI, which led numerous writers and researchers to  ooh and ahh and assume there was some mass cover-up of the "real" fragments...perhaps because they were too numerous to have come from CE 399. 

This made her a CT darling. 

Well, years after that, she was contacted by the ARRB. And she now shares a story about Perry showing her the head wound, and it's being low on the back of the head. 

While the 1968 article by Bell should cause one to doubt the position first shared with me by Lifton (that she was never even in Trauma Room One) it undoubtedly damages her credibility in other ways. To the extent even that one seriously interested in the truth should avoid listing her among important witnesses. 

I mean, I ended up concluding the back of the head wound described by most researchers is nonsense. But it's not as if there are only a few reasons to believe there was such a wound. We have Clark, first and foremost. And the supporting cast. As has been argued in this thread, one can conclude those stating the wound was not on the far back of the head (Giesecke, Salyer) were mistaken and those claiming they were mistaken when they said it was on the far back of the head  (Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones) were pressured to do so. I don't buy it. But one is not insane to do so. 

Adding the likes of Crenshaw and even McClelland into the mix--people who didn't come forward for decades or who changed their stories after their initial reports--and then appeared to revel in the attention, is questionable to begin with. But relying on Bell--who had no support for her story to begin with--and who it now turns out had written an article within a few years of the assassination that was in direct opposition to her subsequent claims regarding the fragments--well, that's just self-defeating, and fodder for a future Litwin article. 

 

 

Just a couple points about Dr's Sayler and Giesecke. Sayler said "Temporal area" to the WC. A well known photo of him demonstrating the location is taken from a film in which he say "Parietal". That sounds like he did not support the rear head wound location. But the photo clearly shows him with his hand behind the ear and in the midrange, height wise. The photo is the most definitive example we have of where he saw the wound. So why the apparent contradictions? We should note that the temporal, occipital and parietal bones all meet low behind the ear. In the photo his little finger and ring finger, and possibly middle finger, are falling on the parietal bone. His thumb is about at the temporal/occipital junction. His index and middle finger are around the occipital bone. I am making a somewhat rough estimations here because the photo is not the best angle for an exact interpretation. I do think the photo clears up his testimony about the terms he used. He did seem to support the  rear of the head reports.
    Dr Giesecke said to the WC that the wound went from the "Brow line" all the way to the "occiput". His statement supports the large hole in the rear and also the official report. I tend to leave him out of my count because he does not say one or the other location, which raises questions. "Left side" was an obvious and simple mistake that everyone makes sometimes. But it is worth noting that he did see a wound that went all the way down to the occiput. I do not think he can be taken as a supporter of the argument that there was no hole in the rear.
 
 

[Chris Bristow]

13 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I find your logic quite persuasive.  It's the perfect strategy for the doctors to avoid getting caught between their own observations and the overwhelming power of the government's position.  Simply roll over and not dispute them.

I appreciate that. They can get away with their opinions on what they saw, but accusing the WC of faking the autopsy is much more serious. Calling out other doctors as XXXXX is also something I think they would want to avoid.

[Pat Speer]

 

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Just a couple points about Dr's Sayler and Giesecke. Sayler said "Temporal area" to the WC. A well known photo of him demonstrating the location is taken from a film in which he say "Parietal". That sounds like he did not support the rear head wound location. But the photo clearly shows him with his hand behind the ear and in the midrange, height wise. The photo is the most definitive example we have of where he saw the wound. So why the apparent contradictions? We should note that the temporal, occipital and parietal bones all meet low behind the ear. In the photo his little finger and ring finger, and possibly middle finger, are falling on the parietal bone. His thumb is about at the temporal/occipital junction. His index and middle finger are around the occipital bone. I am making a somewhat rough estimations here because the photo is not the best angle for an exact interpretation. I do think the photo clears up his testimony about the terms he used. He did seem to support the  rear of the head reports.
    Dr Giesecke said to the WC that the wound went from the "Brow line" all the way to the "occiput". His statement supports the large hole in the rear and also the official report. I tend to leave him out of my count because he does not say one or the other location, which raises questions. "Left side" was an obvious and simple mistake that everyone makes sometimes. But it is worth noting that he did see a wound that went all the way down to the occiput. I do not think he can be taken as a supporter of the argument that there was no hole in the rear.
 
 

I met Salyer at a Lancer Conference. It was after a presentation on the Dallas Doctors. We were surrounded by people desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head. (These people had paid good money to attend a conference in which this story was propagated.) I remember looking around the room and spotting five witnesses claiming to have seen Kennedy's fatal wound. I had spoken to all of them. William Newman had told me the wound he saw in the plaza was over JFK's ear. James Jenkins had told me (with Matt Douthit as a witness) that the far back of the head was shattered but still there beneath the scalp and that the large open wound he'd observed at the beginning of the autopsy was at the top of the back of the head, from the ear on back a few inches. Dr. Peter Loeb had told us the top of the head had been blown off. Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of his head, not back. Which brings us to Salyer. I talked face to face with Salyer for several minutes. He said the wound was on the side and top of the head, and was exactly where it is shown in the autopsy photos. He said as well that he knew people wanted him to say otherwise, but he was gonna tell it like he remembered it. As I recall he said he was open to the possibility of conspiracy, but that the back-of-the head blow-out was nonsense in his opinion. 

So, no, Salyer is not a back of the head witness. In fact, not one of the five witnesses at this conference described such a wound. They all had the chance to say the back of the head was blown out or missing, and excite 150 to 200 people, and all passed. I remember the confused look on some of the faces. It was like they'd gone to a concert, and were disappointed when the performer refused to play his hits or do an encore. They were let down. As I recall, I even heard someone mutter "What a rip-off!" 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

This is my idea of cherry picking to suit my own belief  😉

 

 

I don't think it was this low  😞

 

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

This is my idea of cherry picking to suit my own belief  😉

 

 

I don't think it was this low  😞

 

That drawing was intended to show the size of the wound after scalp was pulled back and skull fell to the table. It's fairly accurate, IMO. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Entry location and not entry wound in my judgement.

The frontal shot obliterated alot (not all) of damage/trajectory/path to the rear of the head.

Just my $.02 cents which doesn't buy alot.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

I don't know how much manipulation Robert put into this.

 

His clay illustration of JFK's head with the top & side damage I believe was taken during the autopsy.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Entry location and not entry wound in my judgement.

The frontal shot obliterated alot (not all) of damage/trajectory/path to the rear of the head.

Just my $.02 cents which doesn't buy alot.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying there was no entry wound on the back of the head, where Humes, Boswell, Finck et al said they saw an entry wound? 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

I don't know how much manipulation Robert put into this.

 

His clay illustration of JFK's head with the top & side damage I believe was taken during the autopsy.

Three points.

1. Groden colorized the mystery photo and blow-up from the mystery photo.

2. No wound is visible on the back of JFK's head in the Moorman photo. Groden has either altered the contrast to accentuate the dark shape on the photo, or used photoshop to accentuate the photo. In either case, the photo shows debris flying from the right temple area and does not show an explosion from the back of the head. 

3. The clay depiction of Kennedy's wounds shown in Groden's books was created for Groden to show what he thinks Kennedy's wound looked like. Essentially he tried to have it both ways and merged the wound in the autopsy photos with the wound in the McClelland drawing. It's nonsense. The wound he depicts is much much larger than what was seen at Parkland or Bethesda, On my website, moreover, I track the evolution of Groden's depictions of the wound. For years he had two large wounds--one at the top of the head and one on the back of the head--but he finally settled on one large wound with a flap in the middle, if I recall. In any event, he purports to be presenting what the witnesses saw or some such thing but presents depictions of the wound described by no one. 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

What I'm saying is that circle does not represent the actual wound.It is merely a entrance point IMHO.

I remember reading over & over about a bullet entrance at about a location that is "slightly above and to the right of the EOP"

So over there in that general vicinity.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I met Salyer at a Lancer Conference. It was after a presentation on the Dallas Doctors. We were surrounded by people desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head. (These people had paid good money to attend a conference in which this story was propagated.) I remember looking around the room and spotting five witnesses claiming to have seen Kennedy's fatal wound. I had spoken to all of them. William Newman had told me the wound he saw in the plaza was over JFK's ear. James Jenkins had told me (with Matt Douthit as a witness) that the far back of the head was shattered but still there beneath the scalp and that the large open wound he'd observed at the beginning of the autopsy was at the top of the back of the head, from the ear on back a few inches. Dr. Peter Loeb had told us the top of the head had been blown off. Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of his head, not back. Which brings us to Salyer. I talked face to face with Salyer for several minutes. He said the wound was on the side and top of the head, and was exactly where it is shown in the autopsy photos. He said as well that he knew people wanted him to say otherwise, but he was gonna tell it like he remembered it. As I recall he said he was open to the possibility of conspiracy, but that the back-of-the head blow-out was nonsense in his opinion. 

So, no, Salyer is not a back of the head witness. In fact, not one of the five witnesses at this conference described such a wound. They all had the chance to say the back of the head was blown out or missing, and excite 150 to 200 people, and all passed. I remember the confused look on some of the faces. It was like they'd gone to a concert, and were disappointed when the performer refused to play his hits or do an encore. They were let down. As I recall, I even heard someone mutter "What a rip-off!" 

 

Would you say then, that Sayler lied when he showed the wound as being in the back of the head? Could we not consider the possibility that maybe he and others lied to you?  There is the likelihood, as has been stated before, that there was good reason for witnesses not to admit what they actually saw. I think the attack on Crenshaw by the journal of American Medical Association puts that option very much on the table. Sayler either grossly misrepresented the wound in the photo or he misrepresented it to you. I see a plausible reason for him to lie to you but not much reason for him to lie about the wound in the photo. Unless he was out for money and notoriety. But that does not comport with what he told you in a conference full of people  "desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head.". 
  I try to view the issue skeptically from both sides and have to wonder if maybe your own perceptions could be a bit colored by your views.  
As an example you said "Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of the head, not back."
   I think your statement shows a bias, as Goldstritch's comment did not suggest the wound was on the top. We have many witnesses who saw brain hanging out from the wound in the O.C. Even as JFK lay on his back, a large portion of the reported O.C. wound would have been visible.  Yet you 'suggest' his statement supports the views you have written extensively on.
  Sayler and the others have contradicted themselves. So now we are left to figure out on which occasions they misrepresented their observations.  As time went by there were more reasons to hold back their true recollection. A good example would be the attack on Crenshaw in the 80's. But reports written on 11/22, like Clark's, and testimony given in March of 64' are more compelling. Even current WC supporters like Baxter and Carrico wrote reports that day that placed the wound firmly in the O.C.
  I believe the overwhelming number of reports that put the wound in the O.C. are completely unexplainable. Even after we scrutinize them and assign nefarious motives to some, the weight, the number of the reports falls very heavily on the side of the O.C. wound. That is the strongest evidence for the validity of the Parkland accounts. All explanations for it fail, imo.  
 

[Chris Bristow]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Three points.

1. Groden colorized the mystery photo and blow-up from the mystery photo.

2. No wound is visible on the back of JFK's head in the Moorman photo. Groden has either altered the contrast to accentuate the dark shape on the photo, or used photoshop to accentuate the photo. In either case, the photo shows debris flying from the right temple area and does not show an explosion from the back of the head. 

3. The clay depiction of Kennedy's wounds shown in Groden's books was created for Groden to show what he thinks Kennedy's wound looked like. Essentially he tried to have it both ways and merged the wound in the autopsy photos with the wound in the McClelland drawing. It's nonsense. The wound he depicts is much much larger than what was seen at Parkland or Bethesda, On my website, moreover, I track the evolution of Groden's depictions of the wound. For years he had two large wounds--one at the top of the head and one on the back of the head--but he finally settled on one large wound with a flap in the middle, if I recall. In any event, he purports to be presenting what the witnesses saw or some such thing but presents depictions of the wound described by no one. 

 

Just one tiny point here. "The last shots were almost simultaneous" per Greer. if the last shot came just 3 frames after 313 it would not have appeared in the Moorman photo.

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Just one tiny point here. "The last shots were almost simultaneous" per Greer. if the last shot came just 3 frames after 313 it would not have appeared in the Moorman photo.

That is indeed a possibility. If the last two shots were fired close together with the first hitting JFK from behind and the second striking him from the front, yes, I agree, there would be no sign of this second shot on the Moorman photo.  

Edited October 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Would you say then, that Sayler lied when he showed the wound as being in the back of the head? Could we not consider the possibility that maybe he and others lied to you?  There is the likelihood, as has been stated before, that there was good reason for witnesses not to admit what they actually saw. I think the attack on Crenshaw by the journal of American Medical Association puts that option very much on the table. Sayler either grossly misrepresented the wound in the photo or he misrepresented it to you. I see a plausible reason for him to lie to you but not much reason for him to lie about the wound in the photo. Unless he was out for money and notoriety. But that does not comport with what he told you in a conference full of people  "desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head.". 
  I try to view the issue skeptically from both sides and have to wonder if maybe your own perceptions could be a bit colored by your views.  
As an example you said "Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of the head, not back."
   I think your statement shows a bias, as Goldstritch's comment did not suggest the wound was on the top. We have many witnesses who saw brain hanging out from the wound in the O.C. Even as JFK lay on his back, a large portion of the reported O.C. wound would have been visible.  Yet you 'suggest' his statement supports the views you have written extensively on.
  Sayler and the others have contradicted themselves. So now we are left to figure out on which occasions they misrepresented their observations.  As time went by there were more reasons to hold back their true recollection. A good example would be the attack on Crenshaw in the 80's. But reports written on 11/22, like Clark's, and testimony given in March of 64' are more compelling. Even current WC supporters like Baxter and Carrico wrote reports that day that placed the wound firmly in the O.C.
  I believe the overwhelming number of reports that put the wound in the O.C. are completely unexplainable. Even after we scrutinize them and assign nefarious motives to some, the weight, the number of the reports falls very heavily on the side of the O.C. wound. That is the strongest evidence for the validity of the Parkland accounts. All explanations for it fail, imo.  
 

Salyer went to the Lancer JFK conference and stood in front of a largely CT crowd and told them the wound was on the side and top of the head. And this wasn't new. He'd been quoted saying as much several times before. I knew what he was gonna say. But I was surprised to find he wasn't alone. Salyer, Goldstrich, and Loeb spoke at Lancer before a large audience, most of which was expecting them to say there was a large blow-out wound on the back of the head. Their appearance was made to help promote "the Parkland Doctors" movie, I think it was, in which the doctors were allowed to tell their stories. In any event, most of the audience was all excited about their appearance, thinking they were gonna say the wound was on the far back of the head and the mainstream media was finally gonna notice or whatever. But none of them did. In fact, Salyer and Loeb both said the wound was not on the far back of the head. Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head. As stated, there were grumblings from the crowd, and much consternation on the faces of those in attendance who'd been expecting these doctors to "finally tell the truth" or some such thing. It was a lot like when Buell Frazier appeared and was heckled by a guy wanting to know why he wouldn't admit Kennedy was on the front steps, or whatever. Some--perhaps the majority--go to these conferences expecting to be told what they already believe, and get angry when told something that challenges their beliefs. After my first appearance at Lancer, Deb Conway--who wasn't familiar with my research and didn't know what to expect--came up to me and told me she thought I'd really given people something to think about, and to not worry if they don't come up and congratulate me or whatever because it wold take ten years or so to sink in. She was undoubtedly an optimist. 

As far as any photos published by Groden showing Salyer's interpretation of the wound location...the photo I recollect seeing is of Salyer pointing to the side of his head, by his ear. Not to the far back of his head.

But, assuming Groden has such a photo, let me expand.

On my website I go through Groden's "witnesses" and show how some of them were repeating what they'd been told by others or were guessing based on other information. There were two witnesses, however, whose recollections were grossly misrepresented and whose presence in Groden's book was a disgrace. As I recall the images of both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer were taken from a video put out by Groden, where they described the whole top right side of JFK's head missing. (They were presumably describing the wound as seen after the doctors peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table.) In any event, they pointed with their hand as they said the wound stretched from the front of the skull by the hairline and extended all the way back to the base of the skull. And Groden made a screen grab of them with their hands on the back of their heads and said this was where they saw the wound. This was disgraceful. He was trying to convince his readers that the Parkland doctors and Bethesda doctors saw the same wound on the back of the head, and that there had been no alteration of the body, and knew O'Connor and Custer had described a wound many times the size of the wound observed at Parkland--and were almost certainly describing the size of the wound after the brain had been removed... And yet he made out they were describing the wound in the McClelland drawing. Well, this would lead me to suspect that any photo in his possession of Salyer pointing to the far back of his head would be of a similar nature: a scam. 

[Michael Crane]

Pat,

There has to be a massive size hole in the head to be able to remove the brain.

Once again,in my opinion,this diagram if true,represents the condition of the head after the brain has been removed.

I still say that pictures were taken all during and maybe even some after the autopsy (Spencer)

Hell,there was probably some X-rays that were taken late or after the autopsy also.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Michael Crane