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

[Pat Speer]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Iler said:

Dr. Kemp Clark. Chair of Neurosurgery, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School. Certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. Fellow with the American College of Surgeons. Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital. 
 

By the tone of this thread, one has to wonder if Dr. Clark had any experience working with or around human brains. 
 

I always try to imagine a non-medical person challenging the knowledge and expertise of a trained medical specialist and expert in a courtroom situation.  
 

On November 22, 1963, Dr. Clark was in Trauma Room 1 and assessed President Kennedy’s posterior occipital-parietal head wound. He wrote a same day report from his position as an eyewitness and as someone who had probably qualified as an expert witness to provide expert medical opinions about physical brain injuries in dozens if not hundreds of court cases during his career. 
 

Even someone trained in basic neuro-anatomy knows that the cerebral and cerebellar structures of the human brain are markedly different and can be distinguished by even an untrained eye. 
 

Here is what Dr. Clark had to say about President Kennedy’s head wound in his same day report. 
 

 

Here is what Dr. Clark had to say under oath before the Warren Commission about the President’s occipital-parietal head wound. 
 

 

Has anyone here held a real human brain in their hands or seen with their own eyes the difference between the cerebrum and cerebellum? Do you think you know enough to have your feelings challenge the expert eyewitness opinion of Dr. Clark? Maybe here on a forum, but in the real world of an operating room or in the adversarial environment of a courtroom, unless you had the credentials to back you up, you would not even get through the courtroom doors to sit in the gallery, let alone qualify as a witness to speak to the structures of the brain and nature of a damaged brain. 
 

Dr. McClelland’s under oath testimony before the ARRB is also extremely compelling. 

I imagine that his time looking directly at President Kennedy’s head wound was not Dr. McClelland’s first experience looking at a human brain either.

 

Under oath testimony, given under the penalty of perjury, is always given far more weight than edited clips from a TV show or statements made out of context in an informal setting.

People, even experts, can be wrong, but at least eight (8) trained and experienced trauma room doctors at Parkland Hospital and more than just a couple of trained staff at Bethesda reported seeing cerebellar tissue in a posterior occipital-parietal head wound. 
 

This seems pretty straight forward to me. 

Well then you believe all the witnesses placing the wound entirely above the ear must be wrong, and that the Parkland doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were lying or having a brain fart when they later said they were mistaken. 

FWIW, I present the original statements of the Parkland doctors on my website, along with some context.

Here, from Chapter 18d, is my discussion of Clark.

Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, a number of his colleagues would subsequently come to claim that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic, moreover, for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that 1) the Dallas doctors did not see the large wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the scalp back in place, and 2) the autopsists' closed the flaps on the back of the head before the photos could be taken. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole between some bone flaps. This suggests then that the large head wound was either on top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or on the back of the head, and the films and photos have been faked. I select the first alternative.

Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection.  He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing the first press conference, and a newsman's noting that a bullet traveling from the neck wound up to the head wound would have been traveling upwards, he said: "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times on 11-27 that the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.

While some might take from this that Clark had sold out, and had testified in opposition to his original report, they would be wrong to do so. Before writing his report, we should remember, Clark had spoken to the press...twice. In the official press conference, he had claimed the wound was "principally on the right side." While speaking to Connie Kritzberg, about an hour later, moreover, he reiterated that it was on the "right rear side." He had never claimed, nor would ever claim, the wound was on the far back of the head, below the top of the ear, in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. This was something many had assumed based upon his mention of cerebellum. But it was never supported by the sum total of his statements. The cerebellum he thought he saw could easily have come from below the hole on the back of the head along with the bullet he thought exploded from below the hole on the back of the head.

While some have taken Clark's post 1964 silence as confirmation he believed the fatal shot exited from the far back of Kennedy's head, furthermore, a more complete look at the record suggests Clark believed theories holding as much to be foolish and ill-informed. In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. Lattimer eventually discussed his relationship with Clark. In a 10-23-75 letter to researcher Emory Brown, he bragged "The brain surgeon who examined the President at Parkland is a good friend of mine and I have discussed the head wound with him at some length, and he sees no discrepancy between what he found at Parkland Hospital and what the autopsy photographs reveal." Now, Clark was very much alive at the time of Lattimer's letter, and it's pretty silly to believe Lattimer would lie about such a thing if it could come back and bite him.

Particularly when subsequent statements by Clark suggest he wasn't lying... A November 22, 1983 UPI article, (found in the Ellensburg Daily Record), boasts an interview with Clark, in which he claims "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." This was, strikingly, less than a year after Clark at first expressed interest in looking at the autopsy photos in David Lifton's possession, and then refused to even open the envelope containing these photos when Lifton arrived at his office. In 1997, moreover, Clark once again broke his silence, and granted an interview with former Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. It follows, then, that Clark was no friend of conspiracy theorists, and that he'd picked his side on the matter--the side inhabited by John Lattimer and Arlen Specter. Well, for me, it's hard to believe he'd have done this if he'd actually felt certain Kennedy's head wound was an occipital wound oozing cerebellum. But the reader may wish to think otherwise.

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

“Vero Beach Press-Journal”, 11/14/93: article by Craig Colgan---As Gary Aguilar has reported, “Craig Colgan reported Stringer’s surprise when he heard, and positively identified, his own tape-recorded voice making the above statements to Lifton in 1972. He insisted in the interview with Colgan that he did not recall his ever claiming that the wound was in the rear. [?] The wound he recalled was to the right side of the head [this is the identical about-face Stringer did with Livingstone after the first interview!]. ABC’s “Prime Time Live” associate producer, Jacqueline Hall-Kallas, sent a film crew to interview Stringer for a 1988 San Francisco KRON-TV interview [“JFK: An Unsolved Murder”, 11/18/88, with Sylvia Chase, later of “20/20” fame] after Stringer, in a pre-filming interview told Hall-Kallas that the wound was as he described it to Lifton. Colgan reported, “When the camera crew arrived, Stringer’s story had changed [another about-face]”, said Stanhope Gould, a producer who also is currently at ABC and who conducted the 1988 on-camera interview with Stringer…”we wouldn’t have sent a camera crew all the way across the country on our budget if we thought he would reverse himself”, Gould said…”(In the telephone pre-interview) he corroborated what he told David Lifton, that the wounds were not as the official version said they were,” Hall-Kallas said.”; 

Lifton's interview of Stringer was a mess, and it was unclear as to what Stringer was agreeing to. When later asked if he still believed what he told Lifton, he would have said yes. Stringer was not a "back of the head witness." And never was. All claims otherwise are a con, in my opinion. 

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

Autopsy photographer John Stringer's statements and testimony have been similarly mislabeled. Stringer, we should recall, signed the November 1, 1966 inventory of the autopsy materials--along with Dr.s Boswell, Ebersole, and Humes. This inventory was purported to list "all the x-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy." Now this is important. Although Stringer and the others would later admit that they actually believed some x-rays and photos were missing, they would never once waiver from their claim the x-rays and photos of Kennedy's body they'd observed at the archives were authentic, and were ones they'd had created. 

Now, to be clear, Stringer contributed to the confusion surrounding his statements. In 1996, while testifying before the ARRB, Stringer failed to recognize the photos of Kennedy's brain as photos he'd taken at the supplementary examination. He thought he would have done a better job identifying the photos themselves when taken; he thought he'd have used a different kind of film; and he didn't remember taking one of the views. Well, this, of course, is interesting.

But conspiracy theorists of all stripes have taken from this that the photos were switched out to hide a hole on the back of the brain, a hole proving once and for all that the shot killing Kennedy came from the front and blew out the back of his head. Many assert that this makes Stringer--yep, you guessed it--a "back of the head" witness...

And that's just nonsense. I mean, if in 1996 the 78 year-old Stringer could tell just by looking at the photos that they were not his creation, wouldn't he have been much better able to tell this in 1966, just a few years after they were taken, when he was but 48?  Well, then why didn't he say so, or remember his thinking so?  The thought occurs that by 1996 Stringer's memory had slipped a bit.

(Note: this is more than a passing thought. Stringer's obituary, found online, notes that he died on 8-17-11, at the age of 93, and that his wife of 51 years had died in 1993. Well, sadly, men widowed at such an age often start to slip. Only making this possibility more likely, moreover, is that Stringer's obituary further stated that memorial contributions could be made to the Alzheimer's Association of Vero Beach, Florida. So, yeah, the accuracy of the man's memories in 1996 are open to question.)

Now, to be clear, it's hard to say just when Stringer's memories started fading. In 1977, the HSCA asked the then 59 year-old Stringer to go to the archives and look at the autopsy photos. The report on his doing so reflects that, while he was uncertain he'd taken the black and white photos of the brain, the brain itself gave the appearance of the brain he'd photographed, and that the brain, as Kennedy's brain, was not sectioned (cut into quarters). So, hmmm, Stringer was uncertain about the photos...but felt the brain in the photos was quite possibly Kennedy's brain.

It's hard to see, then, how one can stretch his statements to include that the back of the head was blown out. 

While some, including Doug Horne and writer Jim DiEugenio, are fond of pointing out that Stringer told the ARRB that autopsy photographers who objected to things, such as rushing through the autopsy, didn't "last long," this by no means suggests that, in 1966, he would have readily gone along with someone switching out his photos to hide the true nature of Kennedy's wounds.

That just goes too far. By 1996, when Stringer was first contacted by the ARRB, his memory had faded so badly that he couldn't even remember being contacted by the HSCA in 1977, let alone visiting the archives on their behalf. It follows then that the confusing aspects of his ARRB testimony may simply have been a reflection of his age, and the passing of time. It makes little sense, after all, to assume Stringer would readily admit what all too many now perceive as as an important truth--that he did not take the brain photographs--but then lie about the nature of Kennedy's head wounds in order to "get along." What, are we to believe Stringer was so stupid he didn't realize his disowning the brain photos was bound to raise some questions? 

And yes, you read that right. Those holding that Stringer was a bold and fearless truth-teller when discussing the brain photos inevitably hold he was a cowardly xxxx when discussing Kennedy's head wounds.

Consider... When first contacted by Doug Horne on behalf the ARRB, and asked to describe the large head wound, Stringer told Horne "there was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear...It was the size of your fist and it was entirely within the hair area. There was a sort of flap of skin there, and some of the underlying bone was gone." When under oath in his ARRB testimony, moreover, Stringer further confirmed that, no matter who took the brain photos, there was NO large blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head. When asked to describe Kennedy's head wounds, he at first described a small wound on the occipital bone near the EOP, "about the size of a bullet, from what you could see."He then described the large head wound: "Well, the side of the head, the bone was gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it back. But the back - I mean, if you held it in,  there was no vision. It was a complete head of hair. And on the front, there was nothing - the  scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could have - Well, when they did the body, you wouldn't have known there was anything wrong."

He was thereby describing the wound depicted in the autopsy photos and not the wound on the far back of the head proposed in books such as Horne's. Which only makes sense... Stringer had, after all, signed the aforementioned inventory in 1966 in which it was claimed the autopsy photos were those he'd taken, and had, upon studying these photos a second time in 1977, confirmed this by explaining to the HSCA's investigators what he was trying to portray as he took each shot. He had, moreover, told an interviewer from the Vero Beach Press-Journal in 1974 that the fatal bullet "had entered the right lower rear" of Kennedy's head and had come "out in the hair in the upper right side, taking with it a large chunk of his skull."

While Mr. Stringer had also intimated (in a 1972 phone call with David Lifton) that the "main damage" was on the "back part" of Kennedy's skull, it's not entirely clear that Stringer was describing the damage to the skull apparent before the reflection of the scalp, or after. It's fortunate then that Stringer got a chance to clarify this issue in his ARRB testimony. He explained that when he first saw the skull, the scalp at the back of the head "was all intact. But then they peeled it back, and then you could see this part of the bone gone." 

Now, should one believe I'm cherry-picking here, and wrongly accepting Stringer's latter-day recollections over his much earlier statements to Lifton, one should go back and read the transcript of Stringer's conversation with Lifton, as released by the ARRB. It's confusing to say the least. After Stringer told Lifton the wound was on the "back part" of the skull, Lifton sought further clarification. He asked "In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of his head?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, it was...ahh some of it was blown off--yeah. I mean, ahh...towards out of the top, in the back, yeah." Apparently unsatisfied with that answer, Lifton later returned to this question, and re-framed it in one of the most confusing series of questions I've ever read. He asked "If you lie back in a bath tub, just in a totally prone position and your head rests against the bath tub, is that the part of the head, you know, is that the part of the head that was damaged?" To which Stringer replied "Yeah." (Now, I'm already lost. If you're laying back in a bath tub, you're not really prone, are you? Does Stringer's response then indicate that the top of the head was damaged? Or the back of the head?) Lifton then sought further clarification--with an equally confusing question. He asked "the part that would be against the tile of the bathtub?" To which Stringer replied "Mm-hmmm." (I'm still lost. Isn't the "tile of the bathtub" normally the tile on the back wall of a bathtub? And, if so, doesn't Stringer's response suggest the crown of the head was damaged, and not the back?) Lifton then tried again: "Whereas the part that would be straight up ahead, vertically in that position--was undamaged?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, I wouldn't say--undamaged--no. There was---some of it was gone--I mean--out of some of the bone." (Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means. But it seems clear, nevertheless, that Stringer thought he'd observed a hole on the top of Kennedy's head, where so many assume no hole was found. And that's not all that seems clear. In his book Best Evidence, Lifton re-writes this last question, and changes the context of Stringer's reply. He claims he asked Stringer "about the part of the head which in that position would be straight up and down, the vertical part, the 'top.' Was that undamaged?" His actual words, of course, were not so clear. According to his transcript, he not only failed to specify that he was talking about the top of the head, but said "straight up ahead"instead of "straight up and down." And that's confusing as heck. There is reason to believe then, that Stringer was confused by Lifton's questions, and just played along to get him off his back, not realizing his answers would be quoted in a best-selling book some 9 years later, and cited as evidence for a massive conspiracy.)

And should one still have doubts Stringer failed to see a large hole on the back of Kennedy's head where conspiracy theorists believe it to have been, Stringer explained under further questioning by the ARRB that the occipital bone was "intact" but fractured, and that he could not recall any of it missing upon reflection of the scalp.

So, yes, it's clear. Those believing Stringer to be honest and credible when telling the ARRB he didn't take the brain photos, and then using this to suggest there was a blow-out wound to the back of Kennedy's head, are behaving like the Warren Commission in reverse: taking snippets of someone's testimony, propping these snippets up as proof of something, and then finding ways to hide or ignore that the bulk of the witness' statements suggest something other than what they are trying to prove. 

Now, this is fairly common behavior, on all sides of the discussion. But what is unusual in this circumstance is the strength with which those pushing this view hold onto two mutually exclusive ideas: 1) Stringer is a brave truth teller, and PROOF the brain photos are not of Kennedy's brain, and 2) Stringer is a gutless xxxx, out to protect the status quo by pretending there was no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. 

I trust I'm not alone in finding this a problem. As far as Doug Horne, not only does he push in his book that Stringer lied about Kennedy's head wounds to the ARRB, he asserts that Stringer first publicly reversed himself from the descriptions he'd provided Lifton (in the 1972 phone call) in 1993. This avoids that in the 1993 article cited by Horne, Stringer's 1974 comments, in which he'd accurately described the wounds depicted in the autopsy photos, were discussed, as well as the fact that a TV crew inspired by Lifton's book interviewed Stringer in 1988, only to shelve the footage when Stringer told them the autopsy photos were accurate depictions of Kennedy's wounds. This, then, raises as many questions about Horne's integrity as Stringer's. That Stringer was describing the wounds shown in the autopsy photos as early as 1974, after all, cuts into Horne's position that Stringer reversed himself on the nature of these wounds as a response to Lifton's book, published seven years later, in 1981.

Of course, Stringer's not the only witness to be abused in such a manner.

[Andrew Iler]

Stringer never testified under oath before either the Warren Commission or the HSCA, which is interesting in itself. He did however testify for the ARRB. A link to the transcript of his ARRB testimony is below. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Stringer_7-16-96.pdf

Regardless whether you think Stringer supports a top of the head wound or a back of the head wound, I think it’s safe to say that Stringer’s ARRB testimony is a mess. 
 

Jeff Crudele’s podcast JFK The Enduring Secret plays the audio of most of Stringer’s ARRB testimony and Jeff provides some excellent commentary about Stringer along the way. It is worth listening to. 
 

https://podcastjfk.com/episode-81-the-autopsy-part-17/

Edited December 8, 2023 by Andrew Iler

[James DiEugenio]

Kemp Clark's first day notes and his WC testimony I would think would be probative.

For obvious reasons.

I also think they would have had the greatest weight in court and would have been used by Oswald's attorney to great legal impact.

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kemp Clark's first day notes and his WC testimony I would think would be probative.

For obvious reasons.

I also think they would have had the greatest weight in court and would have been used by Oswald's attorney to great legal impact.

First of all, none of the doctors took notes. Their statements were written an hour or more after they last saw the body. Second of all, we know how Clark would testify because he testified for the Warren Commission. And he essentially said he was fine and dandy with whatever the autopsists concluded.

The recollections of emergency room doctors are rarely if ever introduced in court to contradict the conclusions of an autopsy. And they most certainly wouldn't be introduced if the doctor was alive and had disavowed his initial report. 

I know people have trouble grasping this after reading so much of the same old stuff, but Clark was on Team Lattimer, not Team Lifton. 

[Paul Cummings]

46 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

First of all, none of the doctors took notes. Their statements were written an hour or more after they last saw the body. Second of all, we know how Clark would testify because he testified for the Warren Commission. And he essentially said he was fine and dandy with whatever the autopsists concluded.

The recollections of emergency room doctors are rarely if ever introduced in court to contradict the conclusions of an autopsy. And they most certainly wouldn't be introduced if the doctor was alive and had disavowed his initial report. 

I know people have trouble grasping this after reading so much of the same old stuff, but Clark was on Team Lattimer, not Team Lifton. 

You mean the autopsy that should've been done at Parkland?

[Pat Speer]

53 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

You mean the autopsy that should've been done at Parkland?

Sure...but even that isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. From what we know of the behavior of the police, the district attorney, the mayor, etc, we have no reason to believe an autopsy performed in Dallas would have been any better than the one performed at Bethesda. It's sad, but true. 

While many top CT's have claimed Earl Rose was above reproach and would have done a bang-up job, moreover, I think the evidence is against this. The Secret Service hijacked the body for two reasons: 1) Johnson wouldn't leave without the body and 2) everyone in the Kennedy entourage wanted to get the heck out of Dallas, as they felt, understandably, that the powers that be in Texas were yahoos, corrupt, or both. 

Earl Rose had a chance, of course, to prove himself, and show the world that he would stand up to bs and tell the public the truth about what happened. Instead, he signed off on the HSCA's Pathology Panel Report, and declared till the end that a lone gunman killed JFK. 

[Paul Cummings]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Sure...but even that isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. From what we know of the behavior of the police, the district attorney, the mayor, etc, we have no reason to believe an autopsy performed in Dallas would have been any better than the one performed at Bethesda. It's sad, but true. 

While many top CT's have claimed Earl Rose was above reproach and would have done a bang-up job, moreover, I think the evidence is against this. The Secret Service hijacked the body for two reasons: 1) Johnson wouldn't leave without the body and 2) everyone in the Kennedy entourage wanted to get the heck out of Dallas, as they felt, understandably, that the powers that be in Texas were yahoos, corrupt, or both. 

Earl Rose had a chance, of course, to prove himself, and show the world that he would stand up to bs and tell the public the truth about what happened. Instead, he signed off on the HSCA's Pathology Panel Report, and declared till the end that a lone gunman killed 

 

Guns drawn at you at Parkland and he signed off? Shocking.

[Andrew Iler]

The problem you have Pat, is that Dr. Clark’s under oath statements and post operative report, wherein he clearly stated observing a posterior head wound with cerebellar tissue extruding was never challenged by Arlen Specter. It was never corrected. It was never recanted, clarified or altered under oath. 
 

Specter had more than adequate opportunities over the course of two under oath sessions with Dr. Clark to challenge the neurosurgeon’s clear, definitive and expert statement that he observed cerebellar tissue extruding from a posterior head wound. Specter did not challenge it. 
 

So that is the incontrovertible record from the most expert medical professional qualified to provide an opinion on the head wound and who was an eyewitness in Trauma Room One. 
 

Whatever off the cuff statements Clark made to his buddy Lattimer a decade or more later are heresy at best and make no difference. Lattimer was not a witness. Lattimer would never qualify as an expert to provide an expert opinion in court about a brain injury. The whole Lattimer angle should be embarrassing. Where is the lineup of qualified neurosurgeons backing up the position that 8 experienced Parkland trauma doctors all testified observing cerebellar tissue in an avulsive occipital-parietal head wound are wrong?

[Miles Massicotte]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

From what we know of the behavior of the police, the district attorney, the mayor, etc, we have no reason to believe an autopsy performed in Dallas would have been any better than the one performed at Bethesda. It's sad, but true. 

Presumably the doctors would have been more experienced, no? I know you are referring to other aspects of the autopsy besides the competency of the doctors, but I think a lot of people have had raised eyebrows for years over the selection of Humes and Boswell to do the autopsy.

[Paul Cummings]

48 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Presumably the doctors would have been more experienced, no? I know you are referring to other aspects of the autopsy besides the competency of the doctors, but I think a lot of people have had raised eyebrows for years over the selection of Humes and Boswell to do the autopsy.

I don't believe Rose would've burned his original autopsy notes. (shrug)

[Keven Hofeling]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:37 PM, 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!"

 

 

When the ARRB showed mortician Tom Robinson the original top of the head autopsy photographs (which appear to depict a mess of blood and brains), Robinson called BULLSHIT as follows:

 

"...[MORTICIAN TOM 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)....." (emphasis not in original)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"...-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

Mortician Tom Robinson demonstrating the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound to be in the back of JFK's head...

'Only Known Video of JFK's Mortician'

JFK: Just the Facts | December 10, 2021 | https://youtu.be/-Y6auWJq2jI?si=nBxvgGKcAjd4b47-

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxIVH07xKG8uhWvMPhRH8rb2kpIHr_foyY?si=9LedqR8FMctN5oez

 

Edited January 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

When the ARRB showed mortician Tom Robinson the original top of the head autopsy photographs (which appear to depict a mess of blood and brains), Robinson called BULLSHIT as follows:

 

"...[MORTICIAN TOM 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)....." (emphasis not in original)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"...-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

Mortician Tom Robinson demonstrating the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound to be in the back of JFK's head...

'Only Known Video of JFK's Mortician'

JFK: Just the Facts | December 10, 2021 | https://youtu.be/-Y6auWJq2jI?si=nBxvgGKcAjd4b47-

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxIVH07xKG8uhWvMPhRH8rb2kpIHr_foyY?si=9LedqR8FMctN5oez

 

Once again, do the research. 

When asked, on 1-12-77, by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy if he could tell what percentage of the large hole on the back of Kennedy's head he'd observed had been caused by bullets, as opposed to the doctors, he responded: “Not really. Well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would say probably about [the size of] a small orange.”

Now, that's pretty vague, right? We know Robinson saw the skull at the end of the autopsy. And yet he has to "guess" how the wound was different at the end of the autopsy than how it was at the beginning of the autopsy? Now, one might "guess" from this that he really didn't get a good look at the head wound prior to the morticians' coming over to the body and, among other things, re-constructing Kennedy's skull. 

And one would be right if one did "guess" such a thing. Consider the summary of Robinson's 1996 interview with the ARRB, written by Doug Horne. It reveals: "Robinson said he had a '50 yard line seat' at the autopsy...He said the President's head was to his right, which means that he was on the anatomical left of the president during the autopsy. He said that most of the pathologists and their assistants were opposite him, on the anatomical right of the president during the autopsy."

Well, it's clear, then, that Robinson didn't get a good look at the President's head wound during the autopsy. And this means that Robinson's recollection of a wound the size of a small orange on the back of Kennedy's head was based upon what he saw towards the end of its re-construction.

Well, jeez. Robinson didn't even factor in that three large bone fragments had been retrieved by the Secret Service and added back into the skull during its re-construction.

He also assumed the reconstruction was accurate. Morticians are not forensic anthropologists. They are not trained to piece shattered skulls back together. They are cosmeticians. They stretch and sew torn scalp together to hide head wounds. They use packing material and rubber to reconstruct skulls, not super glue. In this case, moreover, they were hired to make the body presentable at a State Funeral. So, OF COURSE the hole left over at the end of the initial phases of reconstruction -- which Robinson did not even perform, nor pay much attention to--was on the back of the head (where it could be hidden in a pillow should the President have been given an open-casket funeral), and not the right top side of the head, from whence the Harper fragment almost certainly derived.