Proof that Pat Speer is wrong about Dr. McClelland initially saying the gaping wound was near the temple.

[Pat Speer]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Dr. Jenkins himself corroborated what Dr. McClelland said, that he got the small-hole-at-the-temple information from him! There's no circular reasoning in my proof. There is just your stubbornness and biases that are keeping you from seeing the truth.

 

More circular reasoning. I have never disputed that Jenkins pointed at the temple. I am disputing instead that McClelland wrote his report under the hypnotic sway of Jenkins. That's ludicrous. McClelland was standing right there when Clark inspected the head. IF there had been an entrance wound on the left temple, someone would have mentioned this to Clark or Clark would have discovered this himself and pointed it out to others. None of the other doctors mentioned an entrance in their reports, because ALL of them knew no other head wound outside the massive one had been found. How could McClelland, who was right there, standing by the head, have been unaware of this fact? 

Short answer: he wasn't. READ his report. Most wounds seen in hospitals are entrance wounds. One wound. A man gets shot in the stomach. The report on his treatment will say it was a gunshot wound of the stomach. As stated, I have read HUNDREDS pf autopsies and gunshot wound descriptions in professional journals. NO ONE says it was a gunshot wound "of the back" if they saw but one wound...on the chest or stomach. They report what they observed, not what someone else whispered at the beginning of the patient's treatment, and they most certainly don't forget to write what they observed and only report what that someone else whispered. Now, IF McClelland had said something about a presumed ENTRANCE wound on the left temple, and a massive wound on the back of the head, we would have to assume he was indeed confused by Jenkins. But he didn't say anything about there being two wounds, and he never once mentioned the location of the massive wound, outside its being "of the left temple".  Heck, I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he, as others, mentioned cerebellum in his report, as that wound indicate yessiree a wound low on the back of the head. But, nope, he did not. Because, clearly, he thought the wound was by the temple. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

More circular reasoning.

 

Nope. None.

 

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

None of the other doctors mentioned an entrance in their reports, because ALL of them knew no other head wound outside the massive one had been found. How could McClelland, who was right there, standing by the head, have been unaware of this fact? 

 

What makes you think McClelland read all the other doctors' reports?

The fact is that Jenkins corroborated McClelland's stated reason for saying there was a shot to the temple area. Which proves that my proof is right, and that your claim of circular reasoning on my part is horse hockey.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nope. None.

 

 

What makes you think McClelland read all the other doctors' reports?

The fact is that Jenkins corroborated McClelland's stated reason for saying there was a shot to the temple area. Which proves that my proof is right, and that your claim of circular reasoning on my part is horse hockey.

 

What the? You proved I was right!!! Jenkins only knew what McClelland told him--that Jenkins had misled him into thinking there was an entrance by the temple. But there's no evidence whatsoever he studied McCelland's report and realized McClelland had failed to mention the left temple wound being an entrance and the massive wound's being on the back the head. Those are red flags. You can not write a report describing two head wounds if you only mention the location for one, and fail to designate that wound as an entrance and/or exit for a bullet entering elsewhere. 

Let's switch this around. Say Dr. Humes wrote a report claiming the head wound was an occipital wound, and made no mention of any other wound or any other location. Say he was asked about this later and said "Well, Dr. Boswell pointed to the back of the head at one point and I thought he was telling me there was an entrance wound there..." You and every other CT would then pounce "Well, wait a second...how come he failed to mention anything about the large wound on the top of the head that he later claimed to see? How come he makes NO mention of a wound in this location in his report? Is it because he saw no such wound, and that the wound he saw was actually an occipital wound?"

And you would then answer affirmatively: "Yes, of course he saw an occipital wound. He saw one, but then tried to lie about it. Duh."

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's switch this around. Say Dr. Humes wrote a report claiming the head wound was an occipital wound, and made no mention of any other wound or any other location. Say he was asked about this later and said "Well, Dr. Boswell pointed to the back of the head at one point and I thought he was telling me there was an entrance wound there..." You and every other CT would then pounce "Well, wait a second...how come he failed to mention anything about the large wound on the top of the head that he later claimed to see? How come he makes NO mention of a wound in this location in his report? Is it because he saw no such wound, and that the wound he saw was actually an occipital wound?"

And you would then answer affirmatively: "Yes, of course he saw an occipital wound. He saw one, but then tried to lie about it. Duh."

 

Please do me a favor, Pat. Instead of using a pretend analogy with Humes, write a story explaining what you believe actually happened. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate as to what really happened. It just has to make sense according to the statements of McClelland and Jenkins.

Like the story I wrote explaining how it happened. Which makes sense according to the two doctors. Here is my story for your convenience:

When Dr. McClelland arrived at the operating room, Dr. Marion Jenkins and several other doctors were already attending to President Kennedy. Dr. McClelland asked Dr. Jenkins where Kennedy's wounds were. Jenkins was busy operating a breathing bag with his right hand and checking for a pulse on Kennedy's left temple, with a finger on his other hand. McClelland mistakenly thought that Jenkins was pointing to a small entrance wound on the left temple.

Later, McClelland got a good view of the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. (According to his testimony before the Warren Commission.)

 

[David Von Pein]

It's clear as day (to me) that when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in this 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/63....

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

....McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had entered JFK's head (via the erroneous information he had garnered in Trauma Room #1 from Dr. Jenkins).

McClelland's "left temple" reference is obviously not meant to convey information concerning where the large wound was located on the President's head. McClelland never even attempts to mention the location of the large exit wound in his 4:45 Admission Note. He never says a word about the large wound at all.

So it's a mystery to me as to why on Earth Pat Speer seems to think that Dr. McClelland's initial 4:45 PM report suggests that he (McClelland) actually was implying he saw a huge hole in the "left temple" of President Kennedy. I don't interpret it that way at all. And I don't think very many other people would either.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You can not write a report describing two head wounds if you only mention the location for one, and fail to designate that wound as an entrance and/or exit for a bullet entering elsewhere.

Why not? What rule book did you get that out of?

Anyway, you're obviously wrong in your above comment, because that is exactly what Dr. McClelland DID do in his November 22 Admission Note -- i.e., he wrote a report in which he only described the location for where he thought (incorrectly, of course) the bullet had entered the head of President Kennedy, and he did not describe (at all) the location of the large wound of exit.

Like it or not, that's precisely what Dr. McClelland did.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why not? What rule book did you get that out of?

Anyway, you're obviously wrong in your above comment, because that is exactly what Dr. McClelland DID do in his November 22 Admission Note -- i.e., he wrote a report in which he only described the location for where he thought (incorrectly, of course) the bullet had entered the head of President Kennedy, and he did not describe (at all) the location of the large wound of exit.

Like it or not, that's precisely what Dr. McClelland did.

 

 

Exactly.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why not? What rule book did you get that out of?

Anyway, you're obviously wrong in your above comment, because that is exactly what Dr. McClelland DID do in his November 22 Admission Note -- i.e., he wrote a report in which he only described the location for where he thought (incorrectly, of course) the bullet had entered the head of President Kennedy, and he did not describe (at all) the location of the large wound of exit.

Like it or not, that's precisely what Dr. McClelland did.

 

LOL. Why on Earth would you believe that? Because you read it in Bugliosi's book? That's pathetic.

I have been urging the members of this forum to get off their butts and read some actual medical reports, and not just repeat the gibberish found in most books on the assassination. 

IF your father was shot in the stomach, and died, and the emergency room doctor charged with saving his life put in his report that your father was shot in the back, you would do well to contact a lawyer. 

If that doctor then told your lawyer that what he meant was that he saw someone point to your father's back, but never looked at it, and then assumed this person was telling him your father was shot in the back by a bullet that exited his stomach, and that he then forgot to mention the stomach wound in his report, well, your lawyer would suggest you sue.

As a recitation of the doctor's explanation would convince even the most skeptical of juries that the doctor was grossly incompetent, and that his incompetence may have played a role in your father's death. moreover, it's near certain the hospital would then terminate the doctor and settle your lawsuit. For millions. The doctor would then be referred to the AMA and lose his medical license.   

It boggles my mind that so many find McClelland's story credible. I grew up in a family of nurses and have spent much of the past two years in hospitals. I have heard hundreds of stories about incompetent doctors, nurses, and bio-med technicians at the dinner table. And McClelland's describing a wound that didn't exist in a location he never even looked at, in a report in which he failed to mention the location of the wound he would later claim he did look at, is right up there with the worst of these stories. It's an admission of incredible incompetence, if true. 

But almost certainly false. 

While McClelland's latter-day claim he was confused by Jenkins answers but one question--why he wrote "left temple" in his report--it failed spectacularly at answering the other questions raised by his report.

1. Why did he, alone among his colleagues, come away from Trauma Room One with the impression there were two head wounds?

2, If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he say it was "of" the left temple" (an expression which suggests the wound was confined to the region), as opposed to "in the left temple" (which leaves open if the bullet exited elsewhere)?

3.. If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he not specify the location of the "massive" wound described elsewhere?

4. If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he not specify that it was smaller than the "massive" wound he saw elsewhere?

The most logical answer is, and will presumably continue to be, that he confused right with left, and that his trying to blame it on Jenkins was a story--perhaps a story he told himself--but a story nonetheless. 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

So what Pat is saying is that both McClelland and Jenkins are wrong about how it came to be that McClelland thought there was a (small) wound near the left temple. Even though McClelland and Jenkins agree with each other on that.

Pat and Pat alone is right about it. That is what Pat is saying.

 

[Micah Mileto]

Uhh... Hello? Did ya'll read my post which showed evidence that, at the very least, the left temple did have a spot of blood that somewhat looked like a wound? This apparently was not just a case of Jenkins feeling the temple and McClelland thinking he was pointing. So now we have at least 2 seemingly independent explinations for why there was intrique about the left temple area. Jenkins also told the Warren Commission "I thought there was a wound there". Both McClelland and Jenkins' testimony failed to fully address the left temple report - with McClelland, the talk seemed intentionally evasive.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. Why on Earth would you believe that? Because you read it in Bugliosi's book? That's pathetic.

[...]

It boggles my mind that so many find McClelland's story credible.

LOL back at ya! I certainly hope you're not placing me in the category of someone who actually finds the story of the late Dr. Robert McClelland "credible". Because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I've been ripping McClelland's story to shreds for many years now (particularly his insane "pulled-up scalp" fantasy).

And I certainly don't require the assistance of Mr. Bugliosi (or anyone else) when it comes to evaluating the multiple things that Dr. McClelland gets wrong in his initial November 22nd statement. It's all right there on pages 11 and 12 of CE392, including the bizarre conclusion reached by Dr. McClelland about there being "a fragment wound of the trachea". What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway? It would seem as if McClelland was speculating that a "fragment" of some sort [bullet? bone?] had caused the wound in JFK's throat. Where that notion came from is a mystery to me.

In the final analysis, Dr. McClelland's conclusion concerning the location of JFK's large head wound (which was very similar to many of the other "Back Of The Head" witnesses) is provably wrong—as discussed in greater detail HERE).
 

[David Von Pein]

A NOVA/PBS Addendum....

In my last post above, I linked to one of my webpages which includes this 5-minute excerpt from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program ("Who Shot President Kennedy?" ), which was hosted by Walter Cronkite. And I recently noticed something odd in that program that I had never noticed before—it's when Mr. Cronkite utters this blatant falsehood to the viewing audience:

"The drawing [pictured below] suggests what many of the photos examined by the doctors and NOVA show—a large wound about this size and location."



The above statement made by Mr. Cronkite is, of course, just flat-out wrong, because there are ZERO autopsy photographs which support the notion of a large blow-out wound in the rear (occipital) portion of JFK's head. So I haven't the slightest idea how NOVA and Cronkite arrived at the conclusion that some of the autopsy photos depict a large back-of-the-head blow-out.

And I find it very strange that a statement like the one quoted above concerning the official autopsy photographs at the National Archives would have been aired on national television, especially when weighed against the observations of the HSCA's Michael Baden (who had full and complete access in the 1970s to all of the first-generation autopsy photographs):

"Clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head."
-- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So what Pat is saying is that both McClelland and Jenkins are wrong about how it came to be that McClelland thought there was a (small) wound near the left temple. Even though McClelland and Jenkins agree with each other on that.

Pat and Pat alone is right about it. That is what Pat is saying.

 

Read McClelland's report. 

He mentions a massive wound.

He mentions a wound of the left temple.

But he doesn't give a location for the massive wound or say these were two separate wounds. 

Nor does he describe the wound of the left temple in a manner suggesting it was not the massive wound. 

As McClelland stood within a few feet of Dr. Clark as Clark inspected Kennedy's head, moreover, it seems clear McClelland would have been privy to the conclusion reached by everyone else present--that there was one massive wound on Kennedy's head.

As several witnesses to the wound had placed the wound at JFK's temple while appearing on television prior to McClelland's writing his report, and as Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his temple when announcing JFK's death to the national press, in a room but yards from McClelland right there at Parkland Hospital, it seems possible McClelland had witnessed or heard about one or more of these references to the temple, and was thinking of them while writing his report.

As a magazine article quoting the Parkland doctors' initial reports was published in a Texas medical journal within weeks of the assassination, and as this article corrects McClelland's approximation of the time of JFK's death, and further notes "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head" it seems clear Dr. McClelland was interviewed for this article, and that he and he alone was responsible for correcting his impression of THE wound's location from the left temple to the right side of the head.

It is logical to conclude then that McClelland thought the wound was of the right temple, but inadvertently wrote left temple in his report, and then tried to correct his error by telling this journal it was on the right side of the head. 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Paul Rigby]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While McClelland's latter-day claim he was confused by Jenkins answers but one question--why he wrote "left temple" in his report--it failed spectacularly at answering the other questions raised by his report.

1. Why did he, alone among his colleagues, come away from Trauma Room One with the impression there were two head wounds?

Dr David Stewart:

“He described in detail the wounds President Kennedy received. He told the club the President had three visible wounds … The wound in the left front was definitely entered from the front,”

 JFK Shot From Front Speaker Tells Rotary (Lebanon Democrat, Thursday, 30 March 1967, 1)

“Dr David Stewart...said doctors who administered aid to the President…thought that a bullet had struck him in the frontal part of the head ‘behind the hairline’ and had caused the massive damage to the back of the victim’s head,”

Lewis Williams, Doctors Believed President Shot In Forehead: Physician (Nashville Banner, 17 January 1967, 1-2)

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said:

Dr David Stewart:

“He described in detail the wounds President Kennedy received. He told the club the President had three visible wounds … The wound in the left front was definitely entered from the front,”

 JFK Shot From Front Speaker Tells Rotary (Lebanon Democrat, Thursday, 30 March 1967, 1)

“Dr David Stewart...said doctors who administered aid to the President…thought that a bullet had struck him in the frontal part of the head ‘behind the hairline’ and had caused the massive damage to the back of the victim’s head,”

Lewis Williams, Doctors Believed President Shot In Forehead: Physician (Nashville Banner, 17 January 1967, 1-2)

Was Stewart involved in JFK's care? 

Nope. He was repeating gossip years after the fact at odds with the initial reports and testimony of all those actually involved in JFK's care. 

From looking at Palamara's book, I see that Stewart told a radio audience in 67 that all the physicians in Trauma Room One believed there was a small wound on the left front of Kennedy and a massive wound of exit on the right backside of his head. Perhaps he had read McClelland's initial statement and had conflated that with the statements of everyone else. Because, if Stewart is telling the truth, well, ALL the Parkland doctors, including McClelland, were XXXXX, if not from 11-22-63, then a few days later. 

So, Paul, do you believe they all lied...for decades...or is it much more likely that Stewart--a man not even involved in JFK's care--simply got it wrong?