On the reliability of witness recollections...

[Michael Crane]

Oh man,

I can remember driving by an accident scene where the crash victims were still on sight.You could actually see the one guys foot turned completely the opposite way.There were also big giant blood clots that had hardened.This accident wasn't even close the president of the United States,and there is no way that I could ever forget how that twisted ankle/foot looked,especially after the guy looked at me straight in the eye.I could only imagine the trauma if it was the president of the United States.You just don't forget that stuff IMHO.

 

Edited January 13 by Michael Crane

[Greg Doudna]

Pat, in the past several days I have studied your chapters 18c and 18d. Good stuff, but . . .

The central problem is that back of the head photo. You go to a lot of work to show (a) the back-of-the-head testimonies at Parkland are not as strong as they seem; and (b) to the extent there is such testimony, it is equivocal based on their viewing the head upside down distorting perception, and studies on memory and perception (very interesting I add) that you bring out, along with the phenomenon that mistaken perceptions can happen in clusters of witnesses influencing each other (to which could be added in support of that, UFO sightings similar in genre often appear in clusters). 

Like I imagine many, I have not gotten involved much in the medical issues because frankly am baffled.

But to get to the point: I wonder if you would comment on John Canal's argument that the back-of-the-head (BOH) photo which shows no major wound in the back of the head is simply explained, not as a fake photo, and not as evidence (as you argue) that there was no rear-of-the-head wound, but because it was after partial restoration of the back of the head by morticians had occurred, preparing the body and particularly the head for viewing for an open-casket funeral (even though ultimately there was no open-casket showing of JFK). Namely, John Canal's article here: https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf. 

There is a rebuttal to that article by Milicent Cranor here:  https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-magic-scalp. 

But I have just read those two articles back to back (the Canal argument and the Milicent rebuttal of Canal), and I am interested in your opinion, but mine is that Canal's argument makes excellent sense and is the obvious solution--other than going the faked or forged photographs route--and that Milicent Cranor's rebuttal is no rebuttal, it is insubstantial as a rebuttal, when read carefully. In fact at the end of Milicent's she seem to show how plausible Canal's case is, ending on that note.

Obviously the "wing flap" to the right on the BOH photograph means the JFK head in the BOH photo was not a finished mortician product. But since many witnesses say that photographs were being taken periodically at various times up to the point of embalming, and the BOH photo was before embalming, it just seems completely plausible that the BOH photo reflects morticians' partial preparation of the back of the head to make the head of JFK look normal in anticipation of a public viewing. And that that morticians' partial preparation in the BOH photo would have covered up the smaller wound near the EOP too, such that it would not be expected to show on the BOH photograph either.

With this in place, all the work you went to to argue there was not necessarily a wound extending into the area visible in the BOH photograph, if John Canal is right (and what's not to like about his explanation?), may be unnecessary?

Is there a better published rebuttal to the Canal argument (other than Cranor's which I do not think is substantial)? Why has the Canal argument not been generally accepted already?

(I assume a non-altered Zapruder interpretation compatible with this would be in keeping with your tangential shot argument causing fracturing in the occipital as well as parietal, and the part in the rear of JFK's head is not visible in Zapruder due to being in shadow from the angle of the sun.) 

Please comment? Thanks. 

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat, in the past several days I have studied your chapters 18c and 18d. Good stuff, but . . .

The central problem is that back of the head photo. You go to a lot of work to show (a) the back-of-the-head testimonies at Parkland are not as strong as they seem; and (b) to the extent there is such testimony, it is equivocal based on their viewing the head upside down distorting perception, and studies on memory and perception (very interesting I add) that you bring out, along with the phenomenon that mistaken perceptions can happen in clusters of witnesses influencing each other (to which could be added in support of that, UFO sightings similar in genre often appear in clusters). 

Like I imagine many, I have not gotten involved much in the medical issues because frankly am baffled.

But to get to the point: I wonder if you would comment on John Canal's argument that the back-of-the-head (BOH) photo which shows no major wound in the back of the head is simply explained, not as a fake photo, and not as evidence (as you argue) that there was no rear-of-the-head wound, but because it was after partial restoration of the back of the head by morticians had occurred, preparing the body and particularly the head for viewing for an open-casket funeral (even though ultimately there was no open-casket showing of JFK). Namely, John Canal's article here: https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf. 

There is a rebuttal to that article by Milicent Cranor here:  https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-magic-scalp. 

But I have just read those two articles back to back (the Canal argument and the Milicent rebuttal of Canal), and I am interested in your opinion, but mine is that Canal's argument makes excellent sense and is the obvious solution--other than going the faked or forged photographs route--and that Milicent Cranor's rebuttal is no rebuttal, it is insubstantial as a rebuttal, when read carefully. In fact at the end of Milicent's she seem to show how plausible Canal's case is, ending on that note.

Obviously the "wing flap" to the right on the BOH photograph means the JFK head in the BOH photo was not a finished mortician product. But since many witnesses say that photographs were being taken periodically at various times up to the point of embalming, and the BOH photo was before embalming, it just seems completely plausible that the BOH photo reflects morticians' partial preparation of the back of the head to make the head of JFK look normal in anticipation of a public viewing. And that that morticians' partial preparation in the BOH photo would have covered up the smaller wound near the EOP too, such that it would not be expected to show on the BOH photograph either.

With this in place, all the work you went to to argue there was not necessarily a wound extending into the area visible in the BOH photograph, if John Canal is right (and what's not to like about his explanation?), may be unnecessary?

Is there a better published rebuttal to the Canal argument (other than Cranor's which I do not think is substantial)? Why has the Canal argument not been generally accepted already?

(I assume a non-altered Zapruder interpretation compatible with this would be in keeping with your tangential shot argument causing fracturing in the occipital as well as parietal, and the part in the rear of JFK's head is not visible in Zapruder due to being in shadow from the angle of the sun.) 

Please comment? Thanks. 

My theories on the medical evidence evolved over a number of years, and the possibility the head wound was restored prior to the taking of the photo undoubtedly went through my mind. But it's not remotely supported by the evidence. The morticians all claimed they made the head acceptable for viewing by reconstructing the skull and scalp. As skull and scalp were missing, of course, they had to hide this from the public. They did so by hiding a patch of missing skull and scalp in a pillow. So...whether you believe the wound was there to begin with, or believe the wound was made to be there by Ed Stroble, the mortician who actually did the reconstruction, doesn't really matter much. In both situations there was a gap of missing scalp at the back of the head. As no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction. 

This is supported by the other photos, moreover. The skull wounds in the back wound photo match the skull wounds in the back of the head photo. And it's clear this photo was taken early in the autopsy and not during reconstruction. 

And then of course there's Stringer and Humes et al. No one involved in the autopsy made any mention of photos being taken during the reconstruction, and as I recall they all denied it. It did not occur.

P.S. A similar theory had been floated about the x-rays--that the x-rays showing the back of the head intact were taken after the bones brought in by the SS were added back into the skull. But that's equally bogus. The lateral x-rays have been acknowledged as JFK's by everyone to study them, including Mantik. And yessiree these x-rays  show the presence of brain in the skull cavity. Now some think the amount of brain shown is smaller than would have been shown if the brain subsequently photographed had been present. But that's a separate issue. If there is brain in the skull in the x-rays, well, it follows that the x-rays were taken before the removal of the brain. 

P.P.S. After a time, Mantik realized the problem he'd created when he declared that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. He'd said the x-rays were Kennedy's, and that there was brain in the skull. And he knew this meant the x-rays were taken at the beginning of the autopsy. And he knew his original claims of a white patch and 6.5 mm disc being added onto the x-rays didn't explain why the back of the head--the area to the rear of the so-called white patch--where the Harper fragment, should it have been occipital bone--would no longer have been, appeared to be intact. So, he convinced himself that it was all an illusion--that what appeared to be bone at the back of the head in the x-rays was actually a hole. And he then cited his OD readings as support it was a hole. I kid you not. 

[Greg Doudna]

Pat I have trepidation contesting you on your ground, but I wonder if you have dealt adequately with the Canal argument. You say there was missing scalp where the wound was and "as no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction". 

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My theories on the medical evidence evolved over a number of years, and the possibility the head wound was restored prior to the taking of the photo undoubtedly went through my mind. But it's not remotely supported by the evidence. The morticians all claimed they made the head acceptable for viewing by reconstructing the skull and scalp. As skull and scalp were missing, of course, they had to hide this from the public. They did so by hiding a patch of missing skull and scalp in a pillow. So...whether you believe the wound was there to begin with, or believe the wound was made to be there by Ed Stroble, the mortician who actually did the reconstruction, doesn't really matter much. In both situations there was a gap of missing scalp at the back of the head. As no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction. 

But according to Canal, morticians have a workaround for situations of missing scalp (bold and underlining is added):

"When there is a traumatic head wound, such as the one Kennedy suffered, it is standard procedure among morticians to hide the injury by 'undermining' the scalp and then stretching it over the affected area. Undermining the scalp is as unpleasant as it sounds, and morticians don't ordinarily talk about it freely, as it is something of a trade secret. The process involves separating the much more pliable top layers of the scalp (which include the hair follicles) from the bottom layers, which include the muscles that attach the scalp to the skull and other tough tissue. After the procedure is finished though, the 'stretchability' of the scalp is dramatically increased. And that is precisely the procedure that was performed on President Kennedy...

"A number of experienced morticians were interviewed in addition to Karnei. All of them confirmed that the rear scalp indeed could have been stretched that much after undermining. Indeed, during his 1996 ARRB deposition, Dr. Humes testified that 'we were able to close it [the scalp] by undermining and stretching and so forth.'"

You say the no pre-restoration gaping wound visible in the back of the head is supported by other photos such as the one showing the entrance wound in the upper back:

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is supported by the other photos, moreover. The skull wounds in the back wound photo match the skull wounds in the back of the head photo. And it's clear this photo was taken early in the autopsy and not during reconstruction. 

Could this photo of the back wound photo be a clue (notice the very top)? https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg 

You quote Stringer and Humes as saying no photos were taken after partial reconstruction had begun.

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And then of course there's Stringer and Humes et al. No one involved in the autopsy made any mention of photos being taken during the reconstruction, and as I recall they all denied it. It did not occur.

But Canal has quotations saying differently. Stringer did say that to the ARRB, but Canal says he interviewed Stringer in 2011 in which Stringer wrote him, "I may have taken some pictures after midnight, but I just can't remember, it's been too long." Dr. Kernei, 1977 HSCA, "they took a lot of photographs at different times." Stover: "It seems to me that the photographer, and I guess it was Mr. Stringer at the time, came back in. I think he wasn't satisfied with some of the shots and decided he wanted some more ... the pictures weren't taken all at one time..." Van Hoesen: "periodically, more pictures were being taken..." 

The descriptions are of harrowing pressure, din of voices and lights and movements of people at that autopsy and then the cleanup and reconstruction, with Stringer finally getting to sleep at 4 am that night. How hardline do you want to be on the sayso of witnesses ruling out timing of photos taken in the same venue the same night--photos that are agreed to have been repeatedly taken at different times with no one keeping exact track? 

Hagen: told ARRB 6/18/96 that when he arrived the autopsy was almost over, he waited ca. 20 minutes in the gallery until the autopsy was concluded. The body was being "cleaned up" and photos "were being taken".

Rudnicki, HSCA 1978, personnel took photos throughout the autopsy.

Lifton said he had interviews with Godfrey McHugh in Nov 1967 in which, according to LIfton, "he gave vivid descriptions of what seemed to be reconstruction, carried on in his presence while photographs were being taken" (Best Evidence, 658).

Custer, ARRB, 10/28/97, "Photographs were being taken all the time".

Jenkins quoted in Law, In the Eye of History (2004, 94), "This photo [BOH] must have been taken later."

Would it be possible for you to reread the Canal article--its only 17 pages printed out--and comment after reading if you still remain unchanged in holding that it cannot have happened, or that it can be said with confidence that it did not happen? (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf). I know you have taken heat from people, much unfairly in my opinion, but the heart of the problem seems to be both the photo alterationists on this site, and you, BOTH for different reasons reject the BOH being a genuine photo after partial reconstruction. They reason from a bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore the BOH photo was tampered with or there had been covert body alteration. You reason from the bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore there never was any part of a gaping wound visible from someone looking at the back of Kennedy's head (nothing gaping other than that one forward flap at the right side in the BOH photo). Many people think your argument flies in the face of massive testimony from multiple doctors. You make an argument for harmonizing the testimonies with the BOH photo arguing that a number of doctor witnesses' perceptions were in error (because the head was upside down distorting perception and other phenomena in the studies you cite).

Wouldn't it be simpler to apply your same criticism of witness fallibility to the memory statements that no photographs were taken after the morticians started to work, especially since Stringer himself is reported to have said otherwise at another time?

This is from the summary of the interview with mortician Thomas Robinson to the ARRB: 

"Robinson said that Ed Stroble ... had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index finger and thumbs of his two hands). He said the cranium was packed with material during reconstruction, but that he did not believe it was plaster-of-Paris; he said it was either cotton or kapok material used in conjunction with a hardening compound. The rubber sheet was used outside of this material to close the wound in the area of missing bone. The scalp was sutured together, and also onto the rubber sheet to the maximum extent possible, and the damage in the back of the head was obscured by the pillow in the casket..." (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0004a.htm)

Isn't it "obvious" the BOH photo is probably from that later time of that night, whether not anyone directly said so in these memories from decades later? Unless one is going to go photo alterationist or discount too many witness testimonies? (My reasoning; please enlighten if I'm being naive?)  

Edited January 15 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat I have trepidation contesting you on your ground, but I wonder if you have dealt adequately with the Canal argument. You say there was missing scalp where the wound was and "as no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction". 

But according to Canal, morticians have a workaround for situations of missing scalp (bold and underlining is added):

"When there is a traumatic head wound, such as the one Kennedy suffered, it is standard procedure among morticians to hide the injury by 'undermining' the scalp and then stretching it over the affected area. Undermining the scalp is as unpleasant as it sounds, and morticians don't ordinarily talk about it freely, as it is something of a trade secret. The process involves separating the much more pliable top layers of the scalp (which include the hair follicles) from the bottom layers, which include the muscles that attach the scalp to the skull and other tough tissue. After the procedure is finished though, the 'stretchability' of the scalp is dramatically increased. And that is precisely the procedure that was performed on President Kennedy...

"A number of experienced morticians were interviewed in addition to Karnei. All of them confirmed that the rear scalp indeed could have been stretched that much after undermining. Indeed, during his 1996 ARRB deposition, Dr. Humes testified that 'we were able to close it [the scalp] by undermining and stretching and so forth.'"

You say the no pre-restoration gaping wound visible in the back of the head is supported by other photos such as the one showing the entrance wound in the upper back:

It seems to me the area at issue in the back of the head in that photo does not show in that photo because it is in shadow--black--not necessarily because its not there. I could be wrong.

You quote Stringer and Humes as saying no photos were taken after partial reconstruction had begun.

But Canal has quotations saying differently. Stringer did say that to the ARRB, but Canal says he interviewed Stringer in 2011 in which Stringer wrote him, "I may have taken some pictures after midnight, but I just can't remember, it's been too long." Dr. Kernei, 1977 HSCA, "they took a lot of photographs at different times." Stover: "It seems to me that the photographer, and I guess it was Mr. Stringer at the time, came back in. I think he wasn't satisfied with some of the shots and decided he wanted some more ... the pictures weren't taken all at one time..." Van Hoesen: "periodically, more pictures were being taken..." 

The descriptions are of harrowing pressure, din of voices and lights and movements of people at that autopsy and then the cleanup and reconstruction, with Stringer finally getting to sleep at 4 am that night. How hardline do you want to be on the sayso of witnesses ruling out timing of photos taken in the same venue the same night--photos that are agreed to have been repeatedly taken at different times with no one keeping exact track? 

Hagen: told ARRB 6/18/96 that when he arrived the autopsy was almost over, he waited ca. 20 minutes in the gallery until the autopsy was concluded. The body was being "cleaned up" and photos "were being taken".

Rudnicki, HSCA 1978, personnel took photos throughout the autopsy.

Lifton said he had interviews with Godfrey McHugh in Nov 1967 in which, according to LIfton, "he gave vivid descriptions of what seemed to be reconstruction, carried on in his presence while photographs were being taken" (Best Evidence, 658).

Custer, ARRB, 10/28/97, "Photographs were being taken all the time".

Jenkins quoted in Law, In the Eye of History (2004, 94), "This photo [BOH] must have been taken later."

Would it be possible for you to reread the Canal article--its only 17 pages printed out--and comment after reading if you still remain unchanged in holding that it cannot have happened, or that it can be said with confidence that it did not happen? (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf). I know you have taken heat from people, much unfairly in my opinion, but the heart of the problem seems to be both the photo alterationists on this site, and you, BOTH for different reasons reject the BOH being a genuine photo after partial reconstruction. They reason from a bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore the BOH photo was tampered with or there had been covert body alteration. You reason from the bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore there never was any part of a gaping wound visible from someone looking at the back of Kennedy's head (nothing gaping other than that one forward flap at the right side in the BOH photo). Many people think your argument flies in the face of massive testimony from multiple doctors. You make an argument for harmonizing the testimonies with the BOH photo arguing that a number of doctor witnesses' perceptions were in error (because the head was upside down distorting perception and other phenomena in the studies you cite).

Wouldn't it be simpler to apply your same criticism of witness fallibility to the memory statements that no photographs were taken after the morticians started to work, especially since Stringer himself is reported to have said otherwise at another time?

This is from the summary of the interview with mortician Thomas Robinson to the ARRB: 

"Robinson said that Ed Stroble ... had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index finger and thumbs of his two hands). He said the cranium was packed with material during reconstruction, but that he did not believe it was plaster-of-Paris; he said it was either cotton or kapok material used in conjunction with a hardening compound. The rubber sheet was used outside of this material to close the wound in the area of missing bone. The scalp was sutured together, and also onto the rubber sheet to the maximum extent possible, and the damage in the back of the head was obscured by the pillow in the casket..." (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0004a.htm)

Robinson seems pretty clear there was a major hole "in the back of the head", the one he described in which the rubber had been pulled over and the scalp sutured together. 

Isn't it "obvious" the BOH photo is from that time of that night, whether not anyone directly said so in these memories from decades later? Obvious because of what that photo looks like? Unless one is going to go photo alterationist or discount too many witness testimonies? Isn't it obvious? (My reasoning; please enlighten if I'm being naive?)  

I used to spar with Canal over on the McAdams' forum. He and I agreed that the Clark Panel was bs, but he insisted it was all unnecessary as Oswald did it anyhow. He also claimed the back of the head was blown out, but that it didn't show in the photos because scalp was stretched upwards to cover the hole, and cited as evidence for this that the red splotch by the cowlick was clearly the entrance wound measured down by the EOP, only stretched up four inches. It was clear the man was desperate to make things fit, even when they didn't fit. Heck, he even wrote a book Silencing the Lone Assassin, in which he looked at Ruby's mob connections and concluded Oswald was killed as part of a conspiracy, while simultaneously holding that Oswald acted alone. 

So I'm not gonna expose myself to any more of Canal's silliness.  

As far as the scalp being sown back together... It's clear to me that the words "The scalp was sutured together" is a reference to the numerous lacerations of the scalp mentioned in the autopsy report, along with any tears to the scalp made by the morticians in their effort to conceal the hole in the photos. The key is "and also onto the rubber sheet", which I take to mean they attached the scalp to the exposed rubber sheet at the back of the head, which they then buried in a pillow. If the scalp had been sutured over the sheet, whereby there was no longer a hole on the back, well, there would have been no need to hide the back of the head in a pillow. 

And besides, the back of the head photo matches up with the right lateral photo and other photos, in that it reveals a large defect above and slightly forward of the right ear. IF the photo was taken during skull reconstruction...well, why would they have left a giant wound exposed where everyone could see it? And covered up a wound no one would ever see? That is the exact opposite of what one is supposed to do in a cosmetic skull reconstruction. 

As far as photos being taken at different times. Yes, absolutely. That is what is shown in the photos, and that is what is described in the various accounts of the autopsy. Upon arrival, establishing shots were taken of the body laying flat on the table, blood and all. X-rays were taken as well. An inspection then occurred, during which additional photos were taken of the back wound and back of the head. If I recall, more x-rays came next--x-rays taken in search of a bullet in the neck and chest. In any event, additional photos were then taken of the empty skull, to demonstrate the appearance of the entrance wound.

Now, are these photos easily understood? No, they were taken away by the Secret Service and kept away from the doctors for years before they were able to look at them and label them. But it's clear none of the photos known to us were taken during the reconstruction. That just isn't done, first of all. Stringer was a professional autopsy photographer...his job was to help the doctors document the President's wounds. It would serve no forensic purpose to take pictures of the remains being re-assembled, except maybe if the photographer were creating a training film. But there's no evidence this was done. 

 

 

[Michael Crane]

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat I have trepidation contesting you on your ground, but I wonder if you have dealt adequately with the Canal argument. You say there was missing scalp where the wound was and "as no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction". 

But according to Canal, morticians have a workaround for situations of missing scalp (bold and underlining is added):

"When there is a traumatic head wound, such as the one Kennedy suffered, it is standard procedure among morticians to hide the injury by 'undermining' the scalp and then stretching it over the affected area. Undermining the scalp is as unpleasant as it sounds, and morticians don't ordinarily talk about it freely, as it is something of a trade secret. The process involves separating the much more pliable top layers of the scalp (which include the hair follicles) from the bottom layers, which include the muscles that attach the scalp to the skull and other tough tissue. After the procedure is finished though, the 'stretchability' of the scalp is dramatically increased. And that is precisely the procedure that was performed on President Kennedy...

"A number of experienced morticians were interviewed in addition to Karnei. All of them confirmed that the rear scalp indeed could have been stretched that much after undermining. Indeed, during his 1996 ARRB deposition, Dr. Humes testified that 'we were able to close it [the scalp] by undermining and stretching and so forth.'"

You say the no pre-restoration gaping wound visible in the back of the head is supported by other photos such as the one showing the entrance wound in the upper back:

Could this photo of the back wound photo be a clue (notice the very top)? https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg 

You quote Stringer and Humes as saying no photos were taken after partial reconstruction had begun.

But Canal has quotations saying differently. Stringer did say that to the ARRB, but Canal says he interviewed Stringer in 2011 in which Stringer wrote him, "I may have taken some pictures after midnight, but I just can't remember, it's been too long." Dr. Kernei, 1977 HSCA, "they took a lot of photographs at different times." Stover: "It seems to me that the photographer, and I guess it was Mr. Stringer at the time, came back in. I think he wasn't satisfied with some of the shots and decided he wanted some more ... the pictures weren't taken all at one time..." Van Hoesen: "periodically, more pictures were being taken..." 

The descriptions are of harrowing pressure, din of voices and lights and movements of people at that autopsy and then the cleanup and reconstruction, with Stringer finally getting to sleep at 4 am that night. How hardline do you want to be on the sayso of witnesses ruling out timing of photos taken in the same venue the same night--photos that are agreed to have been repeatedly taken at different times with no one keeping exact track? 

Hagen: told ARRB 6/18/96 that when he arrived the autopsy was almost over, he waited ca. 20 minutes in the gallery until the autopsy was concluded. The body was being "cleaned up" and photos "were being taken".

Rudnicki, HSCA 1978, personnel took photos throughout the autopsy.

Lifton said he had interviews with Godfrey McHugh in Nov 1967 in which, according to LIfton, "he gave vivid descriptions of what seemed to be reconstruction, carried on in his presence while photographs were being taken" (Best Evidence, 658).

Custer, ARRB, 10/28/97, "Photographs were being taken all the time".

Jenkins quoted in Law, In the Eye of History (2004, 94), "This photo [BOH] must have been taken later."

Would it be possible for you to reread the Canal article--its only 17 pages printed out--and comment after reading if you still remain unchanged in holding that it cannot have happened, or that it can be said with confidence that it did not happen? (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf). I know you have taken heat from people, much unfairly in my opinion, but the heart of the problem seems to be both the photo alterationists on this site, and you, BOTH for different reasons reject the BOH being a genuine photo after partial reconstruction. They reason from a bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore the BOH photo was tampered with or there had been covert body alteration. You reason from the bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore there never was any part of a gaping wound visible from someone looking at the back of Kennedy's head (nothing gaping other than that one forward flap at the right side in the BOH photo). Many people think your argument flies in the face of massive testimony from multiple doctors. You make an argument for harmonizing the testimonies with the BOH photo arguing that a number of doctor witnesses' perceptions were in error (because the head was upside down distorting perception and other phenomena in the studies you cite).

Wouldn't it be simpler to apply your same criticism of witness fallibility to the memory statements that no photographs were taken after the morticians started to work, especially since Stringer himself is reported to have said otherwise at another time?

This is from the summary of the interview with mortician Thomas Robinson to the ARRB: 

"Robinson said that Ed Stroble ... had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index finger and thumbs of his two hands). He said the cranium was packed with material during reconstruction, but that he did not believe it was plaster-of-Paris; he said it was either cotton or kapok material used in conjunction with a hardening compound. The rubber sheet was used outside of this material to close the wound in the area of missing bone. The scalp was sutured together, and also onto the rubber sheet to the maximum extent possible, and the damage in the back of the head was obscured by the pillow in the casket..." (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0004a.htm)

Isn't it "obvious" the BOH photo is probably from that later time of that night, whether not anyone directly said so in these memories from decades later? Unless one is going to go photo alterationist or discount too many witness testimonies? (My reasoning; please enlighten if I'm being naive?)  

The photo is a forgery IMHO.The photographic panel was corrupt or a picture of a manipulated/photoshopped picture was taken.

Edited January 16 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

51 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The photo is a forgery IMHO.The photographic panel was corrupt or a picture of a manipulated/photoshopped picture was taken.

Okay, let's be specific. As the wound at the top of the head in this photo correlates with the wound as seen in other photos, do you think this photo was forged to match the other photos, or that they are all forgeries? 

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as the scalp being sown back together... It's clear to me that the words "The scalp was sutured together" is a reference to the numerous lacerations of the scalp mentioned in the autopsy report, along with any tears to the scalp made by the morticians in their effort to conceal the hole in the photos. The key is "and also onto the rubber sheet", which I take to mean they attached the scalp to the exposed rubber sheet at the back of the head, which they then buried in a pillow. If the scalp had been sutured over the sheet, whereby there was no longer a hole on the back, well, there would have been no need to hide the back of the head in a pillow. 

And besides, the back of the head photo matches up with the right lateral photo and other photos, in that it reveals a large defect above and slightly forward of the right ear. IF the photo was taken during skull reconstruction...well, why would they have left a giant wound exposed where everyone could see it? And covered up a wound no one would ever see? That is the exact opposite of what one is supposed to do in a cosmetic skull reconstruction. 

As far as photos being taken at different times. Yes, absolutely. That is what is shown in the photos, and that is what is described in the various accounts of the autopsy. Upon arrival, establishing shots were taken of the body laying flat on the table, blood and all. X-rays were taken as well. An inspection then occurred, during which additional photos were taken of the back wound and back of the head. If I recall, more x-rays came next--x-rays taken in search of a bullet in the neck and chest. In any event, additional photos were then taken of the empty skull, to demonstrate the appearance of the entrance wound.

Now, are these photos easily understood? No, they were taken away by the Secret Service and kept away from the doctors for years before they were able to look at them and label them. But it's clear none of the photos known to us were taken during the reconstruction. That just isn't done, first of all. Stringer was a professional autopsy photographer...his job was to help the doctors document the President's wounds. It would serve no forensic purpose to take pictures of the remains being re-assembled, except maybe if the photographer were creating a training film. But there's no evidence this was done. 

Pat, in light of your last paragraph I see you are right.  

This is the original autopsy back wound photo published by Lifton: https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg. At the very top, does that show blown out head--the gaping head wound? Just behind the hair and not visible in the BOH photo but there? 

That would be before reconstruction. 

I had not noticed that top of the back-wound photo (the one just linked), before today. The Ida Dox drawing does not have that and I wonder if some photos have cropped out that top part showing blown-out-head in that back-wound photo. Would that specific photo be smoking-gun evidence of where the "orange-sized" hole was that so many saw, actually toward the rear of the top of the head, maybe a little farther over into the top of the back of the head which is covered over by hair and not seen, in the back-wound and BOH photos?

Edited January 16 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Pat’s replies plus the particular autopsy photo of the link I gave above have convinced me: the BOH photo, just like the back-wound photo, is before not after reconstruction and embalming, the time when autopsy photos are taken, during the autopsy. The John Canal argument on that I no longer see as viable. 

The gaping wound of JFK’s head of all the witnesses actually WAS on the head of JFK at the time the BOH photo was taken and they aren’t faked photos. 

The gaping wound is right behind the hair at the top of the back of JFK’s head in the BOH photo—not just at that flap at the right but at the whole right half of the top of the head just behind the hair at the top—and this is not simply inference or conjecture but VISIBLE—VISIBLE—(one can see this! take a look for yourself anyone!)—at the very top of the comparable back-wound photo of the link I gave (which is the photo of the original publication of the autopsy photos). 

To me that comparable back-wound photo proves it. And this is in agreement with many of the witnesses as to the location of the wound, and as for the rest of the witnesses who claim it was a little lower on the rear of the head, Pat Speer’s 18c and 18d is must-read and convincing—and in agreement with that back wound photo showing the actual location of the gaping head wound of JFK. 

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat’s replies plus the particular autopsy photo of the link I gave above have convinced me: the BOH photo, just like the back-wound photo, is before not after reconstruction and embalming, the time when autopsy photos are taken, during the autopsy. The John Canal argument on that I no longer see as viable. 

The gaping wound of JFK’s head of all the witnesses actually WAS on the head of JFK at the time the BOH photo was taken and they aren’t faked photos. 

The gaping wound is right behind the hair at the top of the back of JFK’s head in the BOH photo—not just at that flap at the right but at the whole right half of the top of the head just behind the hair at the top—and this is not simply inference or conjecture but VISIBLE—VISIBLE—(one can see this! take a look for yourself anyone!)—at the very top of the comparable back-wound photo of the link I gave (which is the photo of the original publication of the autopsy photos). 

To me that comparable back-wound photo proves it. And this is in agreement with many of the witnesses as to the location of the wound, and as for the rest of the witnesses who claim it was a little lower on the rear of the head, Pat Speer’s 18c and 18d is must-read and convincing—and in agreement with that back wound photo showing the actual location of the gaping head wound of JFK. 

The damage in the TOH photos looks to me like it extends a little behind what’s visible in that BOH-back wound crop, but it could just be a perspective thing like that tattoo guy on Pat’s website: 

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Top of head (B%26W 9 %26 10) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).JPG

There doesn’t appear to be anyone holding scalp in the BOH-back wound crop like in the other BOH photo, but they might have flipped over a couple of the flaps for that photo, which would cover some of the damage and make the wound appear farther forward. 

Also random question. It’s only really “visible” in the above linked photo (15 in that set) but now I can’t unsee it - is there some sort of metal object near the top margin of the large left scalp flap? Like maybe an instrument for holding the flap open? I could be hallucinating but I noticed it last night and got curious. 

Edited January 16 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat’s replies plus the particular autopsy photo of the link I gave above have convinced me: the BOH photo, just like the back-wound photo, is before not after reconstruction and embalming, the time when autopsy photos are taken, during the autopsy. The John Canal argument on that I no longer see as viable. 

The gaping wound of JFK’s head of all the witnesses actually WAS on the head of JFK at the time the BOH photo was taken and they aren’t faked photos. 

The gaping wound is right behind the hair at the top of the back of JFK’s head in the BOH photo—not just at that flap at the right but at the whole right half of the top of the head just behind the hair at the top—and this is not simply inference or conjecture but VISIBLE—VISIBLE—(one can see this! take a look for yourself anyone!)—at the very top of the comparable back-wound photo of the link I gave (which is the photo of the original publication of the autopsy photos). 

To me that comparable back-wound photo proves it. And this is in agreement with many of the witnesses as to the location of the wound, and as for the rest of the witnesses who claim it was a little lower on the rear of the head, Pat Speer’s 18c and 18d is must-read and convincing—and in agreement with that back wound photo showing the actual location of the gaping head wound of JFK. 

 

So Greg Doudna -- like Pat -- believes that nearly all (~20) Parkland doctors and nurses mass hallucinated a gaping wound on the back of the head. According to their earliest statements, before being pressured into changing their minds. Not to mention all the other such witnesses.

Let me see now, what again were the odds of that happening? About 1 in a million when assuming factors in Pat Speer's favor.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So Greg Doudna -- like Pat -- believes that nearly all (~20) Parkland doctors and nurses mass hallucinated a gaping wound on the back of the head. According to their earliest statements, before being pressured into changing their minds. Not to mention all the other such witnesses.

Let me see now, what again were the odds of that happening? About 1 in a million when assuming factors in Pat Speer's favor.

 

You can repeat this kind of stuff all day long, Sandy, and it will not make it true. If you put ALL the witness statements regarding the head wound in chronological order you will see that there is by no means a consensus among ALL the witnesses, and that the widespread belief all the early witnesses said the back of the head was blown out is a myth, put together by people selling something. 

[Sandy Larsen]

What the Parkland Doctors & Nurses Said
about the Blowout Wound on the Head

 

I've highlighted in red their early statements and testimony. So no need to read it all.

 

Note 1:  "Occipital" and "cerebellar" refers to the lower back of the head. "Temporal" refers to the low area around the ear.

Note 2:  As can be read below, nearly all the Parkland professionals said early on that the gaping wound was at the lower back of the head. But some changed their minds when it came to their attention that that the Warren Commission contradicted them, saying that the gaping wound was at the top of the head.

Note 3:  Credit goes to Dr. Gary Aguilar for this list.

 

1) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

Jenkins described a wound in JFK's left temple to Specter. Jenkins: "...I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." Specter: "The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins." Jenkins: "Well, I was feeling for--I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: "...I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: "Indicating the left temporal area?" Jenkins: "Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony--the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that 'the autopsy report discloses no such development')." (WC-V6:51)

In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right--rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, "...(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.".

Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of the cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that Jenkins said "occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.

When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." Jenkins responded, "Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right...". (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that "cerebellum was hanging out" (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD--see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins' and Jones' favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was 'hanging out' but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?]

Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK's left temple. "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed". p. 313)Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins' Commission testimony (cited above) proves.

As we will see, Dr. Jenkins' faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him. It is a testament to JAMA's and Posner's laxity in fact-checking that Jenkins' recollections are so unquestioningly reported. Both Breo and Posner quickly attempted to discredit those who, like McClelland, did not share their biases, and ignored many stupendous inconsistencies of "allies", such as Jenkins (see next chapter). Nonetheless, Jenkins' earliest, "un-enhanced" recollections must be given greatest weight and considered the most likely to be reliable, as in any police investigation. Fortunately, they also agree with the earliest recollections of other Parkland witnesses, an important corroborative factor.

4) CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)

In is first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, "Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?" Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present...". Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?" Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound" ...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

As with several other Parkland witnesses, Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath. In an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 8, 1992, Posner alleges Carrico reported, "We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone...". (Gerald Posner, " Case Closed , New York, Random House, p. 311) The notorious unreliability of recollections so different and so far removedfrom the original event places Carrico's more recent opinions under a cloud. It seems possible that Carrico has been persuaded that the photographs of the back of JFK's head have been "authenticated", a scientific impossibility, and therefore he should adjust accordingly his recollections to agree with this "best evidence".

5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."

6) RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered, "With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing he wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head." (WC.V.6:56) While he then expressed some doubt that a high velocity bullet would so radically change course, JFK's skull wound must have appeared to him quite posterior for him to have advanced such an hypothesis.

It is particularly noteworthy that Jones continued to believe JFK's skull suggested a rear exit of a bullet that entered from anterior. In January, 1983 he told David Lifton, "If you brought him in here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." (BE, p. 705) Jones told student, Brad Parker, on 8/10/92, again, "...if they brought him in today, I would tend - seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back of the head as seen in Six Seconds . Jones specifically denied to Parker that hehad seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't think that there was any wound -- I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the right temporal area or the right side of the upper part of the head, you know, over the -- in front of the ear say, or anything like that ". These description are fully consistent with the autopsy report of a right rear defect. If the defect did extend forward, the anterior portion was quite small. Only Gerald Posner reported Jones described JFK's wound as "a large side wound". Posner made no mention of Jones' Warren Commission testimony, testimony which is incompatible with Posner's thesis, nor did Posner ask about the statements attributed to Jones by Lifton, which Jones repeated to Brad Parker in 1992).

7) GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

😎 PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324) Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed... You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

Author Gerald Posner claimed that on March 10, 1992, Peters told him, "The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 310, paperback edition.) On April 2, 1992, Peters said, "...my observations were given earlier but they're still, I think, accurate after 25 years... The wound was occipital-parietal... I saw about a 7 centimeter hole in the occiput...". (Speech by Peters, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana) While Posner seemed to wish to cast doubt on the manner Lifton represented Peters' opinions, it seems that Lifton's account was far more consistent with Peters' other statements than Posner's. Lifton still has a recording of his interview with Peters and told the author the statements Lifton cited were taken from Peters verbatim and in context.

In a speech to a gathering of Urologists in San Francisco in 1992, Peters demonstrated JFK's skull defect as he recalled it, on a human head for author Aguilar, placing the wound at the top rear portion of the skull, which, if the skull were a cube, involved the right rear corner--a location that has no defect in current autopsy photographs.

Peters apparently reported to author Gerald Posner on March 10 1992 that Robert McClelland, MD, who has steadfastly maintained the view that there was a rear skull wound of exit, was in error. "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound..." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 313) Robert McClelland, MD had diagramed a skull and indicated JFK's skull wound in the low rear portion of JFK's skull to author Thompson. Peters indicated on that same diagram complete agreement with the McClelland's low placement on 8-7-79 in a letter to author Livingstone. A copy of Peters' letter and diagram was produced in Groden and Livingstone's High Treason ". Peters' letter to author Livingstone reads in full:

"Dear Mr. Livingstone, "I have marked an "X" on the picture which more accurately depicts the wound, although neither is quite accurate in my opinion. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. Sincerely, Paul C. Peters, MD"

Peters believed that the "X" marked the point of exit for the wound in the head. In an interview with author Livingstone, Peters referred to the "X" in the aforementioned diagram and said, "...the "X" is about where the wound was. The "X" does not imply that that wound is exactly correct. The "X" applies about where I thought the wound of exit was." (transcript of interview with Peters)

The "X" is marked squarely on the right rear portion of the skull parallel with a point just below the top of the ear. (See group of photographs following page 27 in Groden and Livingstone, High Treason", for a copy of the diagram and Peters' letter.) So Peters has done a complete about face after having discussed the case with Lattimer who convinced Peters that he did not see what he had repeatedly said he saw. Moreover, Peters felt confident enough in Latimer's opinion of what Peters had seen that he was willing to reproach McClelland for his refusal to alter his recollection to agree with Lattimer as Peters himself had done. Apparently suggestion from non-witness, Lattimer, has done wonders for Peters' memory of what he saw. It may not, however, have helped his credibility.

9) CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead. Crenshaw claimed to have kept quiet about his observations out of professional and personal fear of reprisals.

As will be seen Breo took great exception to Crenshaw's account. Author Gerald Posner dismissed Crenshaw with quotations from fellow Parkland physicians: Perry stated, "I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate... He is a pitiful sight." Perry's excoriation of Crenshaw must, however, be considered in the context of his own egregious memory, and his own possible perjury before the Warren Commission. Perry, as will be discussed, denied under oath to the Warren Commission that he had made unequivocal statements to the press claiming the neck wound was a wound of entrance. He falsely accused the press of misrepresenting his comments when an exact transcript of his comments revealed that the press had accurately reported his unequivocal comments that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. Perry, to the author's knowledge, has never apologized to the press nor has he explained his untruthful testimony to the Commission. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, Perry seems to have adjusted his recollections to suit his questioner, whether Specter of the Warren Commission, or author, Posner.

10) CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter's original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present...." (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been "temporo-occipital" than "temporo-parietal", because he also recalled, "cerebellum was present". (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, "...the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table...." (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as "...a large gaping wound in the occipital area." Livingstone also reported that "(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact)."(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

Baxter's reliability has also been called into question for a comment attributed to him by Dennis Breo, staff writer for JAMA, and Gerald Posner. Baxter apparently supported Breo's suggestion that Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the recent book, "Conspiracy of Silence", (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet) was not in JFK's trauma room. JAMA wrote, "Most of those who know the facts express disgust at Crenshaw's actions and question if he was involved in the care of the President at all... None of the four (interviewed by Breo) recalls ever seeing him at the scene." (Breo, D. L., JAMA, 267:2804-2805). This claim was used by JAMA to support the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the event, and call into question Crenshaw's recollections of JFK's wounds published in his book--recollections that flatly contradicted the Commission's findings. In an interview with author Gerald Posner in 1992, Baxter said, "I don't either (remember that Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room)." (Posner, G. Case Closed, p. 312, paper version). Embarrassingly, before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, however, Baxter, under oath, listed the physicians present with him in the emergency room with JFK. The first physician he named was Charles Crenshaw. (WC- V6:40)

As if Baxter's credibility had not suffered enough, he reported to author Posner on March 12, 1992, "I never even saw the back of (JFK's) head. The wound was on the right side, not the back." (Posner, Case Closed, p. 312) Baxter would do well to read his own hand-written note, prepared on the day of the assassination, and reproduced legibly in the Warren Report, and read the transcripts of interviews he's given authors before allowing further interviews.

This fact will be explored again in the following chapter. In any case it seems that Baxter is either terribly unreliable or is often misquoted, as seem to be all of Breo's and Posner's "allies". McClelland, disparaged by the other Parkland witnesses used by Breo and Posner, is the only one of these witnesses whose opinion has not seemed to change with the wind.

11) ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

12) RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

13) ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Parkland in 1963 authored a typed summary of his care of Governor Connally on 11-25-63, Warren Commission "Gieske Exhibit #1", (WC-V20:5-7) in which he does not mention JFK's wounds. In Warren Commission testimony he described JFK's head wound as: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78) This is the only case of any witness mistaking which side the skull injuries were on. However, despite his error on the laterality, he claimed that the skull defect extended from the occiput to the front of the skull.

14) FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine, cardiology, at Parkland at the time of the assassination. Groden and Livingstone reported, "He was most insistent that the official picture was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand both on the back of Livingstone's head and his own to show where the large hole was. 'Why do they cover it up?' he repeated numerous times. 'This is not the way it was!' he kept repeating, shaking his head no." (Groden & Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.45)

15) KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?"

Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

16) PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

17) DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

18) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President's wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: "His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit." Specter, "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?" Greer: "Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off."(WCV2:124)

19) SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

20) NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. ( Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD ( High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth,in images following p. 368)

21) WILLIAM MIDGETT, MD: an Obstetrics and Gynecology resident at Parkland greeted the President's limousine pushing a stretcher. In an interview with Wallace Milam on February 8, 1993, he described JFK's wound as "right parietal" and said it was behind the right ear.

22) DON T. CURTIS, D.D.S.: an oral surgery resident was mentioned in the Warren Report (p.66), but gave no account to the Commission regarding JFK's wounds. Pre-med student, Brad J. Parker, sent Curtis a copy of McClelland's drawing showing a large right-sided defect in the rear of JFK's skull to ask his opinion about it. On October 25, 1994, Curtis wrote Parker. His letter in full read: Dear Mr. Parker, The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially by recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Best regards, Don T. Curtis, D.D.S.

 

Credit: Dr. Gary Aguilar

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What the Parkland Doctors & Nurses Said
about the Blowout Wound on the Head

 

I've highlighted in red their early statements and testimony. So no need to read it all.

 

Note 1:  "Occipital" and "cerebellar" refers to the lower back of the head. "Temporal" refers to the low area around the ear.

Note 2:  As can be read below, nearly all the Parkland professionals said early on that the gaping wound was at the lower back of the head. But some changed their minds when it came to their attention that that the Warren Commission contradicted them, saying that the gaping wound was at the top of the head.

Note 3:  Credit goes to Dr. Gary Aguilar for this list.

 

1) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "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." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

Jenkins described a wound in JFK's left temple to Specter. Jenkins: "...I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." Specter: "The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins." Jenkins: "Well, I was feeling for--I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: "...I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: "Indicating the left temporal area?" Jenkins: "Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony--the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that 'the autopsy report discloses no such development')." (WC-V6:51)

In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right--rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, "...(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.".

Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of the cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that Jenkins said "occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.

When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." Jenkins responded, "Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right...". (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that "cerebellum was hanging out" (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD--see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins' and Jones' favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was 'hanging out' but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?]

Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK's left temple. "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed". p. 313)Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins' Commission testimony (cited above) proves.

As we will see, Dr. Jenkins' faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him. It is a testament to JAMA's and Posner's laxity in fact-checking that Jenkins' recollections are so unquestioningly reported. Both Breo and Posner quickly attempted to discredit those who, like McClelland, did not share their biases, and ignored many stupendous inconsistencies of "allies", such as Jenkins (see next chapter). Nonetheless, Jenkins' earliest, "un-enhanced" recollections must be given greatest weight and considered the most likely to be reliable, as in any police investigation. Fortunately, they also agree with the earliest recollections of other Parkland witnesses, an important corroborative factor.

4) CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)

In is first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, "Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?" Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present...". Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?" Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound" ...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

As with several other Parkland witnesses, Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath. In an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 8, 1992, Posner alleges Carrico reported, "We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone...". (Gerald Posner, " Case Closed , New York, Random House, p. 311) The notorious unreliability of recollections so different and so far removedfrom the original event places Carrico's more recent opinions under a cloud. It seems possible that Carrico has been persuaded that the photographs of the back of JFK's head have been "authenticated", a scientific impossibility, and therefore he should adjust accordingly his recollections to agree with this "best evidence".

5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."

6) RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered, "With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing he wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head." (WC.V.6:56) While he then expressed some doubt that a high velocity bullet would so radically change course, JFK's skull wound must have appeared to him quite posterior for him to have advanced such an hypothesis.

It is particularly noteworthy that Jones continued to believe JFK's skull suggested a rear exit of a bullet that entered from anterior. In January, 1983 he told David Lifton, "If you brought him in here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." (BE, p. 705) Jones told student, Brad Parker, on 8/10/92, again, "...if they brought him in today, I would tend - seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back of the head as seen in Six Seconds . Jones specifically denied to Parker that hehad seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't think that there was any wound -- I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the right temporal area or the right side of the upper part of the head, you know, over the -- in front of the ear say, or anything like that ". These description are fully consistent with the autopsy report of a right rear defect. If the defect did extend forward, the anterior portion was quite small. Only Gerald Posner reported Jones described JFK's wound as "a large side wound". Posner made no mention of Jones' Warren Commission testimony, testimony which is incompatible with Posner's thesis, nor did Posner ask about the statements attributed to Jones by Lifton, which Jones repeated to Brad Parker in 1992).

7) GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

😎 PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324) Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed... You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

Author Gerald Posner claimed that on March 10, 1992, Peters told him, "The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 310, paperback edition.) On April 2, 1992, Peters said, "...my observations were given earlier but they're still, I think, accurate after 25 years... The wound was occipital-parietal... I saw about a 7 centimeter hole in the occiput...". (Speech by Peters, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana) While Posner seemed to wish to cast doubt on the manner Lifton represented Peters' opinions, it seems that Lifton's account was far more consistent with Peters' other statements than Posner's. Lifton still has a recording of his interview with Peters and told the author the statements Lifton cited were taken from Peters verbatim and in context.

In a speech to a gathering of Urologists in San Francisco in 1992, Peters demonstrated JFK's skull defect as he recalled it, on a human head for author Aguilar, placing the wound at the top rear portion of the skull, which, if the skull were a cube, involved the right rear corner--a location that has no defect in current autopsy photographs.

Peters apparently reported to author Gerald Posner on March 10 1992 that Robert McClelland, MD, who has steadfastly maintained the view that there was a rear skull wound of exit, was in error. "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound..." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 313) Robert McClelland, MD had diagramed a skull and indicated JFK's skull wound in the low rear portion of JFK's skull to author Thompson. Peters indicated on that same diagram complete agreement with the McClelland's low placement on 8-7-79 in a letter to author Livingstone. A copy of Peters' letter and diagram was produced in Groden and Livingstone's High Treason ". Peters' letter to author Livingstone reads in full:

"Dear Mr. Livingstone, "I have marked an "X" on the picture which more accurately depicts the wound, although neither is quite accurate in my opinion. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. Sincerely, Paul C. Peters, MD"

Peters believed that the "X" marked the point of exit for the wound in the head. In an interview with author Livingstone, Peters referred to the "X" in the aforementioned diagram and said, "...the "X" is about where the wound was. The "X" does not imply that that wound is exactly correct. The "X" applies about where I thought the wound of exit was." (transcript of interview with Peters)

The "X" is marked squarely on the right rear portion of the skull parallel with a point just below the top of the ear. (See group of photographs following page 27 in Groden and Livingstone, High Treason", for a copy of the diagram and Peters' letter.) So Peters has done a complete about face after having discussed the case with Lattimer who convinced Peters that he did not see what he had repeatedly said he saw. Moreover, Peters felt confident enough in Latimer's opinion of what Peters had seen that he was willing to reproach McClelland for his refusal to alter his recollection to agree with Lattimer as Peters himself had done. Apparently suggestion from non-witness, Lattimer, has done wonders for Peters' memory of what he saw. It may not, however, have helped his credibility.

9) CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead. Crenshaw claimed to have kept quiet about his observations out of professional and personal fear of reprisals.

As will be seen Breo took great exception to Crenshaw's account. Author Gerald Posner dismissed Crenshaw with quotations from fellow Parkland physicians: Perry stated, "I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate... He is a pitiful sight." Perry's excoriation of Crenshaw must, however, be considered in the context of his own egregious memory, and his own possible perjury before the Warren Commission. Perry, as will be discussed, denied under oath to the Warren Commission that he had made unequivocal statements to the press claiming the neck wound was a wound of entrance. He falsely accused the press of misrepresenting his comments when an exact transcript of his comments revealed that the press had accurately reported his unequivocal comments that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. Perry, to the author's knowledge, has never apologized to the press nor has he explained his untruthful testimony to the Commission. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, Perry seems to have adjusted his recollections to suit his questioner, whether Specter of the Warren Commission, or author, Posner.

10) CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter's original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present...." (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been "temporo-occipital" than "temporo-parietal", because he also recalled, "cerebellum was present". (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, "...the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table...." (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as "...a large gaping wound in the occipital area." Livingstone also reported that "(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact)."(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

Baxter's reliability has also been called into question for a comment attributed to him by Dennis Breo, staff writer for JAMA, and Gerald Posner. Baxter apparently supported Breo's suggestion that Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the recent book, "Conspiracy of Silence", (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet) was not in JFK's trauma room. JAMA wrote, "Most of those who know the facts express disgust at Crenshaw's actions and question if he was involved in the care of the President at all... None of the four (interviewed by Breo) recalls ever seeing him at the scene." (Breo, D. L., JAMA, 267:2804-2805). This claim was used by JAMA to support the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the event, and call into question Crenshaw's recollections of JFK's wounds published in his book--recollections that flatly contradicted the Commission's findings. In an interview with author Gerald Posner in 1992, Baxter said, "I don't either (remember that Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room)." (Posner, G. Case Closed, p. 312, paper version). Embarrassingly, before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, however, Baxter, under oath, listed the physicians present with him in the emergency room with JFK. The first physician he named was Charles Crenshaw. (WC- V6:40)

As if Baxter's credibility had not suffered enough, he reported to author Posner on March 12, 1992, "I never even saw the back of (JFK's) head. The wound was on the right side, not the back." (Posner, Case Closed, p. 312) Baxter would do well to read his own hand-written note, prepared on the day of the assassination, and reproduced legibly in the Warren Report, and read the transcripts of interviews he's given authors before allowing further interviews.

This fact will be explored again in the following chapter. In any case it seems that Baxter is either terribly unreliable or is often misquoted, as seem to be all of Breo's and Posner's "allies". McClelland, disparaged by the other Parkland witnesses used by Breo and Posner, is the only one of these witnesses whose opinion has not seemed to change with the wind.

11) ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

12) RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

13) ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Parkland in 1963 authored a typed summary of his care of Governor Connally on 11-25-63, Warren Commission "Gieske Exhibit #1", (WC-V20:5-7) in which he does not mention JFK's wounds. In Warren Commission testimony he described JFK's head wound as: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78) This is the only case of any witness mistaking which side the skull injuries were on. However, despite his error on the laterality, he claimed that the skull defect extended from the occiput to the front of the skull.

14) FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine, cardiology, at Parkland at the time of the assassination. Groden and Livingstone reported, "He was most insistent that the official picture was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand both on the back of Livingstone's head and his own to show where the large hole was. 'Why do they cover it up?' he repeated numerous times. 'This is not the way it was!' he kept repeating, shaking his head no." (Groden & Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.45)

15) KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?"

Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

16) PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

17) DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

18) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President's wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: "His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit." Specter, "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?" Greer: "Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off."(WCV2:124)

19) SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

20) NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. ( Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD ( High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth,in images following p. 368)

21) WILLIAM MIDGETT, MD: an Obstetrics and Gynecology resident at Parkland greeted the President's limousine pushing a stretcher. In an interview with Wallace Milam on February 8, 1993, he described JFK's wound as "right parietal" and said it was behind the right ear.

22) DON T. CURTIS, D.D.S.: an oral surgery resident was mentioned in the Warren Report (p.66), but gave no account to the Commission regarding JFK's wounds. Pre-med student, Brad J. Parker, sent Curtis a copy of McClelland's drawing showing a large right-sided defect in the rear of JFK's skull to ask his opinion about it. On October 25, 1994, Curtis wrote Parker. His letter in full read: Dear Mr. Parker, The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially by recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Best regards, Don T. Curtis, D.D.S.

 

Credit: Dr. Gary Aguilar

 

I have taken the earliest statements from all the Parkland doctors and nurses and categorized them according to where they placed the gaping head wound. Here are the results:

 

Top of Head:

(none)

Side of Head:

1. Dr. Kenneth Salyer

Upper-Back of Head:

(none)

Middle-Back of Head:

1. Dr. Gene Aikin
2. Dr. Richard Dulaney
3. Dr. William Midgett

Lower-Back of Head:

1. Dr. Kemp Clark
2. Dr. Robert McClelland
3. Dr. Marion Jenkins
4. Dr. Charles Carrico
5. Dr. Paul Peters
6. Dr. Charles Crenshaw
7. Dr. Charles Baxter
8. Dr. Robert Grossman

Longitudinally Non-Specific Back of Head:

1. Dr. Malcolm Perry
2. Dr. Ronald Jones
3. Dr. Fouad  Bashour
4. Pat Hutton, RN
5. Doris Nelson, RN
6. Diana Bowron, Nurse

 

Conclusion

Of the 18 doctors who said they saw the gaping wound, 17 placed it right on the back of the head. None placed it on the top, and only one placed it on the right side.

 

Notes:

1. I counted a doctor among the "Low Back" ones if they said they saw cerebellar tissue, or if they said the wound was on, or primarily on, the occiput.
2. I didn't count Dr. Adolph Giesecke because, even though he said the wound extended to the lower back of the head, he also has it on the left side. Which is wrong. He did say he was there but a short time.
3. I didn't count three of the professionals on the list because they are FBI and SS agents, not doctors or nurses.

 

[Greg Doudna]

 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So Greg Doudna -- like Pat -- believes that nearly all (~20) Parkland doctors and nurses mass hallucinated a gaping wound on the back of the head. According to their earliest statements, before being pressured into changing their minds. Not to mention all the other such witnesses.

Let me see now, what again were the odds of that happening? About 1 in a million when assuming factors in Pat Speer's favor.

Sandy, you have been one of the publicly harshest critics of Pat Speer's argument, sustained and relentless, dripping with scorn.

I note you have not read Pat Speer's research:

"I have never claimed to have read your chapters on the head wounds. I've argued only with what you post on the forum." (1/7/24, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/page/8/)

I read Pat Speer's chapters recently, 18c and 18d, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18c-reason-to-doubt and https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18d-reason-to-believe. 

I thought going into it, how is Pat Speer going to reconcile all those witness "back of the head" statements with the BOH photograph?

I found out. It takes work to read. Pat Speer's chapters are typically in the ca. 80-100 pages apiece printed out. But agree or disagree, it is worth reading. 

Now I have brought something which I think may be new to the table. Or maybe not?--I don't know, but I at least don't remember this brought to attention or discussed by you or anyone before. I refer to the top of the particular back-wound autopsy photo of the link I found and gave, from the original publication of the autopsy photos. Here it is again: 

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg

Would you take a look at the very top of that autopsy photo and say how you interpret it? It's not the BOH photo but it is exactly parallel to the BOH photo and shows where the gaping wound was, and that it was there, on the head of JFK at the moment the BOH photo was taken. It wasn't missing from JFK's head when either of those photos were taken, nor is it necessary to suppose that those photos were altered or forged to remove it.

That back-wound photo (of the link just given) was my tipping point in convincing me on this.

I am no expert in this area and probably will stay out of this fray for the most part going forward. Just saying how it looks to me. 

Pat's discussion of studies--not conjecture or speculation but published studies, data, scientific publications--on human perception and findings thereof, were eye-opening.