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

[Pat Speer]

From chapter 18c:

 

By June of 1981, Livingstone had convinced Ben Bradlee, Jr. of the Boston Globe to pick up where he'd left off, and interview the Parkland witnesses for himself. Bradlee's summary of these interviews can be found in the Weisberg Archives. They reveal that Bradlee focused on the recollections of 16 witnesses, and that 8 of the 14 he interviewed for the story cast doubt on the authenticity of the photos, and 6 largely supported their authenticity. This was a journalist at work, and not a theorist. And he believed barely more than half the witnesses suggested the photos were at odds with the wounds. This was far from the ALL claimed by Livingstone.

The witnesses Bradlee thought disagreed with the official description of the head wound were:

• 1. Dr. Robert McClelland, who is reported to have claimed that the drawing he approved for book publication is still how he "vividly remembers" the wound appearing.

  2. Dr. Richard Dulany, who is reported to have "told the Globe that he recalled seeing a wound four to six inches in diameter squarely in the back of the head, in a location quite distinct from that depicted in the official autopsy report and photograph."

  3. Patricia Gustafson, who repeated what she'd earlier told Livingston, that the wound she'd observed was at the "back of the head."

  4. Doris M. Nelson, who "drew an illustration of the head wound that placed it high on the back, right side. The wound she drew was in the parietal area, but it extended well toward the rear of the head and appears to conflict with the autopsy photograph. Shown the tracing of that photo, Nelson immediately said: 'It isn't true.' Specifically, she objected to the photograph showing hair in the back of the head. 'There was no hair,' she said. 'There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" (Note: Bradlee was more specific than Livingstone regarding Nelson's recollections, and reveals that, while disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, she nevertheless felt the wound was at the top of Kennedy's head, and not on the far back of the head, where Livingstone and others placed the wound.)

  5. Margaret Hood, who "sketched a gaping hole in the occipital region which extended only slightly into the parietal area."

  6. Dr. Ronald Jones, who "refused to make a drawing of the wound on a plastic skull model, saying he never had an opportunity to define the wound's margins. With his finger, however, he outlined the wound as being in the very rear of the head. He said the official autopsy photograph of the back of the head did not square with his recollection, but that the McClelland drawing was 'close.'" (Well, this is interesting. Jones clearly saw where this was headed, and tried to make clear that his recollection wasn't worth all that much.)

  7. Dr. Paul Peters, who "made a drawing that appeared to place the head wound entirely in the parietal region, but he insisted that he meant for it to overlap into the occipital region as well. 'I think occipital–parietal describes it pretty well,' he remarked. He said he had a good opportunity to examine the head wound. Shown the official tracing of the autopsy photograph, Peters remarked: 'I don't think it's consistent with what I saw.' Of the McClelland drawing, Peters said: 'It's not too far off. It's a little bit (too far) down in the occipital area, is what I would say...But it's not too bad. It's a large wound, and that's what we saw at the time.'" (Well, this is also quite intriguing. Peters placed the wound in the parietal area, but, one can only presume, recalled Clark's description of it as occipito-parietal, and thought better of it. Note also that two of the witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos--Nelson and Peters--had disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing as well.)

  8. Diana H. Bowron: A British registered nurse. Bradlee couldn't find her but quoted her testimony before the Warren Commission.

  9. Dr. William Kemp Clark. Clark refused to be interviewed but Bradlee quoted his previous reports and testimony.

  10. Dr. Gene C. Akin, who "at first recalled that the head wound was 'more parietal than occipital'" but who equivocated after being shown the McClelland drawing, and said "Well, in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it's more occipital.'" (Holy smokes. This confirms that at least one back of the head witness deferred to the accuracy of McClelland's drawing, without realizing the drawing had not been made by McClelland, and without the foresight to realize McClelland himself would come to dispute its accuracy. There's also this. Of the 8 witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, three--Nelson, Peters, and Akin--also initially disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.)

This, then brings us to the six witnesses Bradlee spoke to who "tended to agree with the official description of the head wound that emerged from the autopsy and Warren Report."

• 1. Dr. Charles Baxter, who, despite his earlier statements and testimony, drew "a large wound in the parietal region" on a model skull, and "said the official autopsy photo of the back of the head did not conflict with his memory."

  2. Dr. Adolph Giesecke, who "placed the head wound in the right parietal region, saying it extended about three or four centimeters into the occiput. Though this would appear to make the wound visible in a rear-view photo, Giesecke said the official autopsy photograph was nonetheless 'very compatible' with what he remembered. He explained this by saying that in the photograph it appeared to him that a flap of scalp blown loose by a billet was being held in such a way as to cover the rear-most portion of the skull wound. Giesecke said the McClelland drawing did not reflect what he remembered of the wound." (So Giesecke was being reasonable; the photo didn't reflect exactly what he remembered but it was close enough for him to assume it was legitimate. Meanwhile, he totally dismissed the McClelland drawing.)

  3. Dr. Charles Carrico, who was not interviewed, but answered questions by letter, and said in his first letter "that the official autopsy photograph showed 'nothing incompatible' with what he remembered of the back of the head. But he conceded that 'we never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound.' In his second letter, Carrico said he agreed with the size of the wound shown in the McClelland drawing, but not its location, since '...we were able to see the majority. if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back in a hospital gurney.'"

  4. Dr. Malcolm Perry, who, like Carrico, declined to be interviewed, but responded by letter. "In the first letter. Perry said that while he gave only a 'cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions,' the autopsy photograph 'seems to be consistent with what I saw.' In his second letter, Perry simply-reiterated that he had not made a careful examination of the head wound. and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark."

  5. Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, whose earlier claims he'd observed cerebellum had been widely quoted "told The Globe he had been mistaken in his statements on this. 'I thought it was cerebellum, but I didn't examine it,' he said. Jenkins refused to draw a picture of the head wound on a plastic skull model, insisting instead that a reporter play the part of the supine Kennedy so he could demonstrate what he saw and did. Asked to locate the large head wound, Jenkins pointed to the parietal area above the right ear. He said he had never looked at the back of the head."

  6. Dr. Robert G. Grossman, who "said he took up a position next to Dr. Clark at the right of Kennedy's head. In contrast to Jenkins, Grossman said the president's head was picked up by Clark. 'It was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited,' Grossman said. Besides this large parietal wound, Grossman went on to say that he had noted another separate wound. measuring about one—and—a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman was the only doctor interviewed who made such a reference to two distinct wounds. Though no occipital wound such as he described is apparent in the official autopsy photograph, Grossman nevertheless said 'it seems consistent' with what he remembered. He said the large wound depicted in the McClelland drawing 'is in the wrong place.'"

Let's reflect. Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of these 14, 8 strongly questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head, and 6 supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo. This is indeed interesting. But what's just as interesting, and just as telling in the long run, is that NINE of these 14 rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, which those focusing on this issue nevertheless propped up as a depiction of the one true wound.

Feel free to scream. And let's reflect that when ultimately reporting on these interviews, in his 1989 best seller High Treason, Livingstone and his co-author Robert Groden claimed that the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate."

So, I ask again, were we conned?

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

@Pat Speer Why do you entertain this silliness?  Facts don't matter anymore to some people.  Narratives do!

@Sandy Larsen You are taking peoples opinions as fact. Why?  Look at the factual evidence in front of you.  The historical film that shows exactly what occurred in that moment.  You have the Zapruder Film, Nix Film, Marie Muchmore film, and the Mary Moorman photo.  Seriously, you should be awarded the equivalent of the Golden Raspberry Award for this post.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

A 12/1/1971 interview of Dr. McClelland by Harold Weisberg was included in Weisberg’s 1975 book Post Mortem (Link):

[...Epilogue, p. 376-377]

 

From Carrico’s office in Room 208, I went to the sixth floor, where Drs. Robert N. McClelland and Perry have offices opposite each other. McClelland was in, Perry was then not. McClelland was pleasant, greeting me cordially. I asked him about his contemporaneous statement, that “the cause of death” was “a gunshot wound of the left temple” (R527) He does remember it and began an apology by saying “it was a total mistake on my part”. His explanation is that “Ginger”, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, called the spot to his attention. McClelland seemed genuinely disturbed about this. He was bitter that the New Orleans assistant district attorneys had asked him about it and self-satisfied with how he talked them out of calling him as a witness – by telling them he would swear it had been a “total mistake”.

 

I asked him why he never corrected this alleged mistake, especially when he was deposed and Specter, having avoided it with obvious care, asked him instead if there was anything he had said that he wanted to change or anything he wanted to add (6H39).

 

McClelland had no answer. So I asked him how he know it was, in fact, a “total mistake”. He then shifted to this position: “I don’t know that it wasn’t and I don’t know that it was”. We both realized this was a far cry from his opening, “it was a total mistake,” for almost immediately, and without vigorous questioning, he was admitting openly and without leading questions that it might not have been any mistake. A bit embarrassed, he formulated still another position, “I presume it was a wrong assumption.”

 

He was anxious to complain about Garrison and his assistants, and I listened to a long, bitter and irrelevant diatribe, which seemed to satisfy him. When he ran down, I asked how he would or could now account for such an error, if error it was. He then conjectured it was a spot of splattered blood. Perhaps an experienced surgeon and professor of surgery cannot tell the difference between a bullet hole of entrance to which he attributed the crime of the century and a spot of blood. I found it not easy to believe. So I asked him how he came to realize that perhaps he was in error. That it turns out, was not anything he had seen or of which he had personal knowledge, but the autopsy report taken around and shown by the federal agents! It was not in the autopsy report so it was not true, regardless of his own professional observation and opinion.

 

There was another obvious question and I asked it: Had he, Jenkins, or anyone else wiped this alleged spot to see if it was no more than a spot of blood or to see if it was a bullet hole when all knew there would be an inquest which would have to establish the cause of death? His answer was simple, direct and unequivocal: “No.”

 

I reminded him that Jenkins also had testified to the existence of this left-temple wound. McClelland had no explanation.

 

Jenkins was not available. His second reference to this under oath was remarkably detailed and precise in locating the alleged wound in the left temple (6H51). This followed immediately upon an off-the-record “discussion” with Specter, the content of which Specter described as “on a couple of matters which I am now going to put on the record” (6H50). With regard to Jenkins’ professional belief and observation of the carefully described and oriented left-temple wound, Jenkins testified, “you have answered that for me”. This is one way of conducting an “investigation” with the lawyer telling the expert witness what to say and believe.

 

Thus it is clear, regardless of whether the doctors’ observations were correct or in error, on what could have been a vital element of the evidence, the only doctors who have personal knowledge have no basis for denying their immediate, competent, professional and unsolicited observation, that there had been a left-temple wound of entrance and that it was the likely cause of death. Instead, they were told by Specter and federal agents what to say and believe and what not to say or believe.

 

 

I don't believe anything Jenkins said later on.

Early on he said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. Plus he said there was a small hole on the left temple. Then later he lied about both and threw McClelland under the bus for saying the same thing.

 

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't believe anything Jenkins said later on.

Early on he said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. Plus he said there was a small hole on the left temple. Then later he lied about both and threw McClelland under the bus for saying the same thing.

 

He "lied" about both?

Do you mean that he lied about the existence of a wound on the temple, or lied on at least one occasion about his saying or doing something that confused McClelland?

Now, I hope you mean the latter because the former is bonkers.

Here is his initial report.  (There is no mention of a wound on the temple because he quite correctly chose to leave it out, seeing as he never actually saw such a wound.)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, DALLAS

November 22, 1963  1630

To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage .

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300.

Sincerely, M. T. Jenkins, M.D .

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Sandy Larsen You are taking peoples opinions as fact. Why?  Look at the factual evidence in front of you.  The historical film that shows exactly what occurred in that moment.  You have the Zapruder Film, Nix Film, Marie Muchmore film, and the Mary Moorman photo.  Seriously, you should be awarded the equivalent of the Golden Raspberry Award for this post.

 

These people are medical doctors and nurses. They observed very closely where the blowout wound was. Virtually all of them said it was on the back of the head. They couldn't have all been wrong. You, like Pat, apparently believe they were. You and Pat therefore believe in mass hallucination, because that is the only way the twenty doctors and nurses could have been mistaken in the same way.

What you and Pat believe is nonsense... there is no such thing as mass hallucination.

How do you know the autopsy photos and films haven't been tampered with? It is merely an ideological belief on your part that prevents you from accepting that possibility. The Parkland professionals prove you and Pat to be wrong.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

He "lied" about both?

 

Yes.

 

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Do you mean that he lied about the existence of a wound on the temple, or lied on at least one occasion about his saying or doing something that confused McClelland?

 

He lied when he pretended he'd never said that there was a wound on the left temple. He lied when he denied telling McClelland about it.

Jenkins is a demonstrable l.i.a.r.

 

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

These people are medical doctors and nurses. They observed very closely where the blowout wound was. Virtually all of them said it was on the back of the head. They couldn't have all been wrong. You, like Pat, apparently believe they were. You and Pat therefore believe in mass hallucination, because that is the only way the twenty doctors and nurses could have been mistaken in the same way.

What you and Pat believe is nonsense... there is no such thing as mass hallucination.

How do you know the autopsy photos and films haven't been tampered with? It is merely an ideological belief on your part that prevents you from accepting that possibility. The Parkland professionals prove you and Pat to be wrong.

 

WHY are you dodging the question? WHERE was this wound you claim they all saw? 

P.S. I hope you realize experts are more prone to certain kinds of mistakes than non-experts. To be clear, someone who has only ever seen one (fill in the blank) will be less likely to confuse it with another one than someone who sees (fill in the blank)s every day. 

And that's almost beside the point. More to the point is that the witnesses you cite were influenced by one another and then later influenced by books and articles and pushy interviewers  etc. There's a double-standard in effect. If a witness is shown the McClelland drawing and says "Yeah, that looks about right" they are then and forever put into the "back of the head" box. But if that same witness is then shown the autopsy photos and says "Y'know, that looks more like it. Yeah, it was a big bloody mess. That's it." that witness is called a coward or a xxxx. It's pathetic. And pointless.  

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

WHY are you dodging the question? WHERE was this wound you claim they all saw? 

 

On the back of the head. Duh.

 

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

On the back of the head. Duh.

 

Where on the back of the head? You have claimed the witnesses are precise enough in their recollections that they amount to a proof the autopsy photos are fake, correct? So how is it that you refuse to acknowledge your claim of their precision also proves the McClelland drawing showing the wound to be located almost entirely BELOW the level of the ear...is also INACCURATE...and that the claims the cerebellum was blasted out through the defect are mistaken? 

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I think many if not most people viewing a man in this condition would think "Oh my! They've blown the back of his head off!"

 

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I think many if not most people viewing a man in this condition would think "Oh my! They've blown the back of his head off!"

 

 

You would be right unless you have wayward doctors that would say otherwise and an never ending stream of book authors and film makers that believe there is an alternate reality to facts.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Where on the back of the head? You have claimed the witnesses are precise enough in their recollections that they amount to a proof the autopsy photos are fake, correct? So how is it that you refuse to acknowledge your claim of their precision also proves the McClelland drawing showing the wound to be located almost entirely BELOW the level of the ear...is also INACCURATE...and that the claims the cerebellum was blasted out through the defect are mistaken? 

 

The phrase "back of the head" is not precise. It could mean anywhere on the back of the head. But it can't mean top of the head. Everybody (with the possible exception of you) knows the difference between back of the head and top of the head.

Naturally there was some variation in Parkland Hospital professionals' descriptions of the precise location of the gaping wound. But it doesn't follow that, therefore, they were all wrong about the wound being on the back of the head.

 

[James DiEugenio]

From a long detailed article by Aguilar, Wecht and Bradford.

For example, on the day of the assassination, Dr. Clark wrote, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region” (87). Under oath before the Warren Commission, Dr. Clark further explained that, “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (88).

FN 87, Exhibit 392, notes made by Kemp Clark on 11/22/63

FN 88, Clark's testimony in WC 6H70

Clark, a neurosurgeon, had the best view and he noted that Kennedy's brains were falling on the floor.  How could that occur from a top of the head wound?  The cerebellar damage is the dead giveaway to the posterior head wound. There were as many as nine people at Parkland who saw this cerebellar damage, according to Milicent Cranor, who is one of the very best on the medical evidence.

Why Speer continues to say that somehow the doctors were talked out of their stories is puzzling to me.  

It is clear that Specter and SS agents Elmer Moore  and Roger Warner were talking to the doctors in order to cover up what Perry and Clark had said during the press conference. Which was powerful evidence of shots from the front.  And as Martin Steadman showed this went on that night with Bethesda calling Perry to tell him to reverse his story under penalty of professional discipline.  This matches what McClelland said in the film about Perry being cautioned after the press conference.

Therefore this cover up about what Clark and Perry said began on the day of the murder. And it continued with Moore and Specter.  In any other case it would be obstruction of justice and Specter and Moore should have been indicted.

Edited December 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From a long detailed article by Aguilar, Wecht and Bradford.

For example, on the day of the assassination, Dr. Clark wrote, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region” (87). Under oath before the Warren Commission, Dr. Clark further explained that, “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (88).

FN 87, Exhibit 392, notes made by Kemp Clark on 11/22/63

FN 88, Clark's testimony in WC 6H70

Clark, a neurosurgeon, had the best view and he noted that Kennedy's brains were falling on the floor.  How could that occur from a top of the head wound?  The cerebellar damage is the dead giveaway to the posterior head wound. There were as many as nine people at Parkland who saw this cerebellar damage, according to Milicent Cranor, who is one of the very best on the medical evidence.

Why Speer continues to say that somehow the doctors were talked out of their stories is puzzling to me.  

It is clear that Specter and Elmer Moore were talking to the doctors in order to cover up what Perry and Clark had said during the press conference. Which was powerful evidence of shots from the front.  And as Martin Steadman showed this went on that night with Bethesda calling Perry to tell him to reverse his story under penalty of professional discipline.  This matches what McClelland said in the film about Perry being cautioned after the press conference.

Therefore this cover up about what Clark and Perry said began on the say of the murder. And it continued with Moore and Specter.  In any other case it would be obstruction of justice and Specter and Moore should have been indicted.

Facts are facts and facts don't change with what people say!  Historical film, photo, x-rays ... of the assassination do not show a hole in the back of JFK's head.  I know you want to discredit the film, photos, and x-rays in order to convince people of a narrative that the parkland doctors started, but facts are facts, and they just don't change no matter what anyone says.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From a long detailed article by Aguilar, Wecht and Bradford.

For example, on the day of the assassination, Dr. Clark wrote, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region” (87). Under oath before the Warren Commission, Dr. Clark further explained that, “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (88).

FN 87, Exhibit 392, notes made by Kemp Clark on 11/22/63

FN 88, Clark's testimony in WC 6H70

Clark, a neurosurgeon, had the best view and he noted that Kennedy's brains were falling on the floor.  How could that occur from a top of the head wound?  The cerebellar damage is the dead giveaway to the posterior head wound. There were as many as nine people at Parkland who saw this cerebellar damage, according to Milicent Cranor, who is one of the very best on the medical evidence.

Why Speer continues to say that somehow the doctors were talked out of their stories is puzzling to me.  

It is clear that Specter and Elmer Moore were talking to the doctors in order to cover up what Perry and Clark had said during the press conference. Which was powerful evidence of shots from the front.  And as Martin Steadman showed this went on that night with Bethesda calling Perry to tell him to reverse his story under penalty of professional discipline.  This matches what McClelland said in the film about Perry being cautioned after the press conference.

Therefore this cover up about what Clark and Perry said began on the say of the murder. And it continued with Moore and Specter.  In any other case it would be obstruction of justice and Specter and Moore should have been indicted.

The color of texture of brain matter changes when it is badly disrupted/shredded. When this happens, cerebral matter can look much like cerebellar matter. Carrico said he thought what he saw was cerebellum, but later realized he never even looked at the low back of the head, and changed his interpretation accordingly. Others did the same. Clark, who never bothered to double-down or retract his statements, nevertheless made his feelings clear by denouncing conspiracy theorists in the press and buddying up with Lattimer.

As far as Moore, it is not remotely surprising or shocking that the Secret Service, once made aware that doctors involved with a dead president's care are saying things that run askew of what the doctors involved in deciding his cause of death have determined, would have a talk with those doctors. As stated, the Parkland doctors viewed Moore's showing them the autopsy report as a courtesy, not a threat. 

I have been in bad health for the last 2 1/2 years, and have stayed in a hospital for roughly 82 days and nights and have visited a hospital for another 100 days or more. And it's incredibly obvious from dealing with doctors that they would much much much rather have some government employee show them a top secret autopsy report than blather on to the press for months and months about something that has been officially over-ruled. And yes, over-ruled. There is a system in place. Some doctors try to save lives; some doctors figure out what killed those who the other doctors could not save. The former is expected to defer to the latter. And it's not just a tradition within the medical community. The legal community, as well, defers to pathologists like Wecht and Baden and ignores as essentially gossip the rumblings of emergency room doctors. I mean, by the way people run on about the Parkland witnesses while ignoring most of what they've said you would think it's fairly commonplace for emergency room doctors to be brought into court to challenge the conclusions of pathologists. But it never happens. In part because studies have shown that the first impressions of people in general and doctors in particular are quite often wrong. 

As far as Specter... I have demonstrated and documented, far beyond what anyone else has demonstrated or documented, that he deliberately misrepresented the location of the back wound. But this same examination of the evidence proved he performed no similar cover-up of the head wound. Just look at McClelland. He wrote a report saying the fatal wound was of the left temple but then testified before Specter that it was really on the back of the head. Now, did Specter grill him on this? No. In fact, when talking to Weisberg, McClelland said wonderful things about Specter in the same breath he called Garrison a psycho.  

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pat Speer