The Back of Head Wound as Sketched by Dr. McClelland in TMWKK (1988):

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Keven Hofeling said:

Yes, you covert tag teams clean up after yourselves fast, don't you?

Yeah, I would have cleaned up that mess much sooner, but I first had to call my super @ Covert Central in Virginia.

 

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

Yeah, you said that before. But no matter how many times you say silly things, they're still going to be silly (and unprovable, of course).

 

[Keven Hofeling]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah, I would have cleaned up that mess much sooner, but I first had to call my super @ Covert Central in Virginia.

 

Yup. Sounds like the stock response...

[Keven Hofeling]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah, you said that before. But no matter how many times you say silly things, they're still going to be silly (and unprovable, of course).

 

Then why are you working so hard not to address the implications of the video and documents?

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39)

The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy."

When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows:

"...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed.
⁠
By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.
⁠
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position....
⁠
In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents.
⁠
In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had.
⁠
The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288]
⁠
Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense.
⁠
More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses.
⁠
That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289]
⁠
So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants."
⁠
 ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar:

1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD

Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding.

Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials:

Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! 

[Pat Speer]

23 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Then why are you working so hard not to address the implications of the video and documents?

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39)

The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy."

When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows:

"...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed.
⁠
By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.
⁠
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position....
⁠
In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents.
⁠
In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had.
⁠
The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288]
⁠
Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense.
⁠
More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses.
⁠
That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289]
⁠
So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants."
⁠
 ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar:

1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD

Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding.

Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials:

Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! 

Wait! Are you now claiming the HSCA pathology panel never analyzed the President's wounds? If so, well... Lordy...

Edited January 25 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Fun and games. Fun and games. Let's pretend Hill is a member of the back of the head club...when he has been vilified for more than a decade for not being a member of the back of the head club. Fun and games. Fun and games. 

They're at no pretending with this one, Michael. Hill was not a back of the head witness...at least not in this century.

 

 

 

 

Pat,

We can all see that Clint Hill was inconsistent with the placing of his fingers. This means that he had a hard time telling precisely where his fingers were.

But what do his words say? In the video above he points to a wound above his right temple, a place where almost nobody saw the wound. But his words say "the upper right rear quadrant."

A gaping hole in the upper right rear quadrant would be one centered on the cowlick as far as anterior/posterior goes, but to the right of the cowlick laterally.

If the BOH photos were legit, we'd easily be able to see Hill's wound from the back.

Consider, however, that this is where Hill placed the wound after he learned the official locations of the entrance and exit wounds... near the EOP and the top-right of the head respectively. His learning of this undoubtedly influenced where he placed the wound later on. Because early on, for the WC, Hill testified differently, as follows:

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.

Note that he said nothing of the wound being on the top of the head, or even up high on the back of the head. He said only that it was on the back of the head.

Again, if the BOH photos were legit, we'd easily be able to see Hill's wound from the back.

 

Therefore, as with nearly every other witness, we conclude that the BOH photos cannot be legit.

And we again conclude that you cherry pick your evidence and misrepresent what you can't make fit your beliefs.

 

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Pat,

We can all see that Clint Hill was inconsistent with the placing of his fingers. This means that he had a hard time telling precisely where his fingers were.

But what do his words say? In the video above he points to a wound above his right temple, a place where almost nobody saw the wound. But his words say "the upper right rear quadrant."

A gaping hole in the upper right rear quadrant would be one centered on the cowlick as far as anterior/posterior goes, but to the right of the cowlick laterally.

If the BOH photos were legit, we'd easily be able to see Hill's wound from the back.

Consider, however, that this is where Hill placed the wound after he learned the official locations of the entrance and exit wounds... near the EOP and the top-right of the head respectively. His learning of this undoubtedly influenced where he placed the wound later on. Because early on, for the WC, Hill testified differently, as follows:

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.

Note that he said nothing of the wound being on the top of the head, or even up high on the back of the head. He said only that it was on the back of the head.

Again, if the BOH photos were legit, we'd easily be able to see Hill's wound from the back.

 

Therefore, as with nearly every other witness, we conclude that the BOH photos cannot be legit.

And we again conclude that you cherry pick your evidence and misrepresent what you can't make fit your beliefs.

 

Many researchers have the whole back of the head controversy on the brain, and interpret every statement through the prism of "If someone says back or rear, someone must mean the far back of the head." 

But not everyone thinks that way. 

Hill has said the "right rear" or the "right rear quadrant" dozens of times in public while pointing out a location above his right ear and behind. A number of these demonstrations are on Youtube. In these demonstrations he places his hand  an inch or so to the rear of where the wound appears in the autopsy photos. As he has long disputed the single-bullet theory, and has described the injury to the brain in a manner inconsistent with the Oswald did it scenario, we have no reason to believe he is lying. His placement of the wound, after all, matches up quite well with the placement of the wound by the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and is largely corroborated by the films and photos. 

After thinking about the Hill mystery--why he continued saying "right rear" or "right rear quadrant"--while pointing to a location above his ear and back, moreover, I came to realize that it was really not a mystery. When viewed from above, the front of the ear is roughly half-way between the front of one's face and the back of the head. So yessiree Hill is right and a wound above the ear and back is on the right rear quadrant of the skull. 

[Michael Griffith]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Many researchers have the whole back of the head controversy on the brain, and interpret every statement through the prism of "If someone says back or rear, someone must mean the far back of the head." 

But not everyone thinks that way. 

Hill has said the "right rear" or the "right rear quadrant" dozens of times in public while pointing out a location above his right ear and behind. A number of these demonstrations are on Youtube. In these demonstrations he places his hand  an inch or so to the rear of where the wound appears in the autopsy photos. As he has long disputed the single-bullet theory, and has described the injury to the brain in a manner inconsistent with the Oswald did it scenario, we have no reason to believe he is lying. His placement of the wound, after all, matches up quite well with the placement of the wound by the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and is largely corroborated by the films and photos. 

After thinking about the Hill mystery--why he continued saying "right rear" or "right rear quadrant"--while pointing to a location above his ear and back, moreover, I came to realize that it was really not a mystery. When viewed from above, the front of the ear is roughly half-way between the front of one's face and the back of the head. So yessiree Hill is right and a wound above the ear and back is on the right rear quadrant of the skull. 

But in the 2013 demonstration, he clearly put his hand over the right parietal-occipital area. It is amazing that you won't admit this.

And it is baffling that you could see the term "right-rear" as "vague," much less as including the area above the right ear. 

I notice you said nothing about Jackie's statement that she tried to hold hair and skull in place on the back of his head. 

Let me ask you this: How do you explain the fact that the three morticians said they saw a sizable hole in the back of the head? These guys not only got a prolonged up-close look at the wound, they handled the head while reconstructing the skull after the autopsy. Do you believe they mistook the gory wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos for a wound in the occiput? Really?