Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part II / The Exit Wound

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Thanks, Pat.  One wonders why the right side looks intact in the "Stare of Death" autopsy table photos.

Well, it was a flap. While laying on his back the flap would have been mostly closed. Perhaps that's why Perry, one of the few Parkland witnesses to actually inspect the wounds, mentioned the flap, while it went mostly unmentioned by others. 

Dr. Baxter, who was present during Perry's inspection, so to speak, did mention the flap.

Here is my take on Baxter. From Chapter 18d:

Baxter’s statement is undoubtedly intriguing. If “the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing”, as Baxter claimed, there would be a huge hole on the side and back of Kennedy’s head. Perhaps then, he meant only that parts of the temporal and occipital bones were missing. Baxter's testimony is even more intriguing. When he testified for the Warren Commission, (at a time when no one but no one was talking about the body being altered between Parkland and Bethesda), he testified that he observed a "temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side," and that "the right side of his head had been blown off." He was also asked to read his earlier report into the record. While doing so, however, he read the line "the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing" as the "temporal and parietal bones were missing." This, in effect, moved the wound from the side and back of the skull, to the side and top of the skull. While some might claim he was pressured into doing so by Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter, who took his testimony, this is a bit of a stretch seeing as none of the other doctors recalled receiving any similar pressure regarding their own descriptions of the head wound. The probability, then, is that Baxter was inconsistent in his recollections, and "correcting" his earlier statement on his own. If this is so, moreover, he would continue on this winding course from that point onward. In 1992, he is reported to have told writer Gerald Posner that "The wound was on the right side, not the back," and to have told a writer for the Journal of the American Medical Association that he defers to the findings of the autopsy report. Now that would seem to have settled the matter. But he didn't stop there. He also told Tom Jarriel on the news program 20/20 that it was impossible to tell the direction of the bullet from what he observed. And this wasn't the last time he tried to wash his hands of the matter, only to muddy the water. Baxter responded to a letter from single-assassin theorist Francois Carlier in 1997 and once again confused. In response to Carlier's questions about the wounds he wrote "head--occiput--1 x 1/2 cm--skull detached." Well, this makes no sense. A 1 x 1/2 cm hole is a very small hole. It seems likely then that when Baxter wrote "occiput--1 x 1/2 cm" he was describing the supposed entrance wound on the back of the head--a wound unobserved at Parkland. And that when he wrote "skull detached" he was describing the much larger wound found elsewhere on the skull. Adding to this probability--that Baxter was trying to defend the official story--is his response to the follow-up questions. When asked his opinion on where the shots came from he wrote "from the rear." When then asked his response to Dr. Crenshaw's book claiming an exit wound was on the back of the head, and that the doctors were pressured to lie about it, he wrote "fabricated!!" He then confirmed this position by praising single-assassin theorist Gerald Posner's book Case Closed and insisting David Lifton's theory the wounds were altered was "Bull!" He then pulled back a bit. In 1998, while sitting with some of his fellow Parkland witnesses, he told the ARRB that "None of us at that time, I don't think, were in any position to view the head injury. And, in fact, I never saw anything above the scalpline, forehead line, that I could comment on.”

 

My current suspicion is that there were two large flaps, actually. One on the top of the back of the head, that opened up a bit when JFK was on his back. And one by the ear that closed up when he was on his back. As a result of these flaps, those viewing the body at Parkland would perceive the wound as more posterior than those viewing the body at Bethesda. 

Now, does that explain the Parkland/Bethesda controversy? Not entirely. After Lifton popped up with his body alteration theory, some sought to shoot it down by claiming the wound observed at Parkland was the same as the wound observed at Bethesda, and that the Parkland witnesses were simply mistaken. And others countered that by saying no no no, the wound observed at Parkland was yes indeed the same as the wound observed at Parkland, but the Parkland doctors were correct, and the autopsy photos were fakes and the autopsists were lying about what they saw. And found support for this with some of the statements of the Bethesda witnesses, who described a giant wound including the back of the head. What they missed, however, was that these witnesses were almost certainly describing the wound as observed after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, and even after the brain was removed. 

Now, it's funny. JFK researchers are a fickle group, and alliances appear where one would not expect. But on this point, David Lifton and I were in agreement. We agreed that the wound descriptions differed between Parkland and Bethesda. He thought this was because the wound was altered. I thought this was because the body was viewed under different conditions. Will this ever be resolved? It's doubtful. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The word "occipital" is routinely used by doctors to describe the rear part of the head. It does not relate specifically to the occipital bone.

 

You are right, "occipital" can refer to the back of the head without meaning specifically the occipital bone.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So, in stating the wound was parietal-occipital, Perry was stating that the wound was on the top-back of the head.

 

No, not so fast, bucko.

Perry didn't say the wound was "parietal-occipital" as you say. He said it was  "RIGHT parietal-occipital." There's a big difference between the two. Looking at the location of the skull bones:

 

 

We see that, on the right side, the parietal bone extends nearly to the bottom of the skull. With this in mind, "right parietal-occipital" would mean roughly behind the ear, perhaps a little lower. But certainly not up near the cowlick.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is not the occipital bone blow-out depicted in the McClelland drawing, or by Mantik and his devotees.

 

Yes, it is about what the McClelland Drawing shows.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The fact that Perry mentioned a flap is further evidence for the authenticity of the photos over the drawings and depictions of researchers, as the drawings do not depict such a flap. 

 

No. Some of the Parkland doctors allude to a flap of scalp on the back. They speak of bones "avulsing through the scalp." In other words, the scalp hole was smaller than the skull hole. This explains why witnesses saw differing sizes for the wound.

 

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You are right, "occipital" can refer to the back of the head without meaning specifically the occipital bone.

 

 

No, not so fast, bucko.

Perry didn't say the wound was "parietal-occipital" as you say. He said it was  "RIGHT parietal-occipital." There's a big difference between the two. Looking at the location of the skull bones:

 

 

We see that, on the right side, the parietal bone extends nearly to the bottom of the skull. With this in mind, "right parietal-occipital" would mean roughly behind the ear, perhaps a little lower. But certainly not up near the cowlick.

 

 

Yes, it is about what the McClelland Drawing shows.

 

 

No. Some of the Parkland doctors allude to a flap of scalp on the back. They speak of bones "avulsing through the scalp." In other words, the scalp hole was smaller than the skull hole. This explains why witnesses saw differing sizes for the wound.

 

My impression of the witness statements is that they placed the wound around the location of the word parietal on the image you've posted. 

My observation--for which I have been vilified, and harassed--is that those claiming the witnesses suggest the occipital bone was blown out of the skull--are being deceptive. 

It's clear the vast majority of witnesses placed the wound higher than that. And it's also clear the depictions of the wound in the McClelland drawing et al do not depict the bone flap observed and noted by Perry and Baxter. 

So why not admit as much? 

I mean, if one is to admit the witnesses placed the wound high on the back of the head, and then conclude based upon the  initial claims of some that they saw cerebellum, that these witnesses placed the wound too high, then that would be an honest presentation of the evidence. Possibly incorrect, but honest. 

But we'e been told by writer after writer that the Parkland witnesses claimed the occipital bone was blown out of the skull, and that their recollections prove there was a hole over the occipital bone--no bone flap or anything, just a hole. And that's just not true. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's clear the vast majority of witnesses placed the wound higher than that. And it's also clear the depictions of the wound in the McClelland drawing et al do not depict the bone flap observed and noted by Perry and Baxter. 

So why not admit as much?

 

Why not admit to what you said? Because I believe that what you said is a mischaracterization of where the witnesses placed the blowout wound.

Naturally there was some variation in precisely where each witness placed the wound. But they mostly placed it approximately behind the ear, and on average that is where it was placed.

You keep trying to push the location upward. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why not admit to what you said? Because I believe that what you said is a mischaracterization of where the witnesses placed the blowout wound.

Naturally there was some variation in precisely where each witness placed the wound. But they mostly placed it approximately behind the ear, and on average that is where it was placed.

You keep trying to push the location upward. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

Hogwash. You can insult me all day long if it makes you feel better. But it doesn't change the fact that you are flat-out wrong when you claim they "mostly" placed it behind the ear. And you know this. We've been through this before. 

Here are the 18 witnesses presented in Groden's book in support of his claim there was a gaping hole on the occipital bone. How many of them point to a location at or below the ear? 5. And 2 of those were pointing to the rear-most part of a giant defect that they saw at Bethesda, undoubtedly after the brain was removed. That means that but 3 of the 16 witnesses presented by Groden to the head wound actually support the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. And one of these was Riebe, who deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos once shown the originals, and who took a set of photos that are consistent with the originals. And who were the other two? Crenshaw and Bell. Both of whom have credibility issues. But that's fine. Let's pretend they are credible. That's still but 2 of 16. 2 of 16 is not "mostly." 

Edited February 21 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You can insult me all day long if it makes you feel better.

 

I'm just stating the facts.

 

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it doesn't change the fact that you are flat-out wrong...

 

I stand by what I said. And most people agree with me.

 

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

...when you claim they "mostly" placed it behind the ear.

 

Yes, roughly speaking, with some variation... behind the ear. Perhaps a little higher. But not many said up high near the cowlick. (The upper margin may be near there, but not the center of the wound.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Readers can decide for themselves.

I would say that, on average, the center of the gaping hole was at the level of the upper half of the ear.

 

 

 

 

Drawn by FBI Agent Francis O'Neill for the HSCA.

 

Drawn by FBI Agent James Sibert for the HSCA.

 

 

 

 

 

Drawn by Dr. James Jenkins for the HSCA.

 

 

Wound (circle) drawn by mortician Tom Robinson.

 

 

Wound drawn by nurse Audrey Bell for the ARRB.

 

 

Drawn by nurse Diana Bowron.

 

 

Wound drawn by Dr. Robert Grossman for the ARRB.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I would say that, on average, the center of the gaping hole was at the level of the upper half of the ear.

 

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos  are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.

 

[Paul Cummings]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos  are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.

 

Agree Sandy. The photo of the back of JFK's head in the autopsy is fraudulent.

Edited February 21 by Paul Cummings

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos  are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.

 

Here is a short clip of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. He starts with his hand very low and then changes that 3 times until his hand is located a couple inches higher. The clip is from years after the assassination and he had probably demonstrated the wound location many times by then. The fact that he still had to feel around the back of his head for the correct location, and changes it several times, shows how the witnesses will naturally vary on the location they demonstrate. 
 I think this is due to the fact he is trying to find the wound he originally saw with his eyes using the tactile feeling of the hand on the head. The problem is we just can't see the back of our own head.
 I think with regards to the height of the wound we will see some differences in the witness accounts just because they have to feel around for it. But the locations they show depict a wound that is nonexistent in the autopsy photos and X-rays. 

 

Edited February 21 by Chris Bristow

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Here is a short clip of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. He starts with his hand very low and then changes that 3 times until his hand is located a couple inches higher. The clip is from years after the assassination and he had probably demonstrated the wound location many times by then. The fact that he still had to feel around the back of his head for the correct location, and changes it several times, shows how the witnesses will naturally vary on the location they demonstrate. 
 I think this is due to the fact he is trying to find the wound he originally saw with his eyes using the tactile feeling of the hand on the head. The problem is we just can't see the back of our own head.
 I think with regards to the height of the wound we will see some differences in the witness accounts just because they have to feel around for it. But the locations they show depict a wound that is nonexistent in the autopsy photos and X-rays. 

 

Dr. Jones does not believe the photos were faked. He isn't even a conspiracy theorist.

From Chapter 18c:

Dr. Ronald Jones, as Peters, has claimed many times over the years that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. In the photo in Groden's book, however, he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. In 1992, even stranger, he described the wound as a "side wound." In 1997, in a letter to researcher Francois Carlier, Jones tried to explain his confusion; he insisted that although he observed a wound on the "posterior aspect of the skull," he was "unable to observe the exact extent or dimensions of this wound" because of his "position at the table on the left side of the President below his arm" while the President was lying "flat on his back." When interviewed by the ARRB in 1998, for what's worse, he offered more excuses, insisting "it was difficult to see down through the hair," and admitting "All my view was from the President's left side." He then clarified this position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing.

 

From Chapter 18d: 

When Dr. Ronald Jones testified on 3-24-64 he said Kennedy had "a large wound in the right posterior side of the head" and then further described "There was a 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." He later discussed "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull." . 

As discussed, Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and tell the ARRB that "it was difficult to see down through the hair." He then clarified his position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." And should that not make his position clear, one should view this 9-24-13 interview of McClelland and Jones, in which Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind. He also pushes that the back wound was an entrance for a bullet exiting the throat. Dr. Jones is not a "back-of-the-head witness," nor is he a conspiracy theorist.

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Readers can decide for themselves.

I would say that, on average, the center of the gaping hole was at the level of the upper half of the ear.

 

Note: this is a drawing made by Robert McCelland, who was providing hand-drawn recreations of the famous McClelland drawing not drawn by him, that he had formerly claimed was inaccurate, as it depicted the wound too low on the skull. 

 

Note: this is a depiction of the wound by Charles Crenshaw, who only saw the wound for a few seconds, and who only came forward with his claims about the wound in a book written 30 years after the shooting, after he'd long been exposed to the claims of alterationists. 

Drawn by FBI Agent Francis O'Neill for the HSCA.

Note: this depiction by O'Neil was of an exit wound for a shot fired from behind. O'Neil was not a conspiracy theorist. 

Drawn by FBI Agent James Sibert for the HSCA.

Note: Sibert also believed the large wound to be an exit for a shot fired from behind. (I can't recall if he's showing the wound of entrance or exit in this drawing but it doesn't really matter because no one actually believes it is accurate.) 

Note: this is a drawing created by an artist for Josiah Thompson...based upon Dr. McClelland's testimony. It was shown to Parkland witnesses by the Boston Globe in the early 80's alongside the back of the head photo, and was rejected by more of the witnesses, including McClelland, than the back of the head photo.  

 

Drawn by Dr. James Jenkins for the HSCA.

Note that in this drawing James Jenkins places the wound on the right side of the head, and visible from the front. This is not the wound in the McClelland drawing. Over the years, moreover, James Jenkins said numerous times that the far back of the head at and below the ear was shattered beneath the scalp, and fell to the table when the scalp opened up. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wound (circle) drawn by mortician John Robinson.

Note: It's Tom Robinson, not John. And he only saw the wound after it was reconstructed by his colleague, Ed Stroble. And note further that this was a cosmetic reconstruction--designed to conceal the wound in a pillow. 

 

Wound drawn by nurse Audrey Bell for the ARRB.

Note: Bell only came forward with her sensationalist claim Perry showed her the wound after books had been written showing a wound in this location. And note further that she had also come to claim she'd handled multiple fragments from the Governor's wrist and handed them off to the FBI or SS, and not the Texas Highway Patrolmen she had officially handed them off to. And this despite the fact a signed receipt for her transfer to the Highway Patrolman was found by Gary Murr. And this despite the fact she'd written an article on the activities of 11-22, and had acknowledged in that article that she'd given but one fragment to the Highway Patrol. (Which is the official story.) 

 

Drawn by nurse Diana Bowron.

Note: this was Bowron's recollection 30 years after the shooting, after she'd been shown the McClelland drawing. it's not as if her recollections are meaningless, however. She told Harry Livingstone she'd washed some of the blood and brain from JFK's hair and that she noticed no entrance wounds while doing so. 

 

Wound drawn by Dr. Robert Grossman for the ARRB.

Note: now this is just desperate. This was Grossman's depiction of an entrance wound that he said led to an explosive wound at the top of the head. IOW, he was not a back of the head witness, not even close. In fact, he was the co-author of a series of articles which cited the medical evidence as proof there was no conspiracy.  

 

Important context in bold.

Edited February 21 by Pat Speer

[Paul Cummings]

The original CT'er is believing LHO shot JFK.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/21/2024 at 8:58 AM, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Jones does not believe the photos were faked. He isn't even a conspiracy theorist.

 

It isn't relevant what each of the doctors thought would explain the fact that the autopsy photos don't show what they saw. Nor is it relevant whether or not any of the doctors are conspiracy theorists.

We are in a better position to determine such things because we have all the known evidence at our fingertips.

 

P.S. Thanks @Chris Bristow and @Paul Cummings.

[Sandy Larsen]

I think that Pat wants what I said earlier to get lost in the discussion:

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.