Where is the massive back head wound?

[Terry Mauro]

Jacqueline B.Kennedy....

She isn't looking at the back of his head. She is looking directly at the wedge-shaped piece of skull hanging from the front right of his head.

Does it look like she's looking at the right front of his head? Looks to me like she's looking directly at the avulsion on the back of the head. The gif doesn't go far enough. Here's Z337.

BTW, several of the doctors mentioned "cerebellum". Any clue where the cerebellum is located?

***************************************************

Hi R.J.,

I've always viewed the Zap as a hodge-podge of splices, so to speak. Therefore, on one hand, I can understand someone being insistent upon being able to discern the presence of the exit wound presenting itself as emanating from the right posterior occiput, immediately following the impact to the right antero/parietal aspect as depicted here. On the other hand, it also appears from the impact of the trajectory, that the amount of energy dispersed along the lateral aspect of the skull, causing the separation of the right hemispheric bone plate to occur, would in fact preclude the actual exit of the bullet from the right posterior occiput, had not the Zapruder been tampered with in the interim, or say the frames depicting the exit from the right posterior occiput been removed or deleted. Instead, it appears to the naked or inexperienced eye to have remained intact. Why I suggest deletion or splicing of frames is from observing the erratic body movements [cartoon] being exhibited by Jackie's hands with respect to her response to her husband being fatally wounded. Even in slo-mo there seems to be a lack of flow to the body responses, that should be distinguishable, regardless of the kind of equipment being used to film this, as well as any shock to the senses, or distractions Zapruder might have been experiencing during the filming. The flow of the information as it is being depicted on the film strongly suggests removal or deletion of specific frames, IMHO.

[Bill Miller]

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible !

Ed, I created the clip that you posted, so I feel obliged to ask you what information have you obtained to draw the conclusion you came up with that could say something like "Physiologically and neurologically impossible" ?

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

Ashton:

Here's more Great Aunt Girtie's garters......Clint Hill style........Now try keeping in mind, he and Jacqueline were the two closest witnesses..

to the President's head wound...Try not to pay so much attention to what you think you see within the Zapruder film, read their information, without

reviewing such, and then see it ...in your mind...Just my 2 cents....

Clint Hill Warren Commission

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

"Mr. HILL. 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 blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. 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. "

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:30 p.m., Dallas time."

Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill:

18 H 740-745: 11/30/63 report of activities on 11/22/63---

“…I heard a

noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear…

I

heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different

sound---

like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw

the President slump more toward his left. I jumped onto the left rear

step of the Presidential automobile.

Mrs. Kennedy shouted, “They’ve shot

his head off;” then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were

reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that

had blown out…snip..

As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion

of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was

bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his

skull with hair on it lying in the seat.”;

“At approximately 2:45 a.m.,

November 23,

I was requested by ASAIC Kelerman to come to the morgue to

once again view the body.

When I arrived the autopsy had been completed

and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds.

I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back

just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the

right rear portion of the skull.”;

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/vp-06.html

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm

If you have a pre-conceived theory, then I imagine, when you look at the photos and films, or a witnesses information, and

it does not comply, then you disregard.....I don't have one, I am still searching.....

But what I believe I may see after all this time, is that, the Zapruder film is an accurate motion picture.....

But it is no longer a true film of what happened that day in Dealey....It shows what the people are intended to believe what happened..

Which is why I do not spend much time any longer on such. Just imo..

B..

Edited January 1, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

Ashton:

Here's more Great Aunt Girtie's garters......Clint Hill style........Now try keeping in mind, he and Jacqueline were the two closest witnesses..

to the President's head wound...Try not to pay so much attention to what you think you see within the Zapruder film, read their information, without

reviewing such, and then see it ...in your mind...Just my 2 cents....

Clint Hill Warren Commission

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

"Mr. HILL. 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 blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. 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. "

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:30 p.m., Dallas time."

As I recall, Ashton claimed that a previous clip I presented concerning the outward turn of the outline of JFK's head (the lower part of the avulsion) was an illusion ... I believe he said that it was a result of Jackie's white glove being at the back of the President's neck - I disagreed. Here is another frame with Jackie's glove nowhere in sight. What does thou sayeth now, Ashton???

Bill Miller

Edited January 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Much ballyhoo has been raised about the alleged unanimity of medical personnel at Parkland Hospital testifying to a large hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.

Bollocks.

There is nothing resembling any such unanimity. There is nothing even approximating any such unanimity. The countless tortured claims in the literature of such unanimity (on both "sides" of the argument) are the distant hollow lowings of hopeful loons.

One area of unanimity amongst these august doctors of various stripe is their unanimity in disclaiming having done any close inspection of the head wound at all. Their observations were made in the mad heat of emergency room procedures attempting to save a life. I will not revisit here their repeated caveats in this regard, because it all is in the record for any serious and impartial student to study.

The one and only common thread in their testimony is that the large wound was on the right side of the head, which I have highlighted in bold in their testimony excerpts below.

Some of the doctors at best have changed their opinions about the position of the head wound, effecting their own impeachment for anything coming close to dispositive use of their testimony.

As a general, not specific, brief commentary, anyone whose actual destination is a solution to any problem stays on the rails of certainties. Doubtful and changing and contradictory testimony and other brands of uncertainties are the broken dead-end tracks that inevitably and only end in derailment and train wreck.

Here are representative samples of relevant testimony:

PARKLAND DOCTORS ON THE ALLEGED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD

• DR. CHARLES CARRICO Resident Surgeon
  

Early statements:

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the

right side

of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Later statements:

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...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. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

DR. MARION "PEPPER" JENKINS Chairman Of Anaesthesiology

Early statements:

"There was a great laceration on the

right side

of the head...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. ...I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound... ."

Later statements:

"...[T]here 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."

DR. CHARLES BAXTER Director Of Emergency Room

Early statements:

"The only [head] wound that I actually saw...was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood loss mixed with it and around it. ...The

right temporal

and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table."

Later statements:

"I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the

right side

, not the back."

DR. PAUL PETERS

Early statements:

I noticed the head wound, and as I remember I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. ...It seemed to me that in the

right

occipital/parietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

Later statements:

"...I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear."

So much for the "mass hallucination" of Parkland doctors.

Some people reading this who are familiar with the medical testimony may have noticed the absence of any testimony from Dr. Malcolm Perry in the above selections.

Dr. Perry is a very special case indeed. Dr. Perry will be considered later in greater detail.

For the moment, I'm only going to mention this: in September of 1962, around the time that CIA's Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West shot an elephant full of LSD (which some say hit the elephant in the neck), Dr. Malcolm Perry—who later performed the "tracheotomy" on JFK, and attended John Connally—left Parkland and was gone for a year of study at the University of California at San Francisco.

Dr. Perry returned to Parkland Hospital in Dallas in September of 1963—just after Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron had arrived at Parkland Hospital all the way from England to spend one fateful year in the Emergency Room.

On or about 5 September 1963, a person or persons unknown "at the White House" changed the itinerary for Kennedy's trip, extending it from 21 November only through 22 November to allow for a motorcade in Dallas on that date.

A week later, on 13 September 1963, Buell Wesley Frazier was hired at the Texas School Book Depository.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 1, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

STOP PRESSES! MILLER VINDICATED!

HOLE IN REAR FOUND!

"A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself a xxxx."

—Mark Twain

Ashton Gray

[Terry Mauro]

Much ballyhoo has been raised about the alleged unanimity of medical personnel at Parkland Hospital testifying to a large hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.

Bollocks.

There is nothing resembling any such unanimity. There is nothing even approximating any such unanimity. The countless tortured claims in the literature of such unanimity (on both "sides" of the argument) are the distant hollow lowings of hopeful loons.

One area of unanimity amongst these august doctors of various stripe is their unanimity in disclaiming having done any close inspection of the head wound at all. Their observations were made in the mad heat of emergency room procedures attempting to save a life. I will not revisit here their repeated caveats in this regard, because it all is in the record for any serious and impartial student to study.

The one and only common thread in their testimony is that the large wound was on the right side of the head, which I have highlighted in bold in their testimony excerpts below.

Some of the doctors at best have changed their opinions about the position of the head wound, effecting their own impeachment for anything coming close to dispositive use of their testimony.

As a general, not specific, brief commentary, anyone whose actual destination is a solution to any problem stays on the rails of certainties. Doubtful and changing and contradictory testimony and other brands of uncertainties are the broken dead-end tracks that inevitably and only end in derailment and train wreck.

Here are representative samples of relevant testimony:

PARKLAND DOCTORS ON THE ALLEGED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD

• DR. CHARLES CARRICO Resident Surgeon
  

Early statements:

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the

right side

of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Later statements:

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...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. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

DR. MARION "PEPPER" JENKINS Chairman Of Anaesthesiology

Early statements:

"There was a great laceration on the

right side

of the head...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. ...I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound... ."

Later statements:

"...[T]here 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."

DR. CHARLES BAXTER Director Of Emergency Room

Early statements:

"The only [head] wound that I actually saw...was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood loss mixed with it and around it. ...The

right temporal

and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table."

Later statements:

"I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the

right side

, not the back."

DR. PAUL PETERS

Early statements:

I noticed the head wound, and as I remember I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. ...It seemed to me that in the

right

occipital/parietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

Later statements:

"...I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear."

So much for the "mass hallucination" of Parkland doctors.

Some people reading this who are familiar with the medical testimony may have noticed the absence of any testimony from Dr. Malcolm Perry in the above selections.

Dr. Perry is a very special case indeed. Dr. Perry will be considered later in greater detail.

For the moment, I'm only going to mention this: in September of 1962, around the time that CIA's Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West shot an elephant full of LSD (which some say hit the elephant in the neck), Dr. Malcolm Perry—who later performed the "tracheotomy" on JFK, and attended John Connally—left Parkland and was gone for a year of study at the University of California at San Francisco.

Dr. Perry returned to Parkland Hospital in Dallas in September of 1963—just after Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron had arrived at Parkland Hospital all the way from England to spend one fateful year in the Emergency Room.

On or about 5 September 1963, a person or persons unknown "at the White House" changed the itinerary for Kennedy's trip, extending it from 21 November only through 22 November to allow for a motorcade in Dallas on that date.

A week later, on 13 September 1963, Buell Wesley Frazier was hired at the Texas School Book Depository.

Ashton Gray

****************************************************

Early statements:

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the

right side

of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Later statements:

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...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. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out? Wouldn't it have been a helluvalot more accurate for him to state, "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. We weren't looking in that area in which the occiput is located." But no, he didn't state it as such. He stated, "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there." Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all?

And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

[Richard J. Smith]

Deleted, duplicate

Edited January 1, 2007 by Richard J. Smith

[Bill Miller]

DR. PAUL PETERS

Later statements:

"...I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear."

Ashton, would it be to much to ask for you to cite the dates and sources for the doctors statements that you posted? As late as 1998, Dr. Peters (under oath) said the following to the AARB ... (see below)

Bill Miller

AARB/1998/Guinn: And finally with Dr. Peters -- last but not least, of course. This is from Page MD 4O, testimony to Mr. Specter of the Warren Commission. On Page 71 he says that he noticed there was a large defect in the occiput. Dr. Peters then says, "It seemed to me that in the right occipitoparietal area that there was a large defect.

DR. PETERS: Well, I got there about, from what I've been able to determine, about 40 seconds later, and Dr. Perry was already there and taking charge & giving the directions. And he was over the President's chest on the President's left side. Dr. Baxter was up in the right side in the axiliary area and so I stepped in about the level of the belly button on the right side.

Mack said -- helped Charlie [sic] sort out one of these trach tubes, which I did then and gave Charlie the one that looked like it was an appropriate size, and he and Malcolm put it in. And we continued the resuscitative efforts. A lot of things were going on simultaneously. Jim had tubed the President, and then when he tried to bag him, there was a big air leak, and so they decided they would put the tracheostomy tube into the wound in the neck and that sort of caused Malcolm to enlarge that.

And they -- we got the right sized tube, slid it into place, and Malcolm continued external compression. I guess Ron in the meantime had done a cutdown and was giving blood to the President. And Max said, I wonder if we should open the chest and squeeze the heart and somebody else was standing there and said no, no, don't do that. Hopkins two weeks reported this study where you just ended up putting your fingers through the ventricle after a short period of time and you could get effective enough resuscitation through the closed chest. And then Dr. Jenkins said, boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at this brain. And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President's head, and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven-centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing. Some brain was hanging down in the wound, and I thought the cerebellum had been injured as well as the cerebral cortex.

MR. GUNN: Dr. Peters, there was something that you had said that you had wanted to talk about.

DR. PETERS: Well, it was concerning the injury to the cerebellum. I thought that at that time when I looked in his skull after Dr. Jenkins said, boys, you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart direct, and I thought the cerebellum was injured and of course, it was obvious there was quite a bit of the cerebral cortex missing. And I looked at it for a moment, and so when I was interviewed a few days later by Mr. Specter, I said I thought the cerebellum was injured.

Dr. John Lattimer is a good friend of mine from Columbia University in New York. He's a historian and has written a text on the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations, comparing them.

J. Edgar Hoover was a good friend of his and let him look at the assassination pictures. That was going to be about 25 years before I was going to get to look at them, and he told me he thought the tentorium was intact over the cerebellum, and that concerned me a little bit. Well, when I went to view the National Archives autopsy pictures I saw that the cerebellum was indeed injured and shoved way down on that right side compared to its mate on the left on the pictures of the brain that they showed me at the National Archives.

MR. GUNN: If I can ask you one side question regarding Dr. Lattimer, did he say to you that he had seen the autopsy photos that Edgar Hoover had in his possession?

DR. PETERS: That's what he led me to believe if off the record I could say a word about that.

MR. GUNN: Go ahead.

DR. PETERS: Dr. Lattimer took care of J. Edgar Hoover, and so he was a historian & quite interested in things, so he went to Mr. Hoover and asked him if he could see the photos. And Mr. Hoover, who didn't like Booby Kennedy very well, said, Oh, John, those won't be available for 10 or 15 years when they're released. And he said, Well, that's what Bobby said you would say, Oh did Bobby say that? Come over Monday morning and I'll let you look at them. And so that's what he did. He looked at them and he's the one who told me he wasn't sure the cerebellum had been injured as I had testified that I thought it was. And having viewed the pictures at the National Archives, I still feel it was. It was certainly displaced, if not lacerated.

DR.McCLELLAND: Well, I know it was. I don't often say that but I didn't just glance at it. I looked at it for several minutes and it was clearly cerebellum. There's no question about it, and could look down into the skull. In fact, I made that point there.

DR. PETERS: Right.

DR. PETERS: I think that pretty much corresponds to what I said, occipitoparietal. It looks a little further down in the occiput in this picture, I think, but it was pretty far posteriorly because you had to be able to see the cerebellum --

DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah.

DR. PETERS: --and -

DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, I agree, Paul. I think that this is a little bit lower or it doesn't indicate that there was still a - you know, maybe a shelf of bone left below that --

DR. PETERS: Yeah.

DR. McCLELLAND: --but not much of one, and that did allow me to look down into the -- see the inside of the skull-- .

DR. PETERS: Right. I agree

DR. McCLELLAND: --just like -- you know just like it would be if you took a skull like you may have as you see here and there was nothing in it. I mean, not down in that part. There was nothing in it. There was no tentorium.

(DEFINITION of TENTORIUM:

tentorium

(anatomy) a fold of dura mater that covers the cerebellum and supports the occipital lobes of the cerebrum)

DR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's what I'm saying. This is a little bit farther back, but I was looking straight into it, not tangentially but right into it. I would also comment about one other thing. When we went to the National Archives ten years ago to look at these pictures, they were videotaping that for the Nova program, and we each one went in and looked separately at the photographs. And I can't remember the exact sequence, but when we came back out of the room where we'd been, each one of us made a comment about what we had seen and said, yes that seemed to agree with things and I said -- I volunteered that, well, one of the wounds had caused some comment in different things I had read and heard on, you know, television a time or two; and that they had noted in one of the pictures that there was hair covering all of this area where you see this large hole.

MR. GUNN : When you say -- I'm sorry. If I can interrupt for a second, when you say the large hole, you're referring to --

DR. McCLELLAND: This -

MR. GUNN: -- something like the picture --

DR. McCLELLAND: This one here -

MR. GUNN: -- on Exhibit 264.

DR. McCLELLAND: There was no hole on that picture that looked like that. And I said, Well, I think I know what that is. I think it may be because if you notice there are some fingers at the top of the photograph apparently pulling a flap of scalp forward, and I think the flap was being pulled over that opening when they took the pictures. Several years later I was told by one of the people who took some of the photographs that that was not the case; that that hand in the picture was not pulling any flap of scalp up over the skull.

MR. GUNN Do you remember who it was who told you that?

MCCLELLAND: It was one of the men who was taking the photographs. I met him here in Dallas when this fellow who's written these kind of, I think crazy books, David Livingston The High Treason and The High Treason II he had a--

MR. GUNN: It's Harry Livingston.

DR. McCLELLAND: Harry Livingston yeah. He had a -- David Livingston was the guy in Africa, yeah.

DR. PETERS: I presume.

MR. GUNN: Would that be Stringer or Riebe?

DR. McCLELLAND: It's one or the other, uh-huh, and he said that that was not what was being done. I had always assumed it was because knew what the -- that the hole was there.

DR. PETERS: Right.

DR. McCLELLAND: So it wasn't a -- well, maybe I'm wrong. I mean, not unless I've taken leave of my senses entirely. There was a hole there and so my explanation of what was happening is here's this hand up in the wound and they sort of pulled it up for some reason. I don't know why, but that was sort of an interesting sequence of events separated by several years.

MR. GUNN: Dr. Peters, you've been nodding your head.

DR. PETERS: Well, I would certainly agree with what Bob said. It was my thought exactly that they just kind of pulled that flap back into place and took a picture so they could show how it looked with things restored as much as possible and it just -- a flap just kind of -- had been torn back and now they were just kind of putting it back and snapping a picture. For what reason, I don't know. But I'm certain there was a hole there, too. I walked around right and looked in his head. You could look directly into the cranial vault and see cerebral injury to the cerebral cortex and I thought at the time to the cerebellum. So I know the hole was big enough to look into. I estimated it at seven centimeters at that time, and I don't know what the actual measurements were when they took the radiographs, but I thought just exactly what Bob, did. They were probably making a series of pictures and they had just pulled that flap back up there to cover it up and took a picture of that to show the head with the flap restored, so to speak, for whatever reason. I'm sure there were many other pictures that were made at the same time.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

DR. MARION "PEPPER" JENKINS Chairman Of Anaesthesiology

Later statements:

"...[T]here 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."

Ashton, would it be to much to ask for you to cite the dates and sources for the doctors statements that you posted? As late as 1998, Guinn was citing Dr. Jenkins as late as 1978. (see below)

Bill Miller

AARB/1998/Guinn: Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.

Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Early statements:

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the

right side

of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Later statements:

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...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. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out?

Since he goes on immediately to say "It was parietal bone," it seemed clear in context to me that he was saying that the bone that was there, the bone they saw, was parietal, but not occipital. Please interpret it any way you like.

Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all?

I've made a distinct and concerted effort to familiarize myself with the terminology at issue. I don't just throw it around to impress people and thereby confuse hell out of them, though. I always strive for greater clarity and understanding, not greater confusion.

And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission.

The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s.

I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you?

Ashton

Edited January 1, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission.

The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s.

I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you?

Ashton

Thanks for at least offering a decade for a reference in time, but you forgot to give the source ... would you mind telling us what that source is ... its not the National Enquirer - is it?

Please read below:

AARB/1998/Guinn: Going back to Dr. Carrico -- and again, this one is not present for you -- he said to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that there was a large wound in the right side of the head in the parieto-occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebral and cerebrum fragments in that wound. Let me -- let me read this again. He said both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. I stated that incorrectly. Later he said -- this -- still to the House Select Committee on Assassinations -- "The head wound was much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by seven centimeters, something like that, two-and-a-half by three. inches, ragged , had blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parieto-occipital region, and there was brain tissue showing through."

The only point I am trying to make is that you are not telling the whole story.

Bill Miller

Edited January 1, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

More discussion in 1998 to the AARB from McClellend and Dr. Peters ........

In talking about the wound to the throat in relation to how the Dallas doctors thought the exit wound to the occipital area of the skull occurred, Dr. Peters said the following ....

DR. PETERS: I think at the time, that day particularly I think is just as Dr. Perry described it. It could have been an entrance wound with a big exit wound at the back of the skull.

DR. PETERS: Well, I think the forces could be applied to the skull, and Walter [sic "Luis"] Alvarez, the physicist, did predict the actual behavior of the missile, you know, prior to them carrying out the experiments.

DR. McCLELLAND: Well, but what I'm saying Paul, that you can't say that an unattached skull as opposed to a skull that's attached to a heavy body, that it could propel the skull off a stool which weighs nothing but it couldn't propel that -- with that heavy body attached to it in that direction unless the bullet were fired from the front and it carried the head and the body backward, which I think is very likely what happened. But an unattached skull sitting on a stool, I mean, you can say that today --

DR. PETERS: Well, but the forces directing just the head could be applied to the head regardless of what it's attached to. I mean, it's going to --

DR. McCLELLAND: It couldn't carry the body --

DR. PETERS: -- undergo a certain motion --

DR. McCLELLAND: Couldn't carry the body backward.

DR. PETERS: No, probably not. At that point --

DR. McCLELLAND: That's what I'm saying.

DR. PETERS: -- the body would come into play, I think.

[Pat Speer]

Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out?

Since he goes on immediately to say "It was parietal bone," it seemed clear in context to me that he was saying that the bone that was there, the bone they saw, was parietal, but not occipital. Please interpret it any way you like.

Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all?

I've made a distinct and concerted effort to familiarize myself with the terminology at issue. I don't just throw it around to impress people and thereby confuse hell out of them, though. I always strive for greater clarity and understanding, not greater confusion.

And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission.

The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s.

I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you?

Ashton

Irony of ironies. I agree with Ashton. The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing. No one described anywhere near that amount of damage. Therefore, there undoubtedly was occipital bone present.

[Bill Miller]

Irony of ironies. I agree with Ashton. The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing. No one described anywhere near that amount of damage. Therefore, there undoubtedly was occipital bone present.

Pat, I have posted what Carrico stated to the Commisssion and again 15 years later to the HSCA. Ashton doesn't appear to want to give the source for the 1990's statement, so I will ask you for it. What is the source, Pat and please don't tell me it is Ashton.

Bill Miller