Brain Injury

[Pat Speer]

It's become clear to me that very few are aware of or have bothered to read my research regarding wound ballistics and brain injury. This material is available in Chapters 16b and 16c at patspeer.com. Should one be able to separate oneself from the body alteration distraction for a moment and actually read this material, one will find that the body as reported by the autopsy doctors, and as recorded in the autopsy photos and x-rays, is clear-cut evidence for two head shots, and by extension two shooters. 

Here is a taste of what is there: 

This is the skull of a prisoner shot while escaping, from a distance of 90 feet, by a guard using a rifle and cartridge more powerful than the rifle and carriage purported to kill Kennedy. It comes from Louis Anatole La Garde's book Gunshot Wounds, in which LaGarde also described the brain injury suffered by this prisoner.

Keep in mind that the bullet through this skull traveled a trajectory almost identical to what the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel claimed for the bullet killing Kennedy. Here's La Garde: "On the calvarium being removed the surface of the dura mater presented a state of intense congestion. To the right of the longitudinal fissure it was torn through for a distance of about 4 inches, about one inch from and parallel to it. A furrow corresponding to the injury of the dura was ploughed through the right hemisphere in the region of the superior frontal convolution about 1/2 inch deep."

Well, how about that? The Supplementary Autopsy Report of President Kennedy claimed a "longitudinal laceration" (which has long been presumed to be a bullet track, and is often described as a furrow) through Kennedy's brain ran "approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter."

A half-inch deep is about 12 mm. 4.5 cm is 45 mm. The furrow through Kennedy's brain was almost 4 times as deep as the furrow through the dead prisoner's brain, even though the bullets creating these furrows, according the HSCA FPP, sped along a nearly identical trajectory. 

The HSCA's trajectory is nonsense.

[Vince Palamara]

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's become clear to me that very few are aware of or have bothered to read my research regarding wound ballistics and brain injury. This material is available in Chapters 16b and 16c at patspeer.com. Should one be able to separate oneself from the body alteration distraction for a moment and actually read this material, one will find that the body as reported by the autopsy doctors, and as recorded in the autopsy photos and x-rays, is clear-cut evidence for two head shots, and by extension two shooters. 

Here is a taste of what is there: 

This is the skull of a prisoner shot while escaping, from a distance of 90 feet, by a guard using a rifle and cartridge more powerful than the rifle and carriage purported to kill Kennedy. It comes from Louis Anatole La Garde's book Gunshot Wounds, in which LaGarde also described the brain injury suffered by this prisoner.

Keep in mind that the bullet through this skull traveled a trajectory almost identical to what the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel claimed for the bullet killing Kennedy. Here's La Garde: "On the calvarium being removed the surface of the dura mater presented a state of intense congestion. To the right of the longitudinal fissure it was torn through for a distance of about 4 inches, about one inch from and parallel to it. A furrow corresponding to the injury of the dura was ploughed through the right hemisphere in the region of the superior frontal convolution about 1/2 inch deep."

Well, how about that? The Supplementary Autopsy Report of President Kennedy claimed a "longitudinal laceration" (which has long been presumed to be a bullet track, and is often described as a furrow) through Kennedy's brain ran "approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter."

A half-inch deep is about 12 mm. 4.5 cm is 45 mm. The furrow through Kennedy's brain was almost 4 times as deep as the furrow through the dead prisoner's brain, even though the bullets creating these furrows, according the HSCA FPP, sped along a nearly identical trajectory. 

The HSCA's trajectory is nonsense.

This is good to hear, Pat. For a second I was thinking you were in the no-conspiracy category. I know Matt Douthit is bummed that you do not believe that the back of JFK's head was missing.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's become clear to me that very few are aware of or have bothered to read my research regarding wound ballistics and brain injury. This material is available in Chapters 16b and 16c at patspeer.com. Should one be able to separate oneself from the body alteration distraction for a moment and actually read this material, one will find that the body as reported by the autopsy doctors, and as recorded in the autopsy photos and x-rays, is clear-cut evidence for two head shots, and by extension two shooters. 

Here is a taste of what is there: 

This is the skull of a prisoner shot while escaping, from a distance of 90 feet, by a guard using a rifle and cartridge more powerful than the rifle and carriage purported to kill Kennedy. It comes from Louis Anatole La Garde's book Gunshot Wounds, in which LaGarde also described the brain injury suffered by this prisoner.

Keep in mind that the bullet through this skull traveled a trajectory almost identical to what the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel claimed for the bullet killing Kennedy. Here's La Garde: "On the calvarium being removed the surface of the dura mater presented a state of intense congestion. To the right of the longitudinal fissure it was torn through for a distance of about 4 inches, about one inch from and parallel to it. A furrow corresponding to the injury of the dura was ploughed through the right hemisphere in the region of the superior frontal convolution about 1/2 inch deep."

Well, how about that? The Supplementary Autopsy Report of President Kennedy claimed a "longitudinal laceration" (which has long been presumed to be a bullet track, and is often described as a furrow) through Kennedy's brain ran "approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter."

A half-inch deep is about 12 mm. 4.5 cm is 45 mm. The furrow through Kennedy's brain was almost 4 times as deep as the furrow through the dead prisoner's brain, even though the bullets creating these furrows, according the HSCA FPP, sped along a nearly identical trajectory. 

The HSCA's trajectory is nonsense.

I think this lines up with what you say.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+skull+x-ray+bosto+globe&oq=jfk+skull+x-ray+bosto+globe&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEIOTAxMWowajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:27c68511,vid:PpOj905HQOg,st:0

[Pat Speer]

44 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I think this lines up with what you say.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+skull+x-ray+bosto+globe&oq=jfk+skull+x-ray+bosto+globe&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEIOTAxMWowajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:27c68511,vid:PpOj905HQOg,st:0

Actually, no. Peter Cummings went on Fox in 2013 claiming the autopsy doctors were right about the EOP entrance. He is correct about that. But he also made out that the bullet entering by the EOP passed upwards in the skull and exited out the large defect. And that's just nonsense. First of all, the brain shows no such passage. And second of all, the size of the defect above the ear is much greater than one would expect from a full-metal jacket bullet passing through brain. (That's the point of the image above... 120 years of wound ballistics literature tells us that full metal jacket bullets passing through brain don't blow the top of the head off, particularly at 90 yards, as proposed by the WC. Such a wound, moreover, is only seen when a bullet strikes tangentially, releasing most all its energy upon impact.)

[Benjamin Cole]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Actually, no. Peter Cummings went on Fox in 2013 claiming the autopsy doctors were right about the EOP entrance. He is correct about that. But he also made out that the bullet entering by the EOP passed upwards in the skull and exited out the large defect. And that's just nonsense. First of all, the brain shows no such passage. And second of all, the size of the defect above the ear is much greater than one would expect from a full-metal jacket bullet passing through brain. (That's the point of the image above... 120 years of wound ballistics literature tells us that full metal jacket bullets passing through brain don't blow the top of the head off, particularly at 90 yards, as proposed by the WC. Such a wound, moreover, is only seen when a bullet strikes tangentially, releasing most all its energy upon impact.)

Just for sake of argument, what if the bullet (or one of the bullets) striking JFK's head was not a FMJ bullet? 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Just for sake of argument, what if the bullet (or one of the bullets) striking JFK's head was not a FMJ bullet? 

Well, it would mean the fragments found in the front seat of the limo were planted there. 

Some will claim, to be clear, that the "trail of fragments" observed on the x-rays is proof a hunting round was used. But I have my doubts. The fragments on the x-rays from Olivier's tests appear similar enough to the fragments on JFK's x-rays for me to believe a similar round was used. 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Pat Speer said:

Well, it would mean the fragments found in the front seat of the limo were planted there. 

Some will claim, to be clear, that the "trail of fragments" observed on the x-rays is proof a hunting round was used. But I have my doubts. The fragments on the x-rays from Olivier's tests appear similar enough to the fragments on JFK's x-rays for me to believe a similar round was used. 

So, to sum up, you contend that two FMJ rounds struck JFK's head, nearly simultaneously? 

Were there automatic weapons in 1963 that fired WCC 6.5 rounds?

Or, does this imply two single-shot rifles, fired nearly simultaneously? 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So, to sum up, you contend that two FMJ rounds struck JFK's head, nearly simultaneously? 

Were there automatic weapons in 1963 that fired WCC 6.5 rounds?

Or, does this imply two single-shot rifles, fired nearly simultaneously? 

I suspect that a low-velocity bullet struck JFK near the EOP as he went behind the sign in the Z-film, and that a high-velocity bullet struck JFK above the ear at 313. I would propose as well that these were fired from two different locations, with the first being fired from the Dal-Tex roof and the second from the SN window. But I remain open to other ideas. 

[Bill Brown]

 

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck once and only from behind.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect that a low-velocity bullet struck JFK near the EOP as he went behind the sign in the Z-film, and that a high-velocity bullet struck JFK above the ear at 313. I would propose as well that these were fired from two different locations, with the first being fired from the Dal-Tex roof and the second from the SN window. But I remain open to other ideas. 

And what of the one-inch to two-inch deep back puncture? 

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And what of the one-inch to two-inch deep back puncture? 

Good catch. I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking. JFK suffers the BACK WOUND around 190 or so before he went behind the sign, and receives the EOP bullet around Z-224, which is why he and Connally appear to be reacting at the same time. He then receives another shot to the head at 313. 

I have a step by step explanation of my "theory" in chapter 20, but am honestly more interested in facts than theories, even my own. 

[Michael Crane]

13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Good catch. I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking. JFK suffers the BACK WOUND around 190 or so before he went behind the sign, and receives the EOP bullet around Z-224, which is why he and Connally appear to be reacting at the same time. He then receives another shot to the head at 313. 

I have a step by step explanation of my "theory" in chapter 20, but am honestly more interested in facts than theories, even my own. 

With the nature of the wound in the back of the head...you propose that Kennedy had motor skills after he emerged from the sign up until frame 313?

President Kennedy lost his motor skills at about frame 312 or so IMHO.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck once and only from behind.

 

Geez, Bill. I have written books on this stuff, in which I go through these and other conclusions and show why 1) why we shouldn't trust them, and 2) why they are wrong. 

Your first paragraph is correct except for the fact it was 1966, not 1967. You also leave out the context. This review was conducted after members of the media realized that the back wound was a back wound and not a neck wound, and that the single-bullet theory was suspect. Days after this review was performed Boswell was pressured? into claiming that after reviewing the photos he could state that the drawings showing the wound to be on the neck were accurate. Early the next year, at the request of CBS, another review was performed, this one without Ebersole and Stringer, but with Finch. This review reached similar conclusions, and formed an intro to Humes' appearance on CBS that June in which he claimed that the drawings showing the wound to be on the neck were accurate...something he would have to have know was false after viewing the photos. 

Your second paragraph leaves even more out. The Clark Panel was convened in secret to "debunk"  the "junk" in Tink Thompson's book, most certainly including that the head wound trajectory proposed by the WC made no sense in light of JFK's position at Z-312/Z-313. To do this they needed to "find" a wound higher up on the head, and voila! they did so! Never mind that no such wound was reported by anyone who'd seen the body. They needed this smudge to be the entrance wound described at autopsy or they would have to admit that both the trajectory and lack of damage within the brain suggested there were in fact two head wounds. So...the two head wound theory was narrowly avoided via the fabrication of a make-believe bullet hole higher-up on the body. And the doctors knew this was a problem because...unique among the "reviews' of the medical evidence, they had a lawyer along for their protection. 

Your third paragraph is also misleading. The Rockefeller Commission's consultants issued no report. They issued separate papers or were simply asked to testify. In any event they were not as consistent as you seem to believe. Dr. Wecht was not convinced of a single headshot, and Dr. Fred Hodges said the entrance wound was as described in the autopsy report (and thus not where the Clark Panel claimed it to have been). 

Well, this brings us to the HSCA. For this panel, Dr. Baden selected almost entirely colleagues of the Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher, so it should not be a surprise they pretty much rubber-stamped his findings. The exception was Dr. Wecht, who was included on the panel at the insistence of Robert Tanenbaum, but who was sidelined by Baden to minimize his influence on the others. (E.G. He was not allowed to attend the session attended by Dr.s Humes and Boswel.) In any event, they relied upon the experience of Tom Marshall, an Irish doctor they thought was familiar with full-metal jacket ammunition head wounds, vis his study of the wounds received in the Bloody Sunday massacre, but who it turns out had been duped by the British military, as the fatal wounds had actually been created by dum-dum bullets. And that's not even to mention that they placed the head wound entrance and head wound exit at the same level within the skull, which led the HSCA's trajectory analysis to pretend JFK was actually sitting fairly upright at the moment of the fatal headshot, instead of sharply forward (which even Dale Myers knows is nonsense.) Well, it follows then that their conclusions were based on hoo-ha, and probably more suggestive of multiple shots than one. 

 

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

With the nature of the wound in the back of the head...you propose that Kennedy had motor skills after he emerged from the sign up until frame 313?

President Kennedy lost his motor skills at about frame 312 or so IMHO.

I think he was badly damaged when he came out from behind the sign. From chapter 17:

Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past the cerebellum, I decided to look back through the literature to see if there was any indication something like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, “the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.” I also found that Dr. Peters, one of the President’s doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in 1988 and shared Humes’ appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone that “the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared to the left.” I then recalled the HSCA’s declaration that “the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum” was “virtually intact…It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report.” This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said “virtually intact,” which indicates some damage. They also said there was certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the autopsy report. Well, this makes sense. The bullet trajectory suggested by the autopsy report, after all, has the bullet heading straight into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA Pathology Panel, then, led me to believe the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet’s having headed down into the neck.

Dr. Humes certainly thought a bullet caused this damage. When interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel on 9-16-77, and asked by Dr. Coe if he thought the "destruction" apparent on the underside of the brain was a "post-mortem artifact" from the removal of the brain, or was caused by the bullet, Humes responded "I think it was partly caused by the bullet."

And it appears that he wasn't the only doctor present at the autopsy, to subsequently study the autopsy photos, to say as much. On page 159 of his book The Death of a President, published 1967, William Manchester reports: "The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the lower part of his brain." Well, so what? Who the heck is Manchester? He could just be repeating nonsense he read in the paper. Well, this is what. Manchester's book was authorized by the Kennedy family. It was supposed to answer a lot of the questions. As a result, Manchester was given unparalleled access. Including access to doctors speaking with nobody, and I mean nobody, else. The Sources section of his book lists 5 interviews with Kennedy's physician, Dr. Burkley, between October 1964 and July 1966. Burkley inspected the autopsy photos in 1965. Did Burkley tell Manchester the cerebellum was damaged?

We can assume so.

Upon re-reading the supplementary autopsy report from 12-6-63, moreover, I noticed that there were seven slices of tissue removed from the brain for microscopic examination, including one from the “right cerebellar cortex.” I then noticed that the other six were all from areas reported to be damaged. When I re-read the report I realized that a line I had read many times meant something completely different than I’d previously believed. The report states “When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex is again obvious.” As “the basilar aspect” means “underneath” and “cortex” means “outer layer,” this is quite possibly a reference to the cerebellum as well as the cerebrum.

The results of the microscopic examination of the brain confirm, furthermore, that the cerebellum was damaged: “Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage.” Later, during his March 16, 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, Humes confirmed yet again that the cerebellum was damaged. He noted that "the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated." There is no flocculus cerebri. There is however, a flocculus cerebelli. It is on the underside of the cerebellum. While some researchers insist Humes meant to say the "falx cerebri," a covering of the brain, was extensively lacerated, it seems obvious that he would be much more likely to say (or have mis-recorded by a court reporter) "cerebri" instead of "cerebelli" than he would be to say (or have mis-recorded) "flocculus" instead of "falx".

There's also this. In Dr. Michael Chesser's appearance at the 2018 JFK Lancer Conference--an appearance designed to raise questions about the authenticity of the brain handled by autopsy assistant James Jenkins on November 22, 1963, and the brain photos currently in the archives--he nevertheless admitted that the photos he'd viewed at the archives revealed a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. Now, Chesser knew this observation did nothing to help sell his theory the brain photos are fakes, so we can probably presume it was accurate.

At the risk of pulling a Lattimer--who foolishly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after first struck to something he described as a Thorburn’s response--let's examine, then, the possibility the President’s behavior after frame 224 in the Zapruder film can be explained by his suffering damage to the flocculus in particular, and the cerebellum in general. Neuroanatomy: An Atlas of Structures, Sections, and Systems (2004) holds that lesions involving the flocconobular lobe result in "truncular ataxia (an impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements), nystagmus (a condition in which the patient suffers involuntary eye movements) and head tilting."

Similarly, Neuroscience in Medicine (2008), holds that "damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." The description continues: "There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements."

Well, thankfully, Wisegeek.com helps put this in layman's terms: "Damage to the flocculus can cause jerky eye movements and difficulty maintaining balance."

Now this is quite interesting. Kennedy appears to reach for his neck, but miss, and then lean to his left in the frames after Zapruder frame 224.

Here is a Gif put together by Robert Harris, in which the awkward actions of Kennedy's arms are revealed.

An observation by Dr. William Kemp Clark contained in Warren Commission Exhibit 392 becomes relevant at this point. When describing Kennedy's appearance upon treatment at Parkland Hospital, he noted: "His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present." Well, it seems more than a coincidence then that numerous scientific articles cite a correlation between damage to the flocculus and downbeat nystagmus, in which the eyes drift slowly upward, before returning to their target. Neurological Differential Diagnosis, 2005, goes even further, moreover, and notes both that the "flocculo-occulomotor tract" has "the only direct cerebellar connection with the eye muscle nuclei" and that "clinical lesions and stimulation experiments" of the cerebellum may "result in a divergence of the eyes." Well, let's put it together. Damage to the flocculus can cause a divergence of the eyes.

Well, then what about damage to the cerebellum in general, as opposed to damage specific to the flocculus? According to multiple sources, including Dr. Gordon Holmes in the December 1917 issue of Brain, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream.Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22^nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord (1974) made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final silent moments.

So, yeah, I'd say there's good reason to suspect Kennedy's cerebellum and/or posterior skull was damaged even before he'd received his fatal wound.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is the skull of a prisoner shot while escaping, from a distance of 90 feet, by a guard using a rifle and cartridge more powerful than the rifle and carriage purported to kill Kennedy. It comes from Louis Anatole La Garde's book Gunshot Wounds, in which LaGarde also described the brain injury suffered by this prisoner.

 

Why are you using as a comparison to Kennedy's brain damage and (implied) skull damage, a case where the cartridge is more powerful?

In the case of this man, where the bullet did so much skull damage, I'll bet that the damage to the scalp is nothing like that to Kennedy's scalp. His scalp in Bethesda looked like somebody took a knife to it an made multiple crude incisions. (To get what was left of the brain out?)

In the case of this man, did the brain just fall out? Just as it is said that Kennedy's did, without so much as cutting the optic nerves or brain stem?