"A Goodly Portion of the Right Brain" Was "Missing" -- Dr. Fred Hodges

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, go back and read what Dr. Hodges said. He said he could see the wound in some of the autopsy photos. Let's read his statement again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

I might add that when the autopsy doctors examined the autopsy photos in late 1966, they reported that the autopsy photos proved that the EOP entry wound was correct:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. (p. 3)

In Dr. Finck's January 1965 report to General Blumberg, Finck said the entry wound was in the occiput (p. 1). Are you going to tell me that Finck could have so horrendously blundered as to locate a wound in the occiput that was actually visibly above the lambda and even more visibly above the lambdoid suture and thus obviously in the parietal bone?

Military aide Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from General Wehle, told the HSCA that the entry wound was "just inside the hairline" (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10). 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). 

From patspeer.com, Chapter 13:

Even more disturbing, a September 16, 1977 article distributed by UPI reported that Dr. Russell Morgan had spoken at Michigan State University the day before, and had told reporters that "Mr. Kennedy's X-rays showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that "Congressional investigators should concentrate on other elements in their inquiry into the assassination."

Well, this is quite interesting. The last time Dr. Morgan had been quoted in the press about the assassination was but days before Dr. Cyril Wecht was to become the first non-government-affiliated pathologist to view the assassination materials at the archives, and in effect review his findings. And now, on the day before 6 members of the HSCA pathology panel were to visit the archives and review his findings, and meet with Dr. Humes (whose findings he'd rejected), Morgan re-appears, urging that no new study of the X-rays be conducted. In this context, his words read like a threat. Should everyone to look at the autopsy materials in between these two appearances have confirmed his findings, that would be one thing...but in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, a Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where Morgan served as Dean, was asked to study Kennedy's X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, and had provided them a report which directly contradicted Morgan's re-interpretation of the head wound location. Yes, in a little discussed report long withheld from the public, in a passage rarely if ever quoted before I started broadcasting it all over the internet, Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that "a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site." Even worse, for Morgan, was the next line: "The appearance is in keeping with the colored photographs showing a large, compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the occipital region." Morgan, of course, had claimed there was no wound in the occipital bone on the X-rays or photographs, and had pushed the Clark Panel into concluding the wound was actually four inches or more higher on the back of Kennedy's skull, in the parietal bone.

Hodges' then still-secret report was thus bad news for Morgan. And seeing as Morgan was Hodges' boss, it was bad news that Morgan would almost certainly have discovered. It follows then that Morgan's urging congressional investigators to forget about the X-rays and focus on other matters may not have been so innocent, and was instead a plea designed to protect his own reputation. While this might seem a little harsh, let's remember Morgan's viewpoint but five years earlier. While he once was reportedly of the opinion that the X-rays were "produced in a hurry under extremely trying conditions" and were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed.," and that "great care and special techniques would be required before they would show the conclusive evidence," he now claimed they "showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that no further investigation was necessary. Perhaps he'd simply changed his mind and no longer felt the cowlick entrance he'd thought he'd "discovered" was a necessary ingredient to the single-assassin conclusion, and worth verifying. Or perhaps he simply didn't care if Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or not, as long as his own reputation was protected

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So all those claiming to see an EOP entry were lying? And all the descriptions by the doctors of an EOP entrance on the photos and x-rays were a hoax? 

What are you saying? 

Hi Pat, i  love your stuff. I daresay that no-one was lying, just wrong. For example Hume says that re his autopsy report he expected the xrays & photos to speak for themselves. But as u know Hume hizself did not have access to the xrays nor photos after leaving Bethesda. 

Yes, all ovem were wrong when describing a large hole at the back of the head.

The driver of the johnsonlimo helped to get jfk out of the jfklimo, & the driver said that he never saw the hole (here i mean a big blowout hole)(not the small bullet hole), koz he only ever got to see the back of the head.

All it needs is a good BS meter, & it appears that i have the best BS meter around here.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Hi Pat, i  love your stuff. I daresay that no-one was lying, just wrong. For example Hume says that re his autopsy report he expected the xrays & photos to speak for themselves. But as u know Hume hizself did not have access to the xrays nor photos after leaving Bethesda. 

Yes, all ovem were wrong when describing a large hole at the back of the head.

The driver of the johnsonlimo helped to get jfk out of the jfklimo, & the driver said that he never saw the hole, koz he only ever got to see the back of the head.

All it needs is a good BS meter, & it appears that i have the best BS meter around here.

Well, I agree that some of the witnesses to the large wound were confused. 

But I thought you were saying there was no small entrance wound low on the back of the head. Every autopsy participant observing the small entrance wound said it was low on the head. Donahue was fooled by the Clark Panel, who said it was actually near the top of the head in the cowlick. The HSCA confirmed that. 

But most everyone to view the autopsy materials since have said there is no entrance where the Clark Panel placed the wound. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I agree that some of the witnesses to the large wound were confused. 

But I thought you were saying there was no small entrance wound low on the back of the head. Every autopsy participant observing the small entrance wound said it was low on the head. Donahue was fooled by the Clark Panel, who said it was actually near the top of the head in the cowlick. The HSCA confirmed that. 

But most everyone to view the autopsy materials since have said there is no entrance where the Clark Panel placed the wound. 

Yes, i have MORTAL ERROR & JFK THE SMOKING GUN, & yes, Fisher told Donahue that the inshoot was higher up (higher than where Olivier fired his 10 test inshoots).

I havent tried to follow all of the contradictions. And i havent tried to understand the xrays, but it surprises me that the back of the head entry (or exit) hole is not clear re pozzie in xrays. Surely the xrays should settle that exact (pozzie)  issue, re height & re off-center (or are the xrays really that poor?).

Exhumation would tell us. An mri scan of the whole casket would tell us i think.

If an mri scan showed a hole above the lambda then what would that do to most of your stuff?

 

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Yes, i have MORTAL ERROR & JFK THE SMOKING GUN, & yes, Fisher told Donahue that the inshoot was higher up (higher than where Olivier fired his 10 test inshoots).

I havent tried to follow all of the contradictions. And i havent tried to understand the xrays, but it surprises me that the back of the head entry (or exit) hole is not clear re pozzie in xrays. Surely the xrays should settle that exact (pozzie)  issue, re height & re off-center (or are the xrays really that poor?).

Exhumation would tell us. An mri scan of the whole casket would tell us i think.

If an mri scan showed a hole above the lambda then what would that do to most of your stuff?

 

My "stuff" is made of many conclusions on a number of aspects of the case. So I in fact do hope there is an exhumation, and would not mind in the least if an exhumation proved me wrong about the entrance location. I would however be surprised. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:06 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I repeat ........Hodges did say that the EOP site had been described as being the entry..... These words exist & can never be erased (but apparently have been been ignored, but not by me).

Anyone with a good BS meter can see that any claim that the entry was other than above the lambda is wrong.

I dare say that no-one was lying, just wrong.

Let's read what Hodges said again, with focus on the key sentence in his statement:

          The appearance [the one he just said was described in the autopsy report] is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

So he said that the color photos show "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region." He said that the description in the autopsy report "is in keeping" with the color photos, and that those photos show a small round wound in the occiput.

I don't know how you can read his statement any other way. He discussed the autopsy report's description of the wound, and then said that the wound's described appearance corresponds to the "color photographs showing  . . . a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region." 

And let's remember that Hodges also said that

          The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

So clearly, Hodges himself put the wound in the right occiput and was not just repeating the autopsy report.

I find the "they weren't lying, just wrong" argument markedly far-fetched. It is just not a reasonable or plausible scenario that Finck, Lipsey, Stringer, Humes, and Boswell all committed the astonishing blunder of mistaking a wound that would have been clearly above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture for a wound that was only 1 cm above the EOP, that was 2 inches below the lambda, that was 1 inch below the lambdoid suture, and that was near the hairline. Nobody is that blind and/or that incompetent. 

This scenario is as bad as, if not worse than, the scenario that the Parkland doctors, including the neurosurgeon, couldn't tell the difference between the cerebellum and the cerebrum, and that numerous doctors, nurses, medical assistants, and federal agents mistook a wound above the right ear for a back-of-head wound that included part of the occiput and that was a good 3 inches behind the right ear.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Let's read what Hodges said again, with focus on the key sentence in his statement:

          The appearance [the one he just said was described in the autopsy report] is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

So he said that the color photos show "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region." He said that the description in the autopsy report "is in keeping" with the color photos, and that those photos show a small round wound in the occiput.

I don't know how you can read his statement any other way. He discussed the autopsy report's description of the wound, and then said that the wound's described appearance corresponds to the "color photographs showing  . . . a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region." 

And let's remember that Hodges also said that

          The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

So clearly, Hodges himself put the wound in the right occiput and was not just repeating the autopsy report.

I find the "they weren't lying, just wrong" argument markedly far-fetched. It is just not a reasonable or plausible scenario that Finck, Lipsey, Stringer, Humes, and Boswell all committed the astonishing blunder of mistaking a wound that would have been clearly above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture for a wound that was only 1 cm above the EOP, that was 2 inches below the lambda, that was 1 inch below the lambdoid suture, and that was near the hairline. Nobody is that blind and/or that incompetent. 

This scenario is as bad as, if not worse than, the scenario that the Parkland doctors, including the neurosurgeon, couldn't tell the difference between the cerebellum and the cerebrum, and that numerous doctors, nurses, medical assistants, and federal agents mistook a wound above the right ear for a back-of-head wound that included part of the occiput and that was a good 3 inches behind the right ear.

 

Dr Fred J Hodges report re 1975 analysis.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=5

Kennedy – Connally Shooting

Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963

(undated report)

(page 1) This report is prepared after inspecting pertinent evidence at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., on April 18, 1975 at the direction of Mr. Robert D. Olsen. The evidence consisted of portions of pertinent amateur movies by Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore, enlarged frames from a portion of the Zapruder film, photographs and roentgenograms of President Kennedy's body before and during the autopsy, and roentgenograms of Governor Connally made at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas on the day of the shooting. Also included were articles of clothing worn by Kennedy at the time of his assassination and bullet fragments recovered from Kennedy's body, Governor Connally's forearm wound and the car in which they were riding at the time of the shooting, and from the stretcher on which Governor Connally was carried into the hospital. Several documents were also read aloud including the autopsy report on President Kennedy and the various operative reports concerning the emergency care for President Kennedy and for Governor Conally.

This report is prepared by Fred J. Hodges, III, M.D., Professor of Radiology (Neuroradiology), The John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. (Carriculum Vita appended). It is primarily concerned with the roentgenograms

(page 2) referred to above.

KENNEDY – Pre autopsy Skull, Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis. Films during or after autopsy of Thorax and Abodomen.

Skull: AP and two lateral views show multiple extensive fractures involving the cranial vault and orbits with outward (centrifugal) displacement of several large fragments of bone. Several large fragments of bone are missing. On a separate film, at least three fragments are radiographed. These are bony fragments recovered from the street near the site of the shooting. One large triangular piece, several centimeters in dimensions, contains multiple tine metallic fragments adjacent to a serrated bony margin representing a suture line. The cranial cavity seen on the skull films also contains multiple tine metallic fragments disposed in a crude pathway between the right occipital bone and the right posterior mid-frontal bone. One large metallic fragment is flattened against the outer table of the occiput while the others are contained within the brain. A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air.

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from intercranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with colored photographs showing a large compound,

(page 3) comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and the photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity. Small bullet fragments, 1mm of less, abbraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. The energy of the main missile resulted in an outward or centrifugal force causing many linear fracture lines and finally a bursting forward of bony fragments and brain tissue in the frontal region, apparently adjacent to the coronal suture within the right frontal bone. The main portion of the bullet had thus left the skull…..

While some fracture lines reach into the left skull and orbit, there are no metallic fragments or bullets in the left side and no perforating wounds or bony defects in the left half of the brain a seen in photographs of the removed brain.

(page 4) LOWER NECK AND CHEST: ……… (seven pages) ………

(After the front cover, there are a total of 10 pages, & lastly a page for the CURRICULUM VITA).

Edited December 30, 2023 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Just now, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from intercranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with colored photographs showing a large compound,

(page 3) comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and the photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity. Small bullet fragments, 1mm of less, abbraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. The energy of the main missile resulted in an outward or centrifugal force causing many linear fracture lines and finally a bursting forward of bony fragments and brain tissue in the frontal region, apparently adjacent to the coronal suture within the right frontal bone. The main portion of the bullet had thus left the skull…..

It appears to me that Hodges could not tell from xrays where the inshoot was (on the back of the head).

is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone ........ This is what i have been referring to. Hodges is referring to the old autopsy report, Hodges is not saying he agrees or disagrees with the described low entry.

[Michael Griffith]

On 12/30/2023 at 3:42 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

It appears to me that Hodges could not tell from xrays where the inshoot was (on the back of the head).

is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone ........ This is what i have been referring to. Hodges is referring to the old autopsy report, Hodges is not saying he agrees or disagrees with the described low entry.

You are simply ignoring the plain meaning of what Hodges says after this. Yes, he begins by referring to the autopsy report's description of the wound, but then, as we've seen, he says that some of the color photos show the small wound in the occiput. Let's read again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from intercranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site [ok, so he has just cited the autopsy report]. The appearance is in keeping with colored photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

What don't you understand here? He stops citing the autopsy report after the first sentence and then refers to color photos showing a small wound in the right occipital region. The autopsy report says nothing about color photos showing a small wound in the occiput, so this is obviously based on Hodges' own observations. Let's continue:

          The x-rays and the photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity. 

So according to Hodges, the x-rays and photos are "diagnostic" of a bullet that "struck the right occiput." Synonyms of "diagnostic" include "characteristic," "typical," and "symptomatic." Here, too, the Hodges is not citing the autopsy report, since the autopsy report does not make this statement about the x-rays and the photos and does not mention a fragment flattened against the outer table. 

BTW, all three of the ARRB forensic experts, including the forensic radiologist, said they saw no cowlick entry site on the skull x-rays. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:48 AM, Michael Griffith said:

You are simply ignoring the plain meaning of what Hodges says after this. Yes, he begins by referring to the autopsy report's description of the wound, but then, as we've seen, he says that some of the color photos show the small wound in the occiput. Let's read again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from intercranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site [ok, so he has just cited the autopsy report]. The appearance is in keeping with colored photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

What don't you understand here? He stops citing the autopsy report after the first sentence and then refers to color photos showing a small wound in the right occipital region. The autopsy report says nothing about color photos showing a small wound in the occiput, so this is obviously based on Hodges' own observations. Let's continue:

          The x-rays and the photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity. 

So according to Hodges, the x-rays and photos are "diagnostic" of a bullet that "struck the right occiput." Synonyms of "diagnostic" include "characteristic," "typical," and "symptomatic." Here, too, the Hodges is not citing the autopsy report, since the autopsy report does not make this statement about the x-rays and the photos and does not mention a fragment flattened against the outer table. 

BTW, all three of the ARRB forensic experts, including the forensic radiologist, said they saw no cowlick entry site on the skull x-rays. 

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline: 

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81) [/quote]

During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10). 

Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear: 

Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size. 
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. 
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. 
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? 
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this? 
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed. 
Mr. SPECTER. All right. 
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right 
in here. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was 
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)

In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head: 

          As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . .  
          
          At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)

So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull.  

Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10). 
 

Edited January 7 by Michael Griffith