Pat Speer Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Indeed, and that is the explanation for Newman and Zapruder pointing to their right temples -- they had just witnessed a bullet impacting that very location. And Malcolm Kilduff was merely demonstrating where KFK's physician, George Burkley, had just told him the bullet had entered JFK's head. As for James Humes, as you pointed out, this is a little more complicated, as Humes was denoting the location of the clandestine craniotomy mortician Tom Robinson and X-ray Tech Ed Reed witnessed him perform (as well as the location of the incision Ed Reed told the HSCA he had seen Humes make in JFK's forehead); although as Humes, Boswell and Finck all repeatedly denied that a craniotomy had been performed, viewers of Humes's hand gesture were all in the dark, and for the most part, remain there to this day... Only one head wound was noted by the Newmans, Burkley, and Kilduff, and they were all pointing out the location of that wound. And please please don't post images like the one above, as it is deliberately deceptive. 1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos. 2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location. Edited December 29, 2023 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 1:20 AM, Pat Speer said: Except they weren't mistaken in precisely the same way, and very few said the wound was in the location presented in the McClelland drawing. The low occipital blow-out is a hoax. The only doctor to place it there is Crenshaw, and he failed to come froward for 30 years and only did so after becoming immersed in the CT literature. The same could be said for McClelland, who originally described a wound of the left temple--presumably meaning the right temple--and insisted for more than a decade that there was nothing about the wound to make him think a shot came from the front. The best evidence for such a wound is contained in the original reports, minus McClelland. And the key doctors--Perry, Carrico, Jenkins, Baxter, Clark--all later disavowed their statements regarding cerebellum within those reports and/or buddied up with the likes of John Lattimer, who claimed Oswald did it and the conspiracy crowd are wackos. In short, there is no way to present the Parkland witnesses as unified and consistent without cherry-picking and saying the men most involved in JFK's treatment were incompetent, cowards, or XXXXX. They WERE all mistaken in precisely the same way, in that they all located the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal quadrant of the right side of the back of JFK's head, and there is no amount of hair splitting that you can do to change that fact Pat. First of all, and as you well know, Dr. McClelland was mistaken as to the ENTRY WOUND in the head because Dr. Jenkins was taking JFK's pulse at his left temple and McClelland mistakenly believed that Jenkins was signaling that there was an entrance wound at the left temple (according to BOTH doctors). It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview. I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this. (Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History." p. 406) "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) And when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in his 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/1963, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple,''' it is clear McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had entered JFK's head. Your contention that the phrasing "of the left temple" somehow rules out his observation of the large occipital-parietal wound on the basis of your lay-perusing of medical journals is nothing less than absurd. I have seen "of" used by physicians to denote entrance wounds many times, and your repeated assertions to the contrary are simply unconvincing. You should discontinue this slander of Dr. McClelland, and you should discontinue it now. That being said, it is not just the testimony of the Parkland Trauma Team that provides solid evidentiary support for the location of the occipital-parietal wound, but Dealey Plaza witnesses such as Clint Hill, and Jacqueline Kennedy as well: "Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair." (Secret Service Agent Clint Hill in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir") "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission Testimony, June 5, 1964) Also supporting the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is Bethesda autopsy testimony and sketches, such as those of former FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neil (See their diagrams, attached below), and Bethesda Technicians Jerrol Custor, Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins (and spare me the details of Jerrol Custor's later deviations in testimony after he decided to try to become a nationally acclaimed expert on the case): QUESTION: What was the location and dimensions of the large avulsive head wound that you observed in the Bethesda morgue during President Kennedy's autopsy? JENKINS: "...Now the wound that I saw: [pointing to regions on a skull model] This is the occipital area here, the parietal area here, and in the temporal area here. The wound was here approximately where my finger is [Jenkins points to the upper occipital region of the back of the skull model], and it extended down here [Jenkins indicates a lower region on the occiput with his thumb]. It was about 3 and a half inches long, this being the length [Jenkins demonstrates length on skull model], about 2 inches wide [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. That was where the missing bone was, and the missing tissue was. Okay, it wasn't exactly a square or a round thing. The top of the wound was kind of domed, and it came down and kinda had a little tail type of thing that came into here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model], and then it kind of came back up in this area [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. [See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1774 ] As you well know, the above is only a tiny sliver of the voluminous evidence and testimony that supports the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, and your assertion that it is not "the low occipital wound" portrayed in the sketch ratified by Dr. McClelland falls miles short of encompassing all of this evidence, and short even of dispelling the considerable evidence of the "low" occipital wound itself. Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 1:30 AM, Pat Speer said: Only one head wound was noted by the Newmans, Burkley, and Kilduff, and they were all pointing out the location of that wound. And please please don't post images like the one above, as it is deliberately deceptive. 1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos. 2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location. Actually, Bill Newman has indicated that he witnessed the occipital parietal wound at the time of the assassination: And you have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for your assertion that Dr. Burkley observed only "one" wound, nor that it was a "large" frontal wound, as you are implying, any more than you have any basis to assert that you have observed a "large wound" in the autopsy photographs. We know from the existing record that Dr. Burkley was notoriously cryptic about his assassination related medical observations, and your mere speculation cannot fill that void: "...McHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body? BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that...." https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-ggb-01 SPEER: "1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos." This is all speculation: On what basis do you assert that Kilduff was pointing out the location of a SINGLE wound, or that Kilduff and Burkley both observed only ONE wound? And as mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB that the pathologists, not a bullet, caused the top of the head damage that he viewed in the autopsy photographs (consistent with his and Bethesda X-ray Tech Ed Reed's testimony regarding the clandestine craniotomy), on what basis do you assert that there is a "large wound" caused by the assassination visible in the autopsy photographs? SPEER: "2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location." As Dr. Crenshaw makes mention of the right temple wound in some of his accounts, but not in others, I'll agree with you that the photograph of him pointing to his right temple is inconclusive. And as for your veiled objection to the sketch of the autopsy photograph described to Doug Horne by Quentin Schwinn , I concede that the revelations are dated and tenuous (although to me very interesting and persuasive), so I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you about that one; however, the sketch of the photograph based upon Schwinn's description, and the details about how it came into existence is something researchers should be aware of. Conversely, White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, in the early 1990's, related a very interesting story about being shown autopsy photographs by fellow White House photographer Robert Knudsen, shortly after the assassination, depicting the right temple wound and the occipital parietal wound, and then was shown similar autopsy photos a week later in which the right temple and occipital-parietal wounds had been edited out (See O'Donnell himself relate this story as follows at 02:16 which I have cued in advance for you): And yes, I am aware of the controversies involving O'Donnell having dementia later in life and embellishing upon his accomplishments, but do not believe he could have falsified the details of his story about the autopsy photographs simply because he wouldn't have had access to the requisite information in the early 1990's. And Bethesda Autopsy Tech, Dennis David, who was also pictured on the meme you are objecting to, recounted being shown films by Navy Lieutenant Commander William Pitzer who held a senior position at the Bethesda Medical Center which included command over the hospital's closed circuit TV system with which he made instructional movies over the years. William Law elicited very interesting information from former Bethesda X-ray Tech Jerrol Custer pertaining to Pitzer as follows: Law: Who was William Pitzer? Custer: At that time he was the chief in charge of the photographic department of the National Naval Medical Center. He and Dennis David were buddies, long term friends. Dennis wasn't on duty that night, but Chief Pitzer' was. I remember seeing him that evening and he was all around. I mean everywhere you went, you saw Chief Pitzer. He was there. And it's funny to the fact that the man-he never noticed what was around him. He kind of turned the commotion off and he was doing his job. That's what he was paid to do. Law: What was he doing exactly? Custer: Taking movies. Law: He was taking movie film of the autopsy? Custer: Absolutely. Law: And you saw this? Custer: I saw this. Later on it was brought out that Commander Pitzer - well of course he made commander farther down the line - had committed suicide by blowing his brains out by putting a gun in his right hand and shooting himself. Law: What's so unusual about that if you're going to commit suicide? Custer: Well, it's kind of funny. How can you commit suicide when you have a deformed right hand? That couldn't hold a gun? This was clue to a birth defect. And Dennis David' knew it. Everybody that knew the chief knew it and it was evident that night. When he was taking the movies, you could see the hand was deformed. But suicide was the reason for the death on his death certificate, which, I felt, was part of the cover-up. See, you have to be there. You have to see what's going on. Everything is plain and simple. It's there! It's right in front of you! The government feels the experts, so-called experts, are going to look at everything but the nose on their faces. And if you just stop and look at what's right in front of you and not try and surmise, "Well this is why, this is why that happened." My God-Kennedy's skull was pushed backward! Basic physics! You had to have a force from the front! If you had a force from the back, everything would have been pushed forward. Common sense! Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005): https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpitzerW.htm And, according to Dennis David, whom William Law also questioned about William Pitzer: Law: What happened to Bill Pitzer? David: As l said, Bill was one of my mentors - and I took the program for MSC in '64 then - starting early '64 - and missed it. They selected forty - I was forty third on the list. In 1965 I applied for and took the program again. And there were sixty selected that year, and I was number two on the selection list. So then, in late August of '65, Congress passed the bill and the president signed the bill, and I became an officer and a gentleman (laughter). I used to laugh about that because I used to say, "Well, they made me an officer, but my mother made me a gentlemen." At least I tried to be, before that. I left Bethesda in the first week in December of '65 to go to Officer's School and Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island, And shortly before I left, Bill indicated to me that he was getting ready to retire - probably in '66 - and he would have had, I think, thirty years at that time. He had been through the second world war for one thing. So I left, and reported in at Newport, Rhode Island, in the early part of January. I went through the three weeks at Officer's Training School and Naval justice School, and was assigned to a naval hospital in Great Lakes - one of the jobs I had there was as an assistant to one of the department heads. I was in the lobby of the hospital at Great Lakes when Lieutenant Commander Barb Munroe came in and saw me and came over, and of course we renewed old friendships. And she said, "By the way, did you know Bill's dead?" And I said, "No, what happened?" Then she said, "Well, he shot himself." I said, "I don't believe that." And she said, "Well they found him with a gun in his right hand, and he blew his brains out." And I said, "But Bill's left-handed..." That's what I recall, because sometimes - back at Bethesda, Barb, Bill, and I would play bridge together - he sometimes would deal the cards in reverse, you know instead of dealing them clockwise he would deal them counter clockwise (with his left hand) and we'd kid him about it. That was the first time I had heard he was dead. I asked, "Well, why did he commit suicide?" And she said "It's highly questionable that he did." I said, "Well, it stands to reason." And then she said something to me about, "Did you know that he'd had some pretty good job offers?" And I said I had, and that just before the last time I'd seen him, just before I'd left Bethesda, he'd told me that lie had some very lucrative offers from a couple of the national networks like ABC, CBS, to go to work for them. I said, "I suspect it was probably because of some of the films and the material he had from the assassination." She said, "You know he had those?" And I said, "Yes, because l was over there a couple, three days after the autopsy and saw them." She kind of nodded her head as though she agreed with me, or something like that. Law: Did she apparently know that he had the film? David: I don't know whether she did. She seemed surprised when I told her that I knew about it though. Now whatever that was -the reaction - that was the first time she heard... we really didn't discuss it too much after that, because even in '67 - excuse me, in '66 May or June - you still didn't talk about what you knew, your experiences on the night of the assassination. It was still classified information. Law: It's not so unusual that somebody would commit suicide. It happens every day. Why do you feel that Bill Pitzer would not have done this? David: Because I knew the man. You can say well, lie wasn't the type to commit suicide. Well, what type will commit suicide? I don't know, it was just a gut feeling. I didn't think that he would do it. He had been through too many stressful situations in his life. Second world war-he had been in and out of Vietnam for various and sundry reasons-dealing with classified information and I didn't think-you know, lie was not a weak personality type, or type of person who would ever run into anything he couldn't handle, whether it be stressful or whatever, mental. I knew lie had some problems with his kids, but lie generally had a "well you know it will work itself out" attitude towards that. So I don't know. I just didn't feel like lie was the kind of man who would commit suicide. William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005): https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpitzerW.htm I'm certain you will find much to criticize about the tenuous connections involved in some of the above, but I believe all of it is undoubtedly more reliable than your speculation about Dr. McClelland's use of the word "of" in his initial JFK treatment report meaning that McClelland did not observe the occipital-parietal wound in Trauma Room One on 11/22/1963. In some situations -- particularly when involving a high-level government conspiracy -- evidence has greater weight in the aggregate; and sometimes subsequent evidence, even when tenuous, receives substantiation from earlier more significant evidence. The case for JFK's right temple wound -- which mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA was a quarter inch in diameter, that he filled with a dab of wax (not the "large" frontal head wound you keep attempting to impute to this location) -- is precisely such a case, and I submit to you as Exhibit One, constituting foundational evidence lending additional credibility to that which followed, former Bethesda Tech James Jenkins's skull model markings representing the small right temple AND large occipital-parietal wounds that he observed during the autopsy of President Kennedy on 11/22/1963, as follows. Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 @Pat Speer I truly wish I could understand your position, but with every post you make it seems to make less and less sense to me. Perhaps it's my fault, but I have to say that in my opinion your arguments are unconvincing. I have to wonder why you are so devoted to them when, in my view, they seem so completely at odds with the record. You seem to routinely reject witness statements that are made long after the fact, yet you also seem to reject witness statements that were made on the same day/week/month/year. It seems you cherry-pick which witnesses you choose to believe and when. You also seem to think that we should trust you, (someone who as far as I am aware has no medical experience and who did not see the body as it was between the shooting and Bethesda) over the medical professionals who were actually there and who saw the body in color and in three dimensions as it was when arriving at Parkland. Doctors Clark, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Carrico, Peters, Crenshaw, and Baxter all reported seeing cerebellum. Yet you choose to reject their observations in favor of some who changed their stories. How could it be a hoax if eight doctors all mentioned seeing cerebellum? When Dr. Malcolm Perry changes his story for Gerald Posner to say he saw no cerebellum, he still says the wound was in the "occipital/parietal area." Perry also wrote to @Vince Palamara that Dr. William Kemp Clark was the doctor examined the head wound the most, and that Dr. Clark was also the most qualified to do so. Dr. Clark said both the day after the JFK assassination in 1963 and then again in 1994 that he saw cerebellum. He didn't change his story. The montage of pictures from Groden's Death Of A President clearly shows multiple people all locating the wound on the lower right rear of the skull. Yet from what I've seen, you have argued they are showing the wrong location because old people can't reach up to the top of their heads or something. So, are they all infirm, or all mistaken, or all in on a hoax? When added to the 2D illustrations that witnesses have marked and even marking the location wound on a 3D skull model, as in @Keven Hofeling 's post above, you still reject it and call it a hoax. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken on this? I read all your posts and go over them again and again, and I just don't find any good reason to believe you over the medical professionals who saw Kennedy's body in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) 9 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Indeed, and that is the explanation for Newman and Zapruder pointing to their right temples -- they had just witnessed a bullet impacting that very location. And Malcolm Kilduff was merely demonstrating where JFK's physician, George Burkley, had just told him the bullet had entered JFK's head. As for James Humes, as you pointed out, this is a little more complicated, as Humes was denoting the location of the clandestine craniotomy mortician Tom Robinson and X-ray Tech Ed Reed witnessed him perform (as well as the location of the incision Ed Reed told the HSCA he had seen Humes make in JFK's forehead); although as Humes, Boswell and Finck all repeatedly denied that a craniotomy had been performed, viewers of Humes's hand gesture were all in the dark, and for the most part, remain there to this day... You know Keven...I was practically doing backflips when I heard Doug Horne mention the story about Robinson & Reed seeing Humes performing the clandestine surgery.I was so puzzled with the enlargement of the wounds from Parkland to Bethesda. Then I got to thinking...and under the belief that Reed was there early and not Robinson.It is unclear what time it was when the craniotomy was performed in addition to James Jenkins claiming that no early surgery was performed (he was there the entire time without ever leaving unlike O'Connor) IIRC) Reading Robinson's testimony was confusing/unclear of what time he got to the autopsy and with whom. Edited December 29, 2023 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Michael Crane said: Edited for quoting by mistake Edited December 29, 2023 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 10:35 AM, Michael Crane said: You know Keven...I was practically doing backflips when I heard Doug Horne mention the story about Robinson & Reed performing the clandestine surgery.I was so puzzled with the enlargement of the wounds from Parkland to Bethesda. Then I got to thinking...and under the belief that Reed was there early and not Robinson.It is unclear what time it was that the craniotomy was performed in addition to James Jenkins claiming that no early surgery was performed (he was there the entire time without ever leaving) IIRC) Reading Robinson's testimony was confusing of what time he got to the autopsy and with whom. I agree that Robinson and Reed's testimony leave much to be desired in terms of timelines, but Tom Robinson fiercely objected to the top-of-the-head autopsy photographs when the ARRB showed them to him: "...-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD...." (emphasis not in original) MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm And the photographs Robinson was reacting to were taken at the beginning of the "official" autopsy (as confirmed by the numbering of the autopsy photographs in question having been taken at the beginning of the "official" autopsy as well as the condition of the head as James Jenkins described his initial observations of same to be): JENKINS: "...Now the strange thing about it was at the top of this wound here there was an INCISION in the scalp [Jenkins points to parietal area above occiput on skull model] that went approximately to the coronal suture here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. It went a little past here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. QUESTION: An incision... JENKINS: An incision. QUESTION: ...that you saw? JENKINS: Right, it was actually see... QUESTION: Why would there be an incision? JENKINS: That's a good question. The scalp had, you know, remember all of this area in this portion is fractured [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], okay, to the sagittal suture, which is this suture [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. All of this area was fractured now, but it wasn't gone, it was still being kept intact by the scalp. The scalp had rips and tears in it. Along this area [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], it seemed like some of those tears in the scalp had been surgically connected. The little connections to follow fracture line in here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. And that extended to about here [Jenkins points to parietal area on top of skull model]. Okay, you know, that was the same. When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off of the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think, you know, I think was the towel, but the scalp and the whole thing, this was all matted hair, and missing scalp, torn scalp, fatty tissue from beneath the scalp... QUESTION: Which is all normal? JENKINS: Yea, which is all normal. Okay, it had kind of stuck to that secondary layer. So as he was taking it off this area kinda gaped open, but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together. Now that is significant for, the fact is you could actually, if you wanted to do that, you could actually lay this skull open. You could actually take your hands and seperate it. So that would have given you access to the brain. QUESTION: Which means? JENKINS: Which... Again, speculation, is that, fact is that you would have had access, you would have had access to the brain before we received it in the morgue..." [See James Jenkins's answers at the following link which has been cued up for you: https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1823 ] In order for Tom Robinson to be objecting to these photographs, he had to have seen JFK's head at an earlier point prior to the top-of-the-head damage portrayed in them, and prior to the damage described by James Jenkins upon pathologist Humes taking the wrappings off of the head immediately upon the body being removed from the casket (what appeared to Jenkins to be the first time the body was removed from a casket in the morgue). It is also important to understand that Tom Robinson also described to the ARRB (and the HSCA) the use of a bone saw to conduct a craniotomy: "...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED... PAGE 3: "...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..." MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm A craniotomy did not take place during the "official autopsy." No mention is made of a craniotomy in the "official" Autopsy Protocol, and throughout all of the investigations, it has been pathologist Humes's position that no craniotomy was necessary because the skull was so shattered that the brain simply rolled out into his hands. Nor did James Jenkins or other autopsy techs report a craniotomy, except for X-ray tech Ed Reed who reported to the ARRB that he and Jerol Custer were asked to leave once Humes began to cut into JFK's forehead with the bone saw: "...Q: Where you present during the time of the first incision. A: Yes. Q: What was the first incision? A: The cranium. The scalp, right here. Q: And can you describe how that procedure - A: Commander Humes made an incision. After we brought all the X-rays back, we were all allowed to sit up in the podium and observe. And Commander Humes made an incision - that I could see from my vantage point - an incision in the forehead, and brought back the scalp. Q: Okay. A: Like this. Q: And you were making a line first across the top of your forehead, roughly along the hairline - A: With a scalpel. Q: -and then pulling the scalp back. A: That's correct. Just like this. Q: And were you able to see the size of the wound when the scalp - A: Not from my - not from where I was, no. The podium was a good 20 feet away. Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head? A: WELL AFTER ABOUT 20 MINUTES, COMMANDER HUMES TOOK OUT A SAW, AND STARTED TO CUT THE FOREHEAD WITH THE BONE - WITH THE SAW. MECHANICAL SAW. CIRCULAR, SMALL, MECHANICAL - ALMOST LIKE A CAST SAW, BUT IT'S MADE - Q: Sure. A: - SPECIFICALLY FOR BONE. (emphasis not in original) Q: And what did you see next? A: We were asked to leave at that time. Jerry Custer and myself were asked to leave. Q: Do you know why you were asked to leave? A: Because we were - No more assistance - our assistance was not needed. X-rays were done. And someone decided that we weren't needed, and they asked us to leave...." In The Matter Of: PDF https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf Assassination Records Review Board In Re: President John E Kennedy, J1: Deposition of Edward E Reed October 21, 1997 Thus, I believe it is on the basis that nobody but Robinson and Reed reported that a craniotomy was conducted, and that all of the head damage caused with scalpel and bone saw in the course of the craniotomy was believed by others -- such as Jim Jenkins and Jerrol Custer -- to have occurred prior to the start of the "official" autopsy, that it has been postulated that the craniotomy observed by Tom Robinson, and partially observed by Ed Reed, in fact took place prior to the start of the "official" autopsy. The following is how Doug Horne ties it all together: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963 November 26th, 2013 by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board) https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html On Thursday, November 21, 2013 I noticed a tall, reserved, dignified and almost shy man standing in the lobby of the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas, where the JFK Lancer conference was being held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. He was well over six feet tall, wore glasses, had white hair, and sported a well-trimmed short white beard; was impeccably groomed, and had an air of quiet and seriousness that made me hesitant to approach him. I immediately knew it was James Curtis Jenkins, one of the two Navy corpsmen who served as “autopsy technicians” and assisted the Navy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, at President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. It was now 50 years later, and I was pleased to see Mr. Jenkins alive, and looking so good---and yet surprised to see him attending a JFK research conference. I introduced myself, and found that he was attending the conference with William Law, one of the very few people in the JFK research community he trusts. William Law interviewed many of the autopsy witnesses and published his oral history of their interviews, In the Eye of History, in 2003. James Jenkins had a reputation for being reticent to discuss the JFK autopsy, and with good reason. He did not have a good experience when interviewed by two hostile and disbelieving HSCA staff members, and so didn’t trust any Federal authorities, particularly since---because of what he himself witnessed at President Kennedy’s autopsy---he did not concur with the Warren Commission’s conclusions about a lone gunman firing from behind, and no shots hitting JFK from the right front. After the HSCA published its own report in 1979, confirming the Warren Commission’s conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald had done all the wounding of the limousine’s occupants with shots from above and behind, he was even less well disposed toward the organs of authority in this country. Over the years, since the HSCA’s report was issued in 1979, Jim had agreed to appear on video before three different researcher-organized panels consisting largely of Navy autopsy witnesses, but none of this footage has yet been aired in the format of a completed documentary. I had seen some of the raw footage from one of these interviews (in which Jim was interviewed along with Paul O’Connor and some of the Parkland treatment staff, including Dr. Robert McClelland), and I knew, therefore, that Mr. Jenkins had significant things to say about what transpired at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. In the interview footage I had seen of him along with some members of Parkland treatment staff, he seemed sober, responsible, and most credible. When we spoke on the 21st, Jim stated that he was not seeking any notoriety at all, and that his sole wish was to sit quietly in the back of the room at selected presentations and just take it all in, and observe. I told him I would honor his request and would not reveal that he was present during any of the presentations he decided to attend. On the afternoon of November 22nd, William Law moderated a “breakout” event called: “Special Guest: Jim Jenkins.” I was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. As it turned out, James Jenkins began to open up at this session and had quite a lot to say about his recollections of the autopsy; and the audience was so interested in what he had to say, that a special session (unbeknownst to me) was organized for later that night, in which Mr. Jenkins continued to discuss his recollections of JFK’s autopsy. Fortunately for me, and for history, Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., PhD., attended both sessions at which Jenkins spoke, and took copious notes, something he has been doing for decades now whenever an autopsy participant takes the floor. All of my information in this article about what James Jenkins said at the Adolphus Hotel on 11/22/2013 is derived from Dr. Mantik’s notes, which I trust explicitly and without reservation to represent what Jenkins had to say, without any embellishment or changes of any kind. I will be discussing a few key areas of Jim Jenkins’ 50th anniversary recollections in this essay, and will then explain why they are so significant to our understanding of what happened at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a “skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body. Jenkins recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes. Jenkins recalled that the total brain volume seemed too small, i.e., smaller than the skull cavity. He recalled that the right anterior brain was damaged, and some brain tissue was missing there, but recalled no damage to the left brain. He said about two thirds of the brain was present (which of course means that about one third of its mass was missing). He recalled that a large amount of posterior tissue---cerebral tissue---was also missing. Jenkins stated that after Dr. Boswell put the brain upside down in a sling in a formalin bucket, he noticed both carotid arteries (at the Circle of Willis) leading into the brain were retracted, which made it very difficult to insert needles for infusion. Jenkins interpreted this retraction as meaning that the carotids had been cut some time before the autopsy. When asked how he interpreted all of this data about the condition of the brain, Jenkins said he had concluded that the brain had already been removed before the autopsy began. In response to a question as to why this might have occurred, he stated quite clearly that the purpose would have been to remove bullet fragments. Jenkins also stated that he never saw any bullet or bullet fragment fall from JFK’s body during the autopsy, as others had recalled. Analysis: James Curtis Jenkins, in these discussions on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, has confirmed my hypothesis of clandestine, post-mortem surgery on JFK’s cranium at Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove evidence of frontal shots before the “official autopsy” began at 8:00 PM. Here is why I say this: (1) It was normally Jenkins’ job (and also Paul K. O’Connor’s job) to remove the brain at Navy autopsies, by performing the post-mortem surgery called a craniotomy, or “skull cap.” Neither Paul O’Connor (who gave many interviews prior to his death) nor James Jenkins, either performed---or witnessed---a craniotomy. HOWEVER, we know that a craniotomy was indeed performed, because both Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home, and Navy x-ray technician Ed Reed, confirmed that they witnessed a pathologist sawing into President Kennedy’s cranium to “get the brain out” (in the words of Tom Robinson). In a 1996 interview with the ARRB staff, Tom Robinson recalled that “the doctors” did extensive sawing on the rear of the skull to get to the brain; and under oath at his 1997 ARRB deposition, Ed Reed specifically recalled seeing Dr. Humes (by name) make a long incision with a scalpel in the frontal bone above the forehead, just behind the hairline, and follow-up with a bone saw in that same region. At this point Reed and his colleague, fellow x-ray technician Jerrol Custer, were summarily dismissed from the morgue. Fifteen minutes after being dismissed, they were recalled and began taking the skull x-rays. (2) The above evidence provided by Robinson and Reed proves that Dr. Humes perjured himself before both the Warren Commission and the ARRB, by claiming that he did not have to perform a craniotomy to remove JFK’s brain. Furthermore, the observations of Robinson and Reed indicate that autopsy technicians O’Connor and Jenkins were simply not in the morgue when that post-mortem surgery was performed by Humes. Since JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and body bag at 6:35 PM (per the Boyajian report of November 26, 1963, and the combined observations of Dennis David and Paul O’Connor), and then re-entered the morgue at 8:00 PM in the ceremonial bronze Dallas casket (per numerous witnesses, and the Joint Casket Team Report), I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum---a period of almost an hour and a half---that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did. (3) The modified craniotomy performed by Dr. Humes was necessary to gain access to the brain for one obvious purpose---to remove bullet fragments and entry wounds, evidence of shots from the front, prior to the formal start of the autopsy. We know it was necessary to perform a craniotomy of sorts, to get the brain out, because the wound descriptions of the avulsed posterior head wound (the blowout) provided by Dr. Carrico at Parkland (5 x 7 cm), and by Tom Robinson (see his ARRB sketch) and Navy Captain R. O. Canada at Bethesda (per Kurtz, 2006), all indicate that the avulsed wound in JFK’s right posterior skull was the same at Bethesda upon arrival as it had been when observed at Parkland, and was therefore too small to permit removal of the brain without performing surgery to remove significant portions of the cranium. (4) It is clear that the first round of skull x-rays and the majority of the autopsy photos in the official collection today were taken immediately following this post-mortem surgery that so dramatically opened up the skull. The damage seen today in the surviving skull x-rays, and in all of the autopsy photos showing the top and right side of JFK’s head, with the head resting in a metal brace, were taken immediately after this post-mortem surgery. The surgery was done in a hurried manner, and once completed, President Kennedy’s head wound (the posterior blowout) had been expanded to almost five times its original size. (Simply compare the Carrico wound dimensions, from Dallas, of 5 x7 centimeters, with the Boswell dimensions of missing bone in the cranium (in his autopsy sketch) from Bethesda, of 10 x 17 centimeters; the ratios are 35 sq. cm vs. 170 sq. cm.) (5) Furthermore, the bright red incision high in JFK’s forehead, seen in various autopsy photographs above the right eye in the frontal bone, just beneath the hairline, is additional evidence of post-mortem surgery, for that striking wound was not seen by anyone at Parkland Hospital. (6) The proof of this cover-up is the fact that Humes and Boswell lied about the nature of these photographs to the ARRB during their depositions, saying that the photos were taken before any incisions, and represented the condition of the body immediately after it arrived at Bethesda. We know from the Parkland observations, and from the statements of Robinson and Reed, that this was perjury. (7) Additionally, the removal of bullet fragments from the brain (and the body)---which never made it into the official record---by autopsy doctors at Bethesda is damning proof that clandestine surgery to alter the crime scene (the body of JFK) took place prior to the start of the official autopsy, which ran from 8:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff in 1996 that he was shown a vial or test tube containing about 10 small metallic fragments; Dennis David has consistently stated ever since 1979 that he held in his hand, and typed a receipt for, 4 bullet fragments that night, which constituted more mass than one bullet, but less total mass than two bullets; and the infamous Belmont FBI memo from 11/22/63 stated that there was a bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear, which the FBI was going to obtain. Furthermore, it is crucial to understanding the true sequence of events at Bethesda to understand the implications of Jenkins’ statement at Lancer that he did not see any bullet falling from the body---whereas x-ray technician Jerrol Custer did see a bullet fragment fall from the thorax onto the examining table. In corroboration of Custer’s claim, Paul O’Connor told the HSCA staff that after he returned to the morgue after some period of time, after being ordered to leave, he was informed by one of his Navy colleagues that an intercostal bullet (i.e., a bullet taken from the tissue between two ribs) had been found and removed. This all indicates that some Navy personnel were banned from the morgue during certain procedures performed early that night: namely, post-mortem surgery to sanitize the crime scene. That the crime scene---the President’s body---was sanitized, we can be sure of, for the only two pieces of metal removed from JFK’s body, according to the official record, were two tiny fragments, 1 x 3, and 2x 7 mm in size, taken from the cranium and handed over to the 2 FBI agents, Sibert and O’Neill. (8) The two FBI agents---like Paul O’Connor and James Jenkins---were likewise barred from the morgue after carrying the (empty) bronze Dallas casket into the morgue anteroom, at about 7:17 PM---with the help of two Secret Service agents, Kellerman and Greer. AFTER they were finally allowed into the morgue about 8:00 PM, they recorded in their notes that the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes, made the following statement: “…it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull.” The two FBI agents confirmed in the mid 1960s to their superiors that this statement in their report (dated November 26, 1963) was a direct quotation of Dr. Humes. James Sibert (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy) confirmed that Humes made this statement at his own (Sibert’s) ARRB deposition in 1997. When asked under oath at his ARRB deposition whether he had seen any evidence of surgery on JFK’s body, Humes committed perjury and said, “No.” Humes’ denial was significant, because it indicates he was hiding something. In 1980 David Lifton interpreted Humes’ remark as meaning he had discovered surgery performed by someone else, before the body got to Bethesda. I respectfully disagree, because my rigorous timeline analysis (see my July 2013 essay on this blogsite) has revealed that there was barely enough time to get JFK’s body from Andrews AFB to Bethesda by helicopter, and for it to arrive at the Bethesda morgue loading dock at 6:35 PM---and therefore, I conclude that the surgery could not have happened anywhere else but at Bethesda. Remember, Canada and Robinson confirmed that the head wound, when first seen at Bethesda, was the same as it looked in Dallas. [Significantly, this eliminates any possibility that the post-mortem surgery occurred anywhere in Dallas, Texas.] My own, differing psychological interpretation of Humes’ remarks about surgery, in view of the severe timeline restrictions on the body’s transportation, are that Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery himself at Bethesda, and then panicked before a large, disbelieving audience inside the morgue shortly after 8:00 PM, and made his intentionally deflective oral utterance about “surgery of the head area” (mimicked by Bowell in the form of a rhetorical question, according to James Jenkins). I view Dr. Humes’ excited oral utterance as a defensive reaction to the overwhelming skepticism of his audience, as recalled by Paul O’Connor in many interviews, when that audience was confronted with the enormous amount of missing bone in the cranium shortly after 8:00 PM; psychologists call this defensive reaction dissociation. The implication of Humes’ statement, as I see it, was that he was attempting to create an escape route for himself, attempting to distance himself from what he had just done, to wit: “I see the surgery just like all of you do, but I didn’t do it---someone else did.” If there had been a benign explanation for the “surgery of the head area” statement made by Humes, or for the post-mortem surgery itself, then both Humes and Boswell would have provided that explanation at their ARRB depositions. Instead, they stonewalled and denied (unconvincingly) that they had even seen any evidence of surgery. (9) It is no wonder, then, that once he was allowed back into the morgue to witness and assist with the “sham” autopsy---nothing more than a charade enacted before the 2 FBI agents and about 35 witnesses in the morgue gallery---that James Jenkins noticed that Kennedy’s brain stem had already been cut by two incisions (one on each side), and had the opinion that the brain had previously been removed from the cranium. It had been, about 75 to 90 minutes previously. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel at the ARRB, during a discussion with me about the medical evidence, sharply interrupted me once when I used the word “autopsy,” saying: “President Kennedy never had an autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital---that was not an autopsy.” He was correct. It is vital to understand that the illicit, clandestine surgery performed at Bethesda prior to the autopsy---obviously done to remove bullet fragments and evidence of frontal shots from the body prior to the “official procedure” performed before witnesses---invalidates the official autopsy report and all subsequent testimony about JFK’s wounds by the autopsy pathologists. As a result, the recollections of the Parkland treatment staff then inevitably become the “best evidence” of how President Kennedy was killed; and their two universal observations were of an entrance wound in the throat (made by a shot from the front), and an exit wound in the right posterior skull (necessarily implying a shot from the front). (10) Dr. Pierre Finck, who had been called by the defense team in the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw (the Garrison trial) in 1969, told the defense team (per William J. Wegman’s interview notes) that President Kennedy’s brain had been severed from his spinal cord, and that this had been described in the autopsy report. This is consistent with James Jenkins’ account of what he witnessed (surely after 8:00 PM) when Humes removed the brain (for the second time) before a large morgue audience: namely, that the brain stem had previously been severed by incisions on both sides, in different planes. [Incidentally, Finck’s statement to the Clay Shaw defense team is a further proof that the extant autopsy report is not the original---the subject of chapter 11 in my book---since the autopsy report in the Archives today does not mention the brain stem being severed.] Now, Finck did not arrive at the morgue until 8:30 PM, after the brain, heart, and lungs had been removed. Therefore, Dr. Humes must have informed Finck about the severance of the spinal cord. Humes really had no choice, since according to Jenkins, the brain had literally fallen out in his hands before a large audience, and there had to be an explanation provided for that bizarre occurrence. Similarly, I believe the reason Humes took a tissue section from the area where the spinal cord had been transected, at the subsequent brain exam on 11/25/63, was to “cover his ass.” It was all theater. For him not to have taken a section from the line of transection, after announcing “surgery of the head area,” and after the brain falling out in his hands without his large audience witnessing any cutting to dislodge it from the cranium at its attachment points, would have been most suspicious. By taking a tissue section from this area, I believe Humes was cleverly attempting to distance himself from “whoever did the surgery,” should it become an issue later on. In 1996, Dr. Humes stated under oath to Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB that the brain stem was damaged before he removed the brain, but told Gunn that he had transected it himself. Humes denied that it was disconnected or transected when the body was received. No doubt this was true; what Humes did not tell the ARRB at his deposition was that he had done so while James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM, when he was removing evidence of frontal shots from the body of the slain Commander-in-Chief. (11) Jenkins’ observation that the damage to the cranium was much larger than the damage to the underlying brain seems consistent with the surgery hypothesis, and not with damage caused by a bullet. JENKINS IMPUGNS AND DISAVOWS THE BRAIN PHOTO SKETCH PUBLISHED BY THE HSCA: Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Gary Aguilar---both long-time and dedicated researchers in the JFK medical evidence arena---got together privately with James Jenkins during a short break in the midst of his second panel session on 11/22/2013, and presented him with a high-resolution laptop computer rendition of the Ida Dox HSCA medical illustration of one of the brain photographs in the Archives (a superior view of a damaged, but intact and unsectioned, human brain). They asked him if the image in the official sketch was the brain he saw removed from the body, and that he himself infused, the night of JFK’s autopsy. Dr. Mantik’s notes read: “He clearly replied that it was not---he had seen significant loss of brain in the right posterior area.” Analysis: This confirms the second major conclusion in my book---that the brain photographs in the Archives cannot be photos of President Kennedy’s brain, which constitutes the strongest evidence of a U.S. government cover-up in the medical evidence arena. This subject is thoroughly covered in chapter 10 of my book, Inside the ARRB. This chapter, in Volume III of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, is the single most important chapter in my multi-volume work, and should be required reading for any journalist, historian, or researcher who approaches the JFK assassination. To summarize briefly here, the descriptions of damage to the brain found in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (after the brain was examined at a separate post-autopsy examination) do not appear consistent with the pattern of damage in the brain photographs. This was noticed by both Dr. Robert Livingston, before the time of the ARRB, and independently by my own boss, ARRB General Counsel Jeremy Gunn. I myself conducted the rigorous timeline analysis of all previous testimony---something no one else had ever done---which revealed for the first time, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there were two separate brain exams following JFK’s autopsy---not simply one, as there should have been. The official photographer when JFK’s brain was examined on Monday morning, 11/25/63---John Stringer---disowned the brain photographs in the Archives at his ARRB deposition because they are on the wrong type of B & W and color film, because they represent views he did not shoot of the underside of the brain, and because the many photos he shot of serial sections of the brain (after coronal sectioning) are not present. Former FBI agent Frank O’Neill disowned the brain photos in the Archives at his ARRB deposition because he said that way too much mass was present in the photos (he recalled that over one half of the mass of JFK’s brain was missing when he saw it following its removal at the autopsy on the body, Friday night). We know that Dr. Finck, the Army pathologist who assisted at JFK’s autopsy, did not attend the first brain exam on 11/25/63, but did attend a second brain exam sometime between 11/29 and 12/02. Drs. Humes and Boswell attended both events, which means they were orchestrating the brain cover-up, and were using Dr. Finck as a dupe, as the witness to the examination of a substitute brain at the second exam, whose photos would soon be inserted into the official record. It is the photographs of the substitute brain, from the second brain examination, that are in the National Archives today; not the photographs of JFK’s brain, from the first examination, which were suppressed and never made it into the official record. James Jenkins confirmed this with his statement about the Ida Dox official HSCA drawing. JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this site, nor did they discuss it any further. When questioned, he said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye, but did state that these two sites were completely different, i.e., separated by enough distance to be distinguishable. He had no recollection of the bullet entrance wound low in the posterior skull described by all three pathologists in the autopsy report, and in their testimony over the years. Analysis: Jenkins' 5 mm diameter bullet wound in the right temporal bone, just anterior to and slightly above the level of the right ear, is entirely consistent with an entry wound, and inconsistent with a bullet exit wound. Jenkins’ bullet entry site supports a shot from the right front that would have caused the huge blowout in the right rear posterior skull, the large avulsed wound seen by all the Parkland witnesses. This was the large defect, devoid of scalp and skull, that neurosurgeon Kemp Clark at Parkland described as a probable “tangential wound” at the Parkland press conference the afternoon of the assassination. [A bullet striking near the right ear and blowing out the right rear of the skull could create damage consistent with what someone else might describe as a "tangential wound."] Jenkins’ bullet hole is consistent with the same-day testimony of Bill Newman, who thought he saw part of President Kennedy’s ear “blown off”---presumably Newman saw a bone fragment exit this area immediately after the bullet’s impact. Jenkins' bullet entry site is also consistent with the wound diagram of the side of the head (a lateral view) made by Tom Robinson in 1996 for the ARRB. And I know why James Jenkins did not recall seeing an entry wound high above the right eye in the frontal bone, just below JFK’s hairline. In fact, it is highly significant that Jenkins did NOT see it. By the time Jenkins saw the body, shortly after 8:00 PM, that wound (seen by Dennis David and Joe O’Donnell in photographs the week after JFK’s death) had been obliterated---excised by Dr. Humes’s scalpel---during the clandestine post-mortem surgery. No doubt all Jenkins could see in that area was the bright red incision we see in the forehead today, above the right eye, in the autopsy photographs. We know that incision was not made at Parkland Hospital, and was not seen by anyone in Dallas. Surely, therefore, it was made by Dr. Humes in order to remove all evidence of the entrance wound at that site from the body. This is the same site at which acting White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed his finger before media people with cameras, who were at Parkland Hospital, when he quoted Dr. Burkley’s statement that the cause of death was a bullet “right through the brain.” Jenkins did not see it simply because he was not in the morgue when Dr. Humes removed evidence of that entrance wound (skin and bone tissue) from the cranium, as well as numerous bullet fragments from the brain, during clandestine surgery prior to the autopsy. JENKINS RECALLED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE LARGE WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR CRANIUM: Twice during his talks at JFK Lancer, Jenkins recalled that he did observe the large wound in the right rear of the head, and that its approximate size was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar." Analysis: This description is entirely consistent with the wound sketches made by Parkland witnesses nurse Audrey Bell, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw, for the ARRB in 1997. (They are published in my book, and can also be obtained from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II). The size of the wound recalled by Jenkins in the right rear quadrant of the skull is also entirely consistent with the size of the wound in sketches made for the ARRB by two Bethesda witnesses, mortician Tom Robinson, and FBI agent James Sibert. (They, too, are published in my book and are available at Archives II.) [Note: The fact that Bell and Crenshaw at Parkland, and Robinson and Sibert at Bethesda, all recalled the same approximate location and size for the wound in the posterior skull, is a simple and elegant proof that JFK's wounds were not altered in transit, and that his head wound was in the same condition when it arrived at Bethesda, as it was when it left Parkland hospital.] Furthermore, the size of this posterior cranial wound recalled by Jenkins ("somewhat larger than a silver dollar") is consistent with the size and location of the posterior head wound given by Navy Captain Robert O. Canada---the Commanding Officer of the Bethesda treatment hospital in 1963---to researcher Michael Kurtz in 1968. At Dr. Canada's request, Kurtz withheld this explosive information [which was contrary to the autopsy report and to the Warren Commission's findings] until after Canada's death, and finally published it in his book in 2006, quoting Robert O. Canada as describing a: "...very large, 3-5 cm wound in the right rear of the President's head, in the lower right occipital region." Canada told Kurtz that it was "clearly an exit wound," because the occipital bone was "avulsed" [i.e., exploded outward]. In corroboration, Dr. Charles Carrico of Parkland Hospital told the Warren Commission under oath, in 1964, that the approximate dimensions of the posterior head wound were about 5 x 7 centimeters (clearly incompatible with an entry wound, and clearly consistent with a typical bullet exit wound in the cranium). The very similar locations and dimensions recalled by Jenkins, Bell, Crenshaw, Robinson, Sibert, Canada, and Carrico are all within the expected range of accuracy and consistency expected of eyewitness describing the same event many years later. In fact, they are remarkably consistent with each other. All of these descriptions fall within the right rear quadrant of the skull, and do not in any way encompass the top of the head or the right side of the head. This is also significant. These collective observations are a further proof that the massive damage to the top and right side of the head, seen in two thirds of the autopsy photos, must surely represent surgical manipulations performed AFTER JFK's body arrived at Bethesda hospital---post-mortem surgery performed prior to when the official autopsy began---simply to gain access to the cranium and remove evidence of shots from the front. Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell both perjured themselves when they told the ARRB that these autopsy photos of massive damage to the top and right side of the head depicted the body's condition immediately after it arrived, and prior to any incisions. JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck. Analysis: Like the two FBI agents present at the autopsy, Jenkins recalled a shallow back wound that did not transit the body; recalled Humes inserting his finger in the wound, and the fact that the bullet track terminated and did not go anywhere; and recalled that it was low enough in the back that the single bullet theory was impossible. In fact, per Jenkins' recollection that the back wound was 10 cm below the plane of the tracheotomy site, we can safely conclude that EVEN IF THE BULLET THAT ENTERED THE BACK HAD TRANSITED THE BODY AND EXITED AT THE TRACHEOTOMY SITE, that it would have been going in an UPWARD trajectory, and therefore Arlen Specter's absurd single bullet theory would still be impossible. Any transiting bullet traveling upward in this manner could not have struck Governor Connally below the right armpit, since Connally was sitting in a jump seat directly in front of President Kennedy that was well below the level of JFK's back seat bench. Jim Jenkins' discussion of the bruise he observed at the top of the right lung's middle lobe causes me to re-evaluate the subject of the "missing bruise photographs" from JFK's autopsy. Dr. Humes stated repeatedly before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB that the pathologists and the photographer---John Stringer---had gone to great pains to illuminate the interior of the chest in order to photograph what Humes described as a bruise located in the pleural dome itself, immediately above the apical portion (or apex) of the right lung. And yet there are no such photographs in the autopsy collection today, and never have been---at least not since the inventory was drawn up at the National Archives on November 1, 1966 by Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer. I now wonder if Humes' tale about a bruise at the top of the pleural dome might have been "fabricated out of whole cloth," to use one of Humes' most noteworthy phrases during his ARRB deposition. His mention of the bruise above the apex of the right lung in the autopsy report was viewed at the time as corroboration that the bullet entering the back of the President had indeed transited the body, and exited the neck---at least, to Humes it was. Months later, when Arlen Specter and Humes jointly invented the single bullet theory (which claimed that this transiting bullet had also struck Governor Connally), this purported bruise became even more important to proving the Warren Commission's contention that there had been a lone assassin firing from behind. And for these reasons, it has always been mystifying why this crucial evidence, which might have supported Humes' contention that a bullet did transit JFK's body, has never been part of the official collection of autopsy photographs. If the photos had supported Humes' contention of a transiting bullet, why would they not have been included in the collection? It never made any sense. I now believe there is a high likelihood there never was any such bruise atop the pleural dome, and that Humes, recalling the true bruise at the top of the right lung's middle lobe (per Jim Jenkins), invented the bruise atop the pleural dome "out of whole cloth," in an attempt to foster his belated conclusion (not in the original draft autopsy report---subsequently burned---and not in the first signed version, which is now missing), in the extant autopsy report (the third written version of that document), that a bullet transited JFK's body. Why do I make such a strong statement? Because the ARRB discovered evidence of Humes' predilection for lying about another subject during his ARRB deposition in 1996. Humes stated in the autopsy report that the lateral skull x-rays depicted a trail of bullet fragments leading from the bullet entrance wound low in the rear of the head, near the EOP, in an upward direction to Humes' purported exit site in the right front of the cranium. And yet the lateral skull x-rays in the Archives show no such thing; instead, they show a clear trail of metallic fragments leading from the upper frontal bone (above the right orbit) in an upward direction toward the upper rear of the skull, NOT DOWNWARD TOWARD THE EOP. When shown this clear discrepancy while under oath by Jeremy Gunn, the ARRB's General Counsel, Humes could offer no explanation whatsoever, became quite silent, blushed, and exhibited what I interpreted as extreme embarrassment---perhaps even shame. In view of this, I now wonder if Humes simply invented the "bruise story" to support his new conclusion about a transiting bullet in the third (extant) version of the autopsy report---the one we are familiar with today. When before the ARRB, photographer John Stringer recalled illuminating the interior of the chest for some reason to take photographs, but did not remember the specifics. Perhaps the bruise being photographed was actually in the pleura at the level of the top of the middle lobe of the right lung, adjacent to the area of Humes' probing, as witnessed by Jenkins at the autopsy. CONCLUSION: James Jenkins made many other interesting and important observations during his two talks, including the fact that the autopsy “face sheet,” i.e., the body chart and note-taking aide, called the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, that is in the official record today is NOT the one he filled out at the autopsy of JFK. The "face sheet" in evidence today at the National Archives depicts two body charts on the front side of the document, and the back side of the locally produced form---which was originally blank---was used by Dr. Boswell to make an historically important sketch depicting the severe damage to the top of President Kennedy's skull. Jenkins specifically recalled at JFK Lancer---as he had in previous interviews---that the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet he used at President Kennedy's autopsy was a two-sided form, with a single body chart of the front of a human body on the first page; and another body chart, of the back of a human form, on the reverse side. He also noted that there are erasures and emendations of various organ weights on the extant form in the Archives, which he did not make, and which were contrary to the conventions for such changes employed in 1963. In addition, Jenkins recalled a second round of skull x-rays taken at the autopsy, and the fact that OBLIQUE VIEWS were taken of the posterior head wound; this confirms x-ray technician Jerrol Custer's consistent recollections over the years that he exposed at least 5 or 6 skull x-rays, and that those included oblique views. There are only 3 extant skull x-rays in the official collection (far fewer than Custer, Ebersole, or Jenkins has recalled), and none of them are oblique views. David Mantik concludes his notes by saying: “My sense in listening to James Jenkins for about 90 minutes on the evening of 11/22/2013 (from about 10:40 PM to 12:10 AM the next day) was the same as William Law---i.e., James Jenkins seemed totally alert and aware. I had also listened to James Jenkins during the afternoon session, which was at least 45 minutes. James Jenkins seemed very sincere and forthright, sometimes admitting that he did not recall certain items. His demeanor was serious, sometimes even somber, and his responses seemed very considered, as he often took time to gather his thoughts before speaking.” The appearance of James Curtis Jenkins at the Lancer conference on the 50th anniversary was a significant event, and we are all fortunate that Dr. Mantik was present to take such a thorough set of notes. Jenkins’ comments confirm, once and for all, that the principal problem with the Bethesda autopsy was not the incompetence of the pathologists---although the two Navy pathologists, Humes and Boswell, did demonstrate incompetence in the way they executed (or failed to execute) some procedures---rather, the principal problem with the Bethesda autopsy on President Kennedy was cover-up---the intentional cover-up of all evidence of shots from the front. END --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And just one additional thing that I would add is the testimony and wound diagrams of Parkland Nurse Dianna Bowron who washed the dried blood out of JFK's hair and packed gauze squares into the occipital-parietal wound prior to the body being placed in the ceremonial casket at Parkland Hospital. Bowron reported that the top and sides of JFK's head were completely intact, and that the only damage she encountered was the occipital parietal wound on the right side of the back of the head. This interview was conducted by JFK researcher and author, Harrison Livingstone: https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron "...HL: Okay. If you can try to remember anybody taking pictures in there, photographs, it's very important because there's a reason to think that some of these autopsy pictures-I published a lot more of them in my last book-that they're not taken at Bethesda, you know. Now, do you think that any part of his face-like the right eye and the right forehead above it - did that sag in or was there any bone missing in that area? Did his face look so perfectly normal? Did you feel his face? HL: You washed his face? DB: I can't remember whether I washed it or Margaret washed it. I know I washed his hair. HL: Well, you would have noticed if a large piece of bone -- see, the X-rays, if you look at the X-rays in my book, they show the whole right front of the face is gone from the eye area. And the lateral view X-ray is not the same as the AP view. There's a lot more bone missing in the lateral view. But most of the-most of them have the whole right eye area, from the top of the orbit, at least, plus the forehead and the temporal bone is gone. DB: No, no. I mean, I would have noticed something like that. You know, to say his face looked like a dead body's face. You know, there was no injury to the face. HL: Yeah. DB: It was just to his-the back of his head. And the one in his, in his throat. But and by then it was the tracheostomy opening. But his face itself, no. HL: Okay. One more question about that. Do you remember any laceration across the scalp from front to back where it comes on to the forehead, where the scalp would have been lacerated and it goes straight back from that area? Picture the right eyebrow. A laceration about a half an inch into his forehead, and then going straight back, where the scalp was torn. Do you remember anything like that? DB: No. HL: You would have because you washed the hair, right? DB: Yes. When I say washed it, I just took cotton swabs and washed all the clotting blood off. I mean, I didn't shampoo it or anything. HL: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone? DB: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big, gaping hole. HL: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right? DB: Yeah. There might have been little lumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. HL: Was there any part of a flap of scalp over that big defect in the bone missing? DB: What I'm saying is that the hole where the bone had gone, perhaps the skin was a little bit smaller, if you know what I mean, but only fractionally, just over the edge. HL: So the scalp was blown out, too? DB: Yes. HL: I don't know if I should ask you this question-but did you have enough experience either before or after to think that that was either an exit or an entry hole? DB: Well, to me it was an exit hole. HL: Yeah. DB: I mean, I've never seen one as big as that, but-..." Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 Good stuff. Gonna have to re-read a couple of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) OMG. Do the research. Stop coughing up what people selling books and theories want you to believe. When you read the statements and testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland witnesses, and the Bethesda witnesses they are united on one front. They saw one large wound. Period. No one saw two. Period. The first witnesses demonstrated the location on their own skulls...by the temple. The Parkland witnesses were a mixed bunch, but mostly said it was towards the back of the head. Some indicated as much by claiming to see cerebellum. The autopsy report, however suggests the wound was further forward than as described by these witnesses, basically at the top of the head above the ear. This led to speculation the wound was altered. This sold books and made people go "oooh!!!" When the photos became widely available, and supported the autopsy report, some within the research community changed course, and began claiming that the autopsy photos were faked. To support this argument, some began pretending the Parkland witnesses uniformly believed the back of the head was blown out. These writers pretended as well that the Parkland witnesses uniformly denounced the accuracy of the autopsy photos and uniformly accepted the so-called McClelland drawing as an accurate depiction of the one true wound. But this was a hoax. When shown a tracing of the back of the head photo and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe, the witnesses were apprehensive about endorsing either one. In fact, more disputed the accuracy of the drawing than the tracing, Also telling, when shown the photos by NOVA, the doctors most involved in JFK's care, sans Clark, admitted they'd been mistaken in their earliest reports and testimony and uniformly agreed that the photos showing an intact back of the head were of JFK, and that no alteration of the body had been performed. Now, one doctor, McClelland, tried to have it both ways by saying he thought intact scalp had been pulled up to cover a gaping hole on the back of the head for the photo. But this was blithering nonsense. Two minutes with a book on gunshot wounds will tell you that the scalp at an exit is torn, and does not sag, let alone sag for inches down the back of the head to the extent it can be pulled back up to conceal a large exit wound. But the CT community persisted, coming up with wilder and weirder theories to support their unwarranted belief the back of the head was blown out--even if the only credible witnesses to say so no longer said so. David Lifton, for example, began telling people that at least two (or was it three) of the Parkland doctors who'd admitted their mistakes were actually in on the plot to kill JFK, and had been hired to alter his wounds in an ambulance before his body got to Parkland. Others insisted instead that these and other doctors were simply cowards, and were lying because they were suddenly scared, 25 years after they'd described the large wound as being on the back of the head in the only testimony in which their recollections actually mattered. Anything but admit that maybe just maybe the doctors had been incorrect about one thing in the reports written without access to notes...because they didn't take notes...hours after last looking at JFK's body, and after some of them had had a pow wow to get their stories straight. I mean, most everyone who's spent even one day researching the JFK case knows 11-22 was a ball of confusion, and that much of what was reported was nonsense. But for some reason all too many refuse to accept the obvious--that doctors can be confused, too. Now, this was the state of things around the time I joined this forum. I saw the intellectual inconsistencies and downright dishonesty among many of these pushing the back of the head story. And I wondered if, by golly, these claims the medical evidence had all been faked even made sense. So I set out on a years-long quest in which I read dozens of forensics texts, and studied hundreds of autopsy photos and x-rays...that led me not to abandon my beliefs there was more than one shooter, but embrace it, as the supposedly-fake medical evidence is 100% clear in its suggestion there were two head wounds, and almost certainly two shooters. Over the next 15 years, moreover, I would expand my scope to include the history of wound ballistics, the history of the HSCA, and the nature of JFK's brain injuries. And this journey further illuminated what had previously been unclear. 1. The autopsy reports suggest at least three wounds and, when studied alongside the Zapruder film, more than one shooter. 2. The medical evidence cover-up began not with the alteration of JFK's wounds, but with Dr. Humes' twisting the evidence within his report to suggest three shots and threes shots only. 3. After the WC realized the back wound was too low to support their belief the bullet creating the back wound exited Kennedy's throat, the cover-up went into overdrive, and the WC pressured the doctors to pretend the back wound was on the back of the neck. 4. After Tink Thompson published the WC's drawings alongside a frame from the Zapruder film, and showed the autopsy report's trajectory made little sense, moreover, the medical evidence cover-up entered phase three, and a secret panel was convened to "solve" this problem, which they "solved" by pretending the autopsy doctors were blithering idiots and that the entrance wound on the back of the head was really four inches higher on the back of the skull than claimed in the autopsy report, where no one saw such a wound, and where the doctors swore there was no such wound. 5. In its attempt to close the JFK case, the HSCA relied upon a number of supposed experts, some of whom twisted the evidence into pretzels in order to support the single-bullet theory and the single-assassin solution. This session of the cover-up is made clear, moreover, by the fact the HSCA's trajectory expert--the man tasked with lining up JFK's and JBC's wounds to see if they were in line with the sniper's nest--claimed JFK was leaning forward when shot in the back and then sat up a bit before being shot in the head...which is the exact opposite of what everyone studying the films knows to be true. In any event, it saddens me that so many "researchers" spend their days repeating dubious and oftentimes transparently false claims about what this or that guy said 30, 40, 50, 60 years after seeing something for all of 3 seconds...that they read about on the internet, no less.. but won't pick up a text book, and see if the "official" story even makes any sense. It's been a huge distraction. Edited December 29, 2023 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 13 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: They WERE all mistaken in precisely the same way, in that they all located the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal quadrant of the right side of the back of JFK's head, and there is no amount of hair splitting that you can do to change that fact Pat. First of all, and as you well know, Dr. McClelland was mistaken as to the ENTRY WOUND in the head because Dr. Jenkins was taking JFK's pulse at his left temple and McClelland mistakenly believed that Jenkins was signaling that there was an entrance wound at the left temple (according to BOTH doctors). It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview. I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this. (Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History." p. 406) "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) And when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in his 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/1963, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple,''' it is clear McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had entered JFK's head. Your contention that the phrasing "of the left temple" somehow rules out his observation of the large occipital-parietal wound on the basis of your lay-perusing of medical journals is nothing less than absurd. I have seen "of" used by physicians to denote entrance wounds many times, and your repeated assertions to the contrary are simply unconvincing. You should discontinue this slander of Dr. McClelland, and you should discontinue it now. That being said, it is not just the testimony of the Parkland Trauma Team that provides solid evidentiary support for the location of the occipital-parietal wound, but Dealey Plaza witnesses such as Clint Hill, and Jacqueline Kennedy as well: "Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair." (Secret Service Agent Clint Hill in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir") "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission Testimony, June 5, 1964) Also supporting the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is Bethesda autopsy testimony and sketches, such as those of former FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neil (See their diagrams, attached below), and Bethesda Technicians Jerrol Custor, Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins (and spare me the details of Jerrol Custor's later deviations in testimony after he decided to try to become a nationally acclaimed expert on the case): QUESTION: What was the location and dimensions of the large avulsive head wound that you observed in the Bethesda morgue during President Kennedy's autopsy? JENKINS: "...Now the wound that I saw: [pointing to regions on a skull model] This is the occipital area here, the parietal area here, and in the temporal area here. The wound was here approximately where my finger is [Jenkins points to the upper occipital region of the back of the skull model], and it extended down here [Jenkins indicates a lower region on the occiput with his thumb]. It was about 3 and a half inches long, this being the length [Jenkins demonstrates length on skull model], about 2 inches wide [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. That was where the missing bone was, and the missing tissue was. Okay, it wasn't exactly a square or a round thing. The top of the wound was kind of domed, and it came down and kinda had a little tail type of thing that came into here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model], and then it kind of came back up in this area [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. [See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1774 ] As you well know, the above is only a tiny sliver of the voluminous evidence and testimony that supports the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, and your assertion that it is not "the low occipital wound" portrayed in the sketch ratified by Dr. McClelland falls miles short of encompassing all of this evidence, and short even of dispelling the considerable evidence of the "low" occipital wound itself. So,I take it that Jenkins spotted a bullet entrance on the side of the head with the black marker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 4:06 PM, Michael Crane said: So,I take it that Jenkins spotted a bullet entrance on the side of the head with the black marker? Yes, he did. And there is also this... "...JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this site, nor did they discuss it any further. When questioned, he said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet's entry high in the forehead, above the right eye, but did state that these two sites were completely different, i.e., separated by enough distance to be distinguishable. He had no recollection of the bullet entrance wound low in the posterior skull described by all three pathologists in the autopsy report, and in their testimony over the years. Analysis: Jenkins' 5 mm diameter bullet wound in the right temporal bone, just anterior to and slightly above the level of the right ear, is entirely consistent with an entry wound, and inconsistent with a bullet exit wound. Jenkins’ bullet entry site supports a shot from the right front that would have caused the huge blowout in the right rear posterior skull, the large avulsed wound seen by all the Parkland witnesses. This was the large defect, devoid of scalp and skull, that neurosurgeon Kemp Clark at Parkland described as a probable “tangential wound” at the Parkland press conference the afternoon of the assassination. [A bullet striking near the right ear and blowing out the right rear of the skull could create damage consistent with what someone else might describe as a "tangential wound."] Jenkins’ bullet hole is consistent with the same-day testimony of Bill Newman, who thought he saw part of President Kennedy’s ear “blown off”---presumably Newman saw a bone fragment exit this area immediately after the bullet’s impact. Jenkins' bullet entry site is also consistent with the wound diagram of the side of the head (a lateral view) made by Tom Robinson in 1996 for the ARRB. And I know why James Jenkins did not recall seeing an entry wound high above the right eye in the frontal bone, just below JFK’s hairline. In fact, it is highly significant that Jenkins did NOT see it. By the time Jenkins saw the body, shortly after 8:00 PM, that wound (seen by Dennis David and Joe O’Donnell in photographs the week after JFK’s death) had been obliterated---excised by Dr. Humes’s scalpel---during the clandestine post-mortem surgery. No doubt all Jenkins could see in that area was the bright red incision we see in the forehead today, above the right eye, in the autopsy photographs. We know that incision was not made at Parkland Hospital, and was not seen by anyone in Dallas. Surely, therefore, it was made by Dr. Humes in order to remove all evidence of the entrance wound at that site from the body. This is the same site at which acting White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed his finger before media people with cameras, who were at Parkland Hospital, when he quoted Dr. Burkley’s statement that the cause of death was a bullet “right through the brain.” Jenkins did not see it simply because he was not in the morgue when Dr. Humes removed evidence of that entrance wound (skin and bone tissue) from the cranium, as well as numerous bullet fragments from the brain, during clandestine surgery prior to the autopsy...." The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963 November 26th, 2013 by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board) https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) No wonder there was a God damn order of silence for 15 years for autopsy/Navy personnel. Almost a damn magic show with disappearing evidence. Edited December 29, 2023 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 29, 2023 Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 4:33 PM, Michael Crane said: No wonder there was a God damn order of silence for 15 years for autopsy/Navy personnel. Almost a damn magic show with disappearing evidence. And consider what we learned when the ARRB declassified the records that the HSCA had classified 'top secret' for 50 years: They had suppressed their medical witness interviews from the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, forcing the Panel to rely exclusively on the fraudulent Autopsy Protocol, and autopsy photographs and X-rays, in relation to questions about the occipital parietal wound in particular. And to think that people like Speer swear by this stuff... ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGARDING THE HSCA MEDICAL COVER-UP: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position. But misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in JFK’ skull.... In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .”Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm ___________________________________________ This is the COPA conference referenced in the article above: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'AMAZING HSCA PANEL COPA CONFERENCE 1995: BADEN, PURDY, WECHT + GARY AGUILAR AND KATHY CUNNINGHAM' Vince Palamara | Jun 10, 2022 | https://youtu.be/LoHk5Y6pqFY ------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) On 12/29/2023 at 3:02 PM, Pat Speer said: OMG. Do the research. Stop coughing up what people selling books and theories want you to believe. When you read the statements and testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland witnesses, and the Bethesda witnesses they are united on one front. They saw one large wound. Period. No one saw two. Period. The first witnesses demonstrated the location on their own skulls...by the temple. The Parkland witnesses were a mixed bunch, but mostly said it was towards the back of the head. Some indicated as much by claiming to see cerebellum. The autopsy report, however suggests the wound was further forward than as described by these witnesses, basically at the top of the head above the ear. This led to speculation the wound was altered. This sold books and made people go "oooh!!!" When the photos became widely available, and supported the autopsy report, some within the research community changed course, and began claiming that the autopsy photos were faked. To support this argument, some began pretending the Parkland witnesses uniformly believed the back of the head was blown out. These writers pretended as well that the Parkland witnesses uniformly denounced the accuracy of the autopsy photos and uniformly accepted the so-called McClelland drawing as an accurate depiction of the one true wound. But this was a hoax. When shown a tracing of the back of the head photo and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe, the witnesses were apprehensive about endorsing either one. In fact, more disputed the accuracy of the drawing than the tracing, Also telling, when shown the photos by NOVA, the doctors most involved in JFK's care, sans Clark, admitted they'd been mistaken in their earliest reports and testimony and uniformly agreed that the photos showing an intact back of the head were of JFK, and that no alteration of the body had been performed. Now, one doctor, McClelland, tried to have it both ways by saying he thought intact scalp had been pulled up to cover a gaping hole on the back of the head for the photo. But this was blithering nonsense. Two minutes with a book on gunshot wounds will tell you that the scalp at an exit is torn, and does not sag, let alone sag for inches down the back of the head to the extent it can be pulled back up to conceal a large exit wound. But the CT community persisted, coming up with wilder and weirder theories to support their unwarranted belief the back of the head was blown out--even if the only credible witnesses to say so no longer said so. David Lifton, for example, began telling people that at least two (or was it three) of the Parkland doctors who'd admitted their mistakes were actually in on the plot to kill JFK, and had been hired to alter his wounds in an ambulance before his body got to Parkland. Others insisted instead that these and other doctors were simply cowards, and were lying because they were suddenly scared, 25 years after they'd described the large wound as being on the back of the head in the only testimony in which their recollections actually mattered. Anything but admit that maybe just maybe the doctors had been incorrect about one thing in the reports written without access to notes...because they didn't take notes...hours after last looking at JFK's body, and after some of them had had a pow wow to get their stories straight. I mean, most everyone who's spent even one day researching the JFK case knows 11-22 was a ball of confusion, and that much of what was reported was nonsense. But for some reason all too many refuse to accept the obvious--that doctors can be confused, too. Now, this was the state of things around the time I joined this forum. I saw the intellectual inconsistencies and downright dishonesty among many of these pushing the back of the head story. And I wondered if, by golly, these claims the medical evidence had all been faked even made sense. So I set out on a years-long quest in which I read dozens of forensics texts, and studied hundreds of autopsy photos and x-rays...that led me not to abandon my beliefs there was more than one shooter, but embrace it, as the supposedly-fake medical evidence is 100% clear in its suggestion there were two head wounds, and almost certainly two shooters. Over the next 15 years, moreover, I would expand my scope to include the history of wound ballistics, the history of the HSCA, and the nature of JFK's brain injuries. And this journey further illuminated what had previously been unclear. 1. The autopsy reports suggest at least three wounds and, when studied alongside the Zapruder film, more than one shooter. 2. The medical evidence cover-up began not with the alteration of JFK's wounds, but with Dr. Humes' twisting the evidence within his report to suggest three shots and threes shots only. 3. After the WC realized the back wound was too low to support their belief the bullet creating the back wound exited Kennedy's throat, the cover-up went into overdrive, and the WC pressured the doctors to pretend the back wound was on the back of the neck. 4. After Tink Thompson published the WC's drawings alongside a frame from the Zapruder film, and showed the autopsy report's trajectory made little sense, moreover, the medical evidence cover-up entered phase three, and a secret panel was convened to "solve" this problem, which they "solved" by pretending the autopsy doctors were blithering idiots and that the entrance wound on the back of the head was really four inches higher on the back of the skull than claimed in the autopsy report, where no one saw such a wound, and where the doctors swore there was no such wound. 5. In its attempt to close the JFK case, the HSCA relied upon a number of supposed experts, some of whom twisted the evidence into pretzels in order to support the single-bullet theory and the single-assassin solution. This session of the cover-up is made clear, moreover, by the fact the HSCA's trajectory expert--the man tasked with lining up JFK's and JBC's wounds to see if they were in line with the sniper's nest--claimed JFK was leaning forward when shot in the back and then sat up a bit before being shot in the head...which is the exact opposite of what everyone studying the films knows to be true. In any event, it saddens me that so many "researchers" spend their days repeating dubious and oftentimes transparently false claims about what this or that guy said 30, 40, 50, 60 years after seeing something for all of 3 seconds...that they read about on the internet, no less.. but won't pick up a text book, and see if the "official" story even makes any sense. It's been a huge distraction. ------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said: @Pat Speer I truly wish I could understand your position, but with every post you make it seems to make less and less sense to me. Perhaps it's my fault, but I have to say that in my opinion your arguments are unconvincing. I have to wonder why you are so devoted to them when, in my view, they seem so completely at odds with the record. You seem to routinely reject witness statements that are made long after the fact, yet you also seem to reject witness statements that were made on the same day/week/month/year. It seems you cherry-pick which witnesses you choose to believe and when. You also seem to think that we should trust you, (someone who as far as I am aware has no medical experience and who did not see the body as it was between the shooting and Bethesda) over the medical professionals who were actually there and who saw the body in color and in three dimensions as it was when arriving at Parkland. Doctors Clark, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Carrico, Peters, Crenshaw, and Baxter all reported seeing cerebellum. Yet you choose to reject their observations in favor of some who changed their stories. How could it be a hoax if eight doctors all mentioned seeing cerebellum? When Dr. Malcolm Perry changes his story for Gerald Posner to say he saw no cerebellum, he still says the wound was in the "occipital/parietal area." Perry also wrote to @Vince Palamara that Dr. William Kemp Clark was the doctor examined the head wound the most, and that Dr. Clark was also the most qualified to do so. Dr. Clark said both the day after the JFK assassination in 1963 and then again in 1994 that he saw cerebellum. He didn't change his story. The montage of pictures from Groden's Death Of A President clearly shows multiple people all locating the wound on the lower right rear of the skull. Yet from what I've seen, you have argued they are showing the wrong location because old people can't reach up to the top of their heads or something. So, are they all infirm, or all mistaken, or all in on a hoax? When added to the 2D illustrations that witnesses have marked and even marking the location wound on a 3D skull model, as in @Keven Hofeling 's post above, you still reject it and call it a hoax. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken on this? I read all your posts and go over them again and again, and I just don't find any good reason to believe you over the medical professionals who saw Kennedy's body in person. Oh my. 1. After thinking about what they'd witnessed, and being shown the autopsy photos, Dr.s Carrico, Perry, Jenkins and Baxter all said they'd been mistaken, and that they had not seen cerebellum. 2. Dr. Peters continued to claim he saw cerebellum, but said he saw it from above, looking down into the skull. He pointed out just where he thought he saw this wound, moreover, and it was at the crown of the head, on the parietal bone. He was thereby not a witness to the occipital blow-out proposed by the back of the head cult. 3. You are incorrect if you think Clark doubled-down and said the back of the head was blown out. He actually dismissed CTs as money-grubbers and instead threw in with John Lattimer, the then King of the LNs. 4. .The photos in Groden's The Killing of the President do not suggest a blow out wound low on the back of the head. Far from it. They actually suggest that the occipital blow-out is a myth, or a con, take your pick. From chapter 16c: Now, look back at the photos in Groden's book reproduced on the previous slides... Is it a true statement that these witnesses "almost unanimously" pointed out a wound location at the LOW right rear of their heads? NO. NO. And HELL NO. Let's count then and make it official. First of all, we need to define our terms. For a wound to be LOW on the back of the head, it would have to be at the level of the ear or below, in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing, correct? So let's run back through the photos and note which ones show someone pointing out a wound below the top of their ear. Beverly Oliver points out a large wound at the level of the ear and above. She represents 1 witness whose recollections are consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Phil Willis points out a wound above the level of his right ear. This means only 1 of 2 witnesses so far discussed have had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Marilyn Willis points out a wound on top of her head. This lowers the ratio to 1 of 3 witnesses. Ed Hoffman points out a wound at the top of the back of his head. This lowers it further to 1 of 4 witnesses. Ronald Jones points out a wound above and in back of his ear. This means the recollections of but 1 of 5 witnesses so far discussed are consistent with what Groden, Aguilar, Mantik, and Wecht have been feeding us. Charles Carrico points out a wound on the back of his head above his ear. The ratio drops to 1 of 6 witnesses. Richard Dulaney points out a wound at the top of his head. It spirals downward to 1 of 7 witnesses. Paul Peters points out a wound above his ear. It's clear now that only 1 of 8 witnesses had recollections consistent with what so many have long claimed. Kenneth Salyer points out a wound on the side of the head, by the ear. It bottoms out at 1 of 9 witnesses. Robert McClelland points out a wound on the back of his head, both below and above the top of the ear. This means but 2 of 10 witnesses so far discussed had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Charles Crenshaw points out a wound mostly behind the ear. He lifts the ratio back to 3 of 11 witnesses. Audrey Bell points out a wound at the level of her ear. The ratio soars to 4 of 12 witnesses...1 in 3. Theran Ward points out a wound by the ear. It drops back to 4 of 13 witnesses. Aubrey Rike points out a wound on the back of the head above the ear. The ratio drops to 4 of 14. Paul O'Connor points out a wound behind the ear. The ratio rises back to 5 of 15 witnesses. Floyd Riebe points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 6 of the 16 witnesses have depicted a wound at the low right rear. Jerrol Custer points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 7 of the 17 witnesses have depicted a wound consistent with the wound described in the conspiracy literature. Frank O'Neill points out a wound on the back of his head above the ear. So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden. Now...who were these 7? 1. While Beverly Oliver claims to have been one of the closest witnesses to the shooting, many if not most long time researchers doubt her claims, as she only came forward years after the shooting, and told some pretty wild stories. Even so her description of a wound on the back of the head is in keeping with the wound described by Dr. McClelland, and the drawing prepared by Phillip Johnson. Not exactly credible. 2. And then there's McClelland... In his initial report, McClelland described but one wound, a wound of the left temple. When asked in the 80's to show the location of the one wound he'd observed, moreover, he pointed to a location far above his ear, essentially at the top of the head, and inches away from where the wound was placed in the drawing mistakenly attributed to him. So, no, he is not much of an occipital witness, is he? 3. And Crenshaw... Yikes, Crenshaw. The problem with Crenshaw as a witness is that, not only did he fail to see Kennedy for more than a few seconds, his recollections were not recorded prior to the publication of the "McClelland" drawing showing him how other Parkland witnesses purportedly recalled the wound...or even in the decade after that. He also had a problem with anatomy, as demonstrated by the markings on anatomy drawings he made for the ARRB. Not only are the markings on the posterior and lateral views not in the same place, they barely even touch. Not a great witness. 4. And Audrey Bell... who was similar to Dr. Crenshaw in that, while she has been consistent in her claim that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, there is no record of her making this claim prior to the 1980's, long after the "McClelland" drawing was published in Six Seconds in Dallas. While some point to her claiming she saw the wound in a 1960's nursing article, moreover, this article actually damages her credibility, as she was at that time claiming she took possession of the official number of Connally wrist fragments, and this number grew significantly by the time she started yapping about the head wound. As a consequence, she has no credibility regarding the head wound. Zero. 5. And oh yeah, Paul O'Connor. O'Connor was not an occipital witness. Here is the drawing he'd created showing the wound to be entirely above the right ear, i.e. in the parietal region, not occipital region. In Groden's book, of course, he is pointing to a location below this. Well, it's a con. If you watch the video from which the image was taken you will see that O'Connor was pointing out an extensive wound from front to back, quite clearly the wound as observed when the brain was removed, and that Groden cherry-picked the frame with his hand at the back to deceive his readers. 6. And then there's Riebe... Riebe yessiree pointed to a location low on the back of the head for that photo, but he claimed he was incorrect about this after being shown the official autopsy photos by the ARRB. Not a credible occipital witness. 7. And finally, Custer. Well, much as he did with O'Connor, Groden took a frame from a clip of Custer pointing out the dimensions of the massive wound when the brain was removed and pretended this was Custer pointing out the location of a considerably smaller wound entirely on the back of the head in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. It was a con. Fortunately, moreover, Custer was given the opportunity to clarify the situation and told the ARRB that he took the x-rays showing the back of the head to be intact beneath the scalp. And he went further than that... he also created a drawing for the ARRB showing that in his recollection the top of the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp, but not blown out. So, YIKES, the frequent claim the witnesses in Groden's book were pointing to a wound low on the back of the skull, and that we should believe them, is utter hoo-ha. Vomit. Only a small minority actually believed there was a wound in this location, and not only were they not particularly credible, they were nowhere near as credible as they would need to have been for us to ignore the other so-called back of the head witnesses, who were most assuredly not witnesses to a wound low on the back of the head. Edited December 30, 2023 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now