The flap on the right side of the head

[Ron Ecker]

I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind.

I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap.

I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front.

I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film.

Granted, a couple of Parkland doctors allowed as how the head wound had somehow moved around toward the front, though the others did not see it do so, but they allowed this only after being brow-beaten by an SS agent who came from Washington to show them autopsy material, or until they had seen the dubious material in the archives.

McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face.

The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him.

Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head.

If anyone can straighten me out on this, feel free.

[Jack White]

Ron...I totally agree. The "flap" on the side of the head was

what started me investigating the authenticity of the z film.

It is not something I just thought of recently.

I was using it in my slide lectures in the early eighties.

Look what Jim Marrs wrote in the 80s:

[John Dolva]

One important component in this discussion is the words used by various persons.

Back, rear, occipital, anterior occipital, posterior occipital, temporal, anterior temporal, posterior.. etc

If one takes a coronal view and divides left right half and front rear half, one can see that the wound is indeed largely right posterior. Shorthand laymans: right rear.

Also the place of the observer re LOS and perspective would gray some descriptions. Many of them were glances and impressions.

Also the fragmentation was extensive. Some of this fragmentation was not visible until further peelback exposure and bone brain removal. The description after the autopsy would be different from at the first hospital.

Also the hair and skin flaps would fall differently and whoever looks at different times may very well see differently from someone else at another moment. IOW someone who first sees it would describe it differently from how someone who after examination shows what he/she finds to someone else.

It's possible that taking all this into account that there is no real inconsistensies anywhere except where ss have intimidated someone into changing their description to match later findings.

[Bill Miller]

"I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind.

I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap.

I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front."

I guess when this was addressed in the past that all that was said was understood, but I see that was not the case. I am constantly hearing questions raised about what should have been seen on the Zapruder film and in each instance it is a lack of knowledge as to the natural causes that leads one to jump straight to film alteration. Yes, JFK's hair was dark and in silhouette even before the head exploded. I have seen this occurence in photos of the President at Love Field when photographed from just a few feet away.

I think that if one wishes to think that Jackie held the back of JFK's together on the way to Parkland, then let me remind them that SS Agent Clint Hill described seeing the hole on the back of the President's head as they raced for the hospital, thus it wasn't the back of JFK's head that Jackie was holding together, IMO. The "bone plate" as Dr. Baxter called it was in place at the time that JFKwas wheeled into the O.R. and treated ... so much so that the treating doctors didn't even notice the wound. It wasn't until the Neurosurgeon studied the head damage that the bone plate was noticed. This tells me that it was the bone plate that Jackie most likely held into place as she cradled her husbands head on the way to Parkland. This bone plate would have tissue clung to it, but the brain doesn't sit in blood - it sits in a cranial fluid that is like a type of watery substance that has traces of blood in it. Blood spatter expert "Sherry Gutierrez" has detailed how cranial blood spatter can be seen on the Zapruder film. The actual cranial fluid spatter that pelted Connally, Kellerman and so forth cannot be seen on the Zfilm because it moved too fast between the exposures of Z312 and Z313. The same watery substance which we call the 'mist cloud' moved much slower because it was cast upward into a stiff breeze that drifted it back over the President.

"I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film. "

Read Baxter's WC testimony.

"McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face."

Are you assuming that JFK's head was always facing upwards and never laid over on its side?

"The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him. "

Look ... this is silly. Bill Newman thought the head opened up and the ear came off because of the speed at which that bone plate flipped over. Where do you think all that craqnial fluid came from other than a large hole in the top of JFK's head.

"Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head."

Sherry Gutierrez made an observation that it seems impossible for someone to have altered the head wound on the Zfilm which would be exactly what would show a frontal shot by way of blood spatter science 40 years later. Then there is what Groden said about the processes in attampting such an alteration on Kodachrome II film by transfering the images to 35MM to do any alterations qand then back again to 8MM film. The color tones would weaken, along with the contrast. Robert said that such forgery would not escape close scrutiny.

Bill

Edited April 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Allan Eaglesham]

I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind.

I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap.

I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front.

I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film.

Granted, a couple of Parkland doctors allowed as how the head wound had somehow moved around toward the front, though the others did not see it do so, but they allowed this only after being brow-beaten by an SS agent who came from Washington to show them autopsy material, or until they had seen the dubious material in the archives.

McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face.

The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him.

Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head.

If anyone can straighten me out on this, feel free.

Thank you, Ron:

Excellent post. The Z-film shows that approximately 25% of the president's cranium was avulsed: everything above and forward of the right ear, including the right forehead. How this huge wound could be characterized by Parkland medics as being in the rear of the head is beyond comprehension. The available autopsy photographs do not show this avulsion; the "pig's ear" flap seen in some of them is small by comparison. The right-lateral X-ray can be interpreted as showing it, however.

Allan

[Antti Hynonen]

John Dolva Posted Today, 01:24 AM

One important component in this discussion is the words used by various persons.

Back, rear, occipital, anterior occipital, posterior occipital, temporal, anterior temporal, posterior.. etc

If one takes a coronal view and divides left right half and front rear half, one can see that the wound is indeed largely right posterior. Shorthand laymans: right rear.

Also the place of the observer re LOS and perspective would gray some descriptions. Many of them were glances and impressions.

Also the fragmentation was extensive. Some of this fragmentation was not visible until further peelback exposure and bone brain removal. The description after the autopsy would be different from at the first hospital.

Also the hair and skin flaps would fall differently and whoever looks at different times may very well see differently from someone else at another moment. IOW someone who first sees it would describe it differently from how someone who after examination shows what he/she finds to someone else.

It's possible that taking all this into account that there is no real inconsistensies anywhere except where ss have intimidated someone into changing their description to match later findings.

John, I would have to disagree with what you state (in bold above) and I will argue that experienced MD's will not be confused about the location of any given victim's wounds, especially rather soon after the event. They all consistently stated occipital parietal, and well along the general area as I have summarized here: clearly towards the back and well behind the right ear, a grape fruit sized defect.

Many of the Parkland Dr's have been consistent throughout the years with their statements regarding the wounds. Whether a patient is lying on his back or stomach will most likely not confuse a physician with regards to the location of a head wound. The president was treated for several minutes (I believe close to 30) before he was pronounced dead - attending Dr's did therefore not just glance at the wounds but remained with the patient for several minutes on average.

The bottom line is there is a major discrepancy between the head wound when comparing the Parkland vs. Bethesda vs. Zapruder evidence.

Foul play I say.

[John Dolva]

Here's a diagram of bone parts of skull and a roughly grapefruit sized orange circle. Parietal certainly. Frontal, temporal, occipital ? I can't say. Anterior occipital quite possibly. Frontal maybe and it looks like temporal but perhaps only peripherally. If ear is roughly central then most of the wound is posterior of the ear which I think tends to be that line where the ear joins the scalp IOW above the posterior of the jawbone is the ear and most of the wound visible in the photo is posterior of this. This is if one pictures as I imagine a dioctor would do who needs to transmit precise data to other doctors to refer to, and there fore uses such a grid as provided by sagittal, transverse and coronal planes Most of this wound visible here is posterior of a coronal slice in line with the ears. A doctor who thinks along this way perhaps if called on to describe it to the layman would translate the words and not the meaning. Thus by the 'chinese whisper' the wound is correctly described as parietal occipital, the person decoding this to the press might say 'to the rear'. We then 'know' it as in the back of the head.

This is speculation and questioning on my part. They are questions to the answer of which I seek.

I will keep what you say in mind as I continue to explore this matter, Antti.

There were many different people whose testimonies are kinda lumped together as if they are talking the same language as a surgeon for example.

As is pointed out the various types of doctors did indeed describe things differently based on the degree and type of their involvement. Does exclusion of non pros testimony such as agents and perhaps some nurses description paint a different picture? Does the professional staff who described the fully exposed post autopsy findings describe it differently say from a md hovering in the wings, or providing emergency care where the purpose is to keep wounds sterile at Parkland when Kennedy was first administered to, when blood and brain matter obscures the picture?

[Bill Miller]

John, I would have to disagree with what you state (in bold above) and I will argue that experienced MD's will not be confused about the location of any given victim's wounds, especially rather soon after the event. They all consistently stated occipital parietal, and well along the general area as I have summarized here: clearly towards the back and well behind the right ear, a grape fruit sized defect.

I do not understand what the confusion is all about. Has not anyone ever had a wound where they cut themselves and by merely holding both sides of the inscision together with a little pressure that the blood hardened and worked like an adhesive. JFK's hair was extremely blood soaked and Jackie had held the bone plate back in place for a four plus minute ride to Parkland. I personally thought that the Parkland doctors made it quite clear that they were frantically trying to stabalize JFK's condition and had no time to closely examine his wounds ... to add support to this - did they not miss the back wound as well.

I might add that the skull flap wound did not go totally unnoticed by all the Parkland doctors for I believe it was Kemp Clark who's job it would have been to repair the head had JFK's condition had been stabalized who noticed the flap wound. Baxter says to the Commission ...

Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound

Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area,

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

Having started this thread, I'll have more to say on this subject in a couple of days. For now, regarding Bill's last comments, I don't understand how Baxter could say the parietal bone plate was "laid outward to the side," unless he was describing the Z film. His colleagues in the EO did not see this plate "laid outward to the side," as it would be starkly noticeable, as we see in the film. I mean how would you miss it? And who in the EO closed it up again a la Jackie? Baxter?

I would add that Baxter either appears to have perjured himself in his WC testimony, or else the transcript of his testimony was changed.

Mr. Specter - Will you read into the record, Dr. Baxter, the contents of your report, because it is a little hard to read in spots?

Dr. Baxter - . . . the temporal and parietal bones were missing . . .

The report Baxter was reading from said "the temporal and occipital bones were missing." Occipital was replaced with parietal on the spot or later, and no one can say it was an innocent error.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Miller]

Having started this thread, I'll have more to say on this subject in a couple of days. For now, regarding Bill's last comments, I don't understand how Baxter could say the parietal bone plate was "laid outward to the side," unless he was describing the Z film. His colleagues in the EO did not see this plate "laid outward to the side," as it would be starkly noticeable, as we see in the film. I mean how would you miss it? And who in the EO closed it up again a la Jackie? Baxter?

The President's hair was a mass of blood soaked hair that had already started to dry on the way to Parkland. Has not anyone of you contacted a medical person to see how this could have sealed the bone plate back into place and gone unnoticed without a closer look under the matted hair.

You are not understanding the circumstances .... read Clark's or Baxter's testimony as well - WC , HSCA, and ARRB statements for somewhere I read where Clark took a good look at the President's head wound after the other doctors could not save him. My impression was that the other doctors had left when this occurred and Clark noted that the bone plate was fractured all the way around. I believe it was Clark who lifted the bone plate and laid it onto its side.

Bill

PS For those who have a hard time understanding how any doctor at Parkland could have seen the rear head wound as the President laid on the E.R. table ...

Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

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. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

As I was examining the President's wound, I felt for a carotid pulse and felt none. Therefore, I began external cardiac massage and asked that a cardiotachioscope be connected. Because of my position it was difficult to administer cardiac massage. However, Dr. Jones stated that he felt a femoral pulse.

Mr. SPECTER - What is a femoral pulse?

Edited April 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

You are not understanding the circumstances .... read Clark's or Baxter's testimony as well - WC , HSCA, and ARRB statements for somewhere I read where Clark took a good look at the President's head wound after the other doctors could not save him. My impression was that the other doctors had left when this occurred and Clark noted that the bone plate was fractured all the way around. I believe it was Clark who lifted the bone plate and laid it onto its side.

I have found no reference to Clark or another doctor examining the wound after attempts to save the patient ceased. One of the doctors (I forget now which one) said that after efforts ceased, they "backed off of the man" out of respect and because they knew there would be an autopsy. I have also found no reference to Clark or anyone else lifting and laying aside the bone plate. Clark examined the head wound during the efforts to save the patient, and you yourself have quoted him:

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.

Clark makes no mention of the bone plate. Only Baxter says the bone plate was lying outward to the side when Clark examined the wound. Baxter should have told Clark that.

In reading the ARRB interview with Parkland doctors, I think I now understand what McClelland was talking about when he said he could look right into the cranium while standing over JFK. He was not looking down through an open flap in the right top of the head. The head wound was mainly occipital, but extended into the back portion of the parietal, which had an avulsed bone, allowing McClelland to look down into that back portion of the parietal into the occipital.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Miller]

"I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap."

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

" Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel."

"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.) "

"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."

"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) "

You may find more about this and what the doctors saw by going to .... http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Bill

Edited April 21, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

" Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel."

Jackie “holding the top of his head down” can certainly refer to her holding down the flap seen in the film. But it can also refer to her holding down the hair and scalp that is seen hanging over the avulsion in the back of his head in Z338. Indeed she said that there was nothing (wrong) from the front (which would reasonably include any big flap in the temple), but from the back she was trying to hold his hair on.

"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.) "

Grossman changed his story. He told the ARRB that he saw two head wounds: “one was a circular puncture in the occipital region (which he characterized as an entry wound), approximately 2 cm in diameter . . . the second was a larger wound in the right parietal region (which he characterized as an exit wound) that was not an open hole in the cranium, but rather a plate of bone, about 6 cm in longest dimension, lifted up from the inside, which could really only be seen when Dr. Clark lifted up some of the President’s hair” (4/14/97 Meeting Report, in Parker p. 170).

How interesting that Grossman found a flap you could open just like in the Z film, and apparently he found it with Clark, yet Clark has never once mentioned it. Do you believe that JFK only had a 2 cm puncture wound of entry in the back of his head as Grossman says (and not the large hole "far too large for a bullet entry wound" that this same Grossman described to Groden and Livingstone)?

"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."

The WC failed to call Drs. Grossman, Crenshaw, Selden, and Zedelitz, though all were named as attending JFK in WC testimony (Specter: “Doctor Who?”), but it calls an intern who, in one of the shortest interviews conducted, says that he was on JFK’s left side and noticed all the damage on the right side, after which Specter thanked him for his time.

"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) "

You’re getting pretty desperate when you start quoting William Greer on anything. That said, his description that the head was “all shot” and covered with blood proves zilch except that JFK was in bad shape.

You may find more about this and what the doctors saw by going to .... http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Thanks. I’m in the process of reading all the Parkland doctors’ statements, on 11/22 and afterwards. Brad Parker’s First on the Scene is a great resource.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

" Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel."

Jackie “holding the top of his head down” can certainly refer to her holding down the flap seen in the film. But it can also refer to her holding down the hair and scalp that is seen hanging over the avulsion in the back of his head in Z338. Indeed she said that there was nothing (wrong) from the front (which would reasonably include any big flap in the temple), but from the back she was trying to hold his hair on.

I guess one can say that Jackie could have been talking about holding Connally's hair down, but that is not the case. The avulsion was where the bones were sprung opened on the "REAR" of the head. The bone plate was on the top of the head, which if one flips the bone plate back up and into place it would be on the top of the head.

Never have I seen so many things made hard that were basically so easy to follow.

"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.) "

Grossman changed his story. He told the ARRB that he saw two head wounds: “one was a circular puncture in the occipital region (which he characterized as an entry wound), approximately 2 cm in diameter . . . the second was a larger wound in the right parietal region (which he characterized as an exit wound) that was not an open hole in the cranium, but rather a plate of bone, about 6 cm in longest dimension, lifted up from the inside, which could really only be seen when Dr. Clark lifted up some of the President’s hair” (4/14/97 Meeting Report, in Parker p. 170).

How interesting that Grossman found a flap you could open just like in the Z film, and apparently he found it with Clark, yet Clark has never once mentioned it.

What difference does it make who Grossman was with when he saw the bone plate? It's the same bone plate that Bill Newman saw flip over in less that 2/18s of a second which made him think JFK's ear flew off. It's like putting a lid back on a pumpkin ... cover it will blood soaked hair and seal it with dried clotted blood and it would be near impossible to see unless someone examined it closely.

"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."

The WC failed to call Drs. Grossman, Crenshaw, Selden, and Zedelitz, though all were named as attending JFK in WC testimony (Specter: “Doctor Who?”), but it calls an intern who, in one of the shortest interviews conducted, says that he was on JFK’s left side and noticed all the damage on the right side, after which Specter thanked him for his time.

"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) "

You’re getting pretty desperate when you start quoting William Greer on anything. That said, his description that the head was “all shot” and covered with blood proves zilch except that JFK was in bad shape.

Actually it was Gary L. Aguilar, MD who quoted Greer because it supported what the other witnesses stated. I can see that you are a selective reader and missed where Greer confirmed for Specter that he was talkng about the' top and right rear side' of the head

Bill

Edited April 21, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Antti Hynonen]

Bill Miller Posted Yesterday, 02:33 PM

John, I would have to disagree with what you state (in bold above) and I will argue that experienced MD's will not be confused about the location of any given victim's wounds, especially rather soon after the event. They all consistently stated occipital parietal, and well along the general area as I have summarized here: clearly towards the back and well behind the right ear, a grape fruit sized defect.

I do not understand what the confusion is all about. Has not anyone ever had a wound where they cut themselves and by merely holding both sides of the inscision together with a little pressure that the blood hardened and worked like an adhesive. JFK's hair was extremely blood soaked and Jackie had held the bone plate back in place for a four plus minute ride to Parkland. I personally thought that the Parkland doctors made it quite clear that they were frantically trying to stabalize JFK's condition and had no time to closely examine his wounds ... to add support to this - did they not miss the back wound as well.

Yes, perhaps Jackie participated in the cover up and her doings resulted in the nototrious autopsy photos and x-rays, which just about all Parkland Dr.'s would later deny were of the President they had treated in the same hospital on 11/22/1963.