Who to Believe?

When I first started presenting my evidence for a new perspective on the President's wounds in 2004, I expected there to be a tremendous amount of resistance from single-assassin theorists, and a moderate amount of acceptance from conspiracy theorists. Boy, was I wrong. The single-assassin theorists I've encountered refuse to deal with the evidence beyond repeating what they've read in books by the Warren Commission, Lattimer, Posner, and Bugliosi, or the website of John McAdams. Anything outside of that they pretty much tell you you are lying, and ignore. No, the most resistance I've received has not been from those opposed to my conclusion more than one shooter fired on Kennedy on 11-22-63, but from those who agree with that conclusion.

You see, many conspiracy theorists are, in the words of Bono, "stuck in a moment and they can't get out of it." That moment, to be clear, is the one in which they first realized the majority of those observing Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital claimed to see an open wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Such a wound, of course, is not shown in the autopsy photos, nor reported in the autopsy report, which details a number of significant scalp lacerations, but none on the back of the head. My suspicion is then that the majority of those experiencing this moment,--an epiphany as Doug Horne calls it--have come to believe either that the autopsy photos showing no wound on the back of the head are fake, and the autopsy a lie, or that someone altered Kennedy's body between Dallas and the beginning of the official autopsy at Bethesda.

Many doing so claim the autopsy face sheet supports their conclusion, and note that Dr. Boswell's description of a 17 by 10 cm wound encompassing the majority of the right side of the President's head is far larger than the wound observed in Dallas, and suggests the wound as seen at Bethesda included the back of the head wound seen at Parkland. Those doing so, however, are engaged in self-deception. As stated, no large scalp lacerations in the occipital region of the skull were noted at autopsy. The testimony of the autopsy doctors, furthermore, is consistent in that all parties agree that chunks of bone fell to the table as Dr. Humes reflected Kennedy's scalp. The 17 by 10 measurement is therefore most obviously the measurement of the large head wound after the scalp was reflected, and sections of bone fell to the table. The inability of so many to grasp something so obvious is a bit bizarre, to say the least.

In any event, while still others believe the autopsy photos of the back of the head are not fake, but reflect instead the appearance of the body at the end of the autopsy and not the beginning, the fact is that all of these theories--which are collectively held by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists--are built around a core belief: the Parkland witnesses COULD NOT be mistaken. This belief is, in my opinion, a mistaken one. 

To best explain my lack of faith in the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses, we need to go back to the beginning...

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson:  “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”  As he said this, he pointed to his right temple. (As shown on the slide above...)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast.  And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this last statement clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…") 

Okay so that's two for two. Two witnesses, BOTH of whom saw the bullet impact by Kennedy's ear. But they only saw Kennedy for a second. Maybe they were mistaken. If they were correct, certainly someone seeing Kennedy at Parkland Hospital would have noticed the wound they describe by Kennedy's temple, and have mentioned it on 11-22-63. 

Someone did. At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

But wait, there's more... Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

This means that there were four witnesses to comment on the location of Kennedy's head wound prior to the approximately 3:15 press conference at Parkland Hospital, in which Dr. William Kemp Clark claimed the wound was on the "back of his head," and all of them had specified the wound to have been on the side of Kennedy's head, where it was later shown to be in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. Now ain't that a humdinger!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple. And second of all.... Well, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

 

By Way of Illustration

But first, a confession. I was once one of you... Yes, that's right. When I first began my personal investigation of the evidence, I suspected much of the medical and photographic evidence had been altered. But this passed with time. It just didn't make any sense to me that if the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and the x-rays were faked, that they would so clearly demonstrate that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. I mean, if the conspirators were slick enough to kill Kennedy and get away with it, wouldn’t they be slick enough to create autopsy photos that show a brain with damage consistent with an entrance by the EOP?  Wouldn’t the doctored x-rays show the trail of fragments where Dr. Humes said it was, corresponding with a line joining the entrance by the EOP and the right supra-orbital ridge? I mean, wouldn't they?...Then why didn't they?

This led me to take a much closer look at the back of the head photo, the one photo I felt positive had been faked. Not only did this photo not jive with the Parkland doctors' description of Kennedy's head wounds, it didn't appear to jive with the other photos. It was then that I realized this photo was taken after the establishing shots of Kennedy on the table, and after the wing of bone had been pulled from the scalp flap by his temple, and after the blood had been rinsed from his hair. I still suspected that the large defect in the photo was in a different location than the other photos, however. I tried to think of ways to compare the large head wound's location with its location in the other photos. I ended up looking at photos of tattoos on the top of the head when taken from different angles, to see if a wound above the ear would even be seen in a photo taken from the angle of the back of the head photo. In time, I concluded the large defect in the back of the head photo was in the same location as in the other photos.

I still had questions, though. Big ones. Why didn't this photo show the large head wound on the back of the head described by the Parkland witnesses?

Were ALL the photos faked to show the large head wound described by the doctors at a point higher up on the skull? And, if so, why did the very first witnesses to describe the wound place it where it is on the autopsy photos, in front of and above Kennedy's right ear? Were these witnesses lying?


The Invisible Hole

I think not. Not only did the earliest witnesses to describe the location of the large wound on Kennedy's head seem to believe it was on the side of his head, the vast majority of the witnesses seeing the bullet's impact would continue to claim it struck Kennedy on the side of his head, and fail to note any explosion whatsoever from the back of his head.

As we've seen, the Newmans and Zapruder, standing on Kennedy's right side, all thought the bullet struck Kennedy on the right side of his head, by his right temple. But they weren't the only witnesses on the right side of Kennedy to note an impact on the side of his head.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson, along with the other witnesses, saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to their being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either. 

In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...”  When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued:  “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... Sitzman, as Zapruder, was almost directly to the right of the President at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact. This put them in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And yet neither of them saw such an explosion. 

Even worse, at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact, the Newmans were approximately 6-8 feet behind the President, and about 20 feet to his right. Kennedy, at this time, was turned slightly left. This means the Newmans were looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact... And yet both of them noted that this impact was by his ear!

Still, that's just four witnesses in a strong position to note whether the bullet exploded from the side or back of Kennedy's skull, all of whom said side.  What about the closest witnesses in the motorcade behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs.Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." 

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports. 

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted  "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off.  We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple. 

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple."  Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both upon arrival at the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "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 lieing in the seat." Hill returns to this later.  When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC 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." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "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." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite, the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in fact, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

"But the men behind Kennedy were all government employees!", some might claim. "What about the witnesses in back of Kennedy on the south side of the street? Certainly, they saw an explosion from the back of his head..." No, no such luck. There were three witnesses behind Kennedy on his left who would have been in a position to see an explosion from the back of his head, should a shot from the grassy knoll truly have exploded from the back of his head, as so many believe. Mary Moorman, whose photo of Kennedy taken just after the shot's impact shows no evidence for such a wound, was interviewed numerous times on the day of the shooting, and would say only that she saw Kennedy grab his chest and slump down in the car. Her friend, Jean Hill, who can be seen wearing red in the Zapruder film, said much the same thing on the day of the shooting, although an FBI report from 4 months later, long after more spectacular reports were in the press, reflects that she now was claiming to have seen "the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up." Note that she still was not claiming to see an explosion from the back of his head. Nor did she claim as much when interviewed decades later by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. No, she told Marrs simply that "a bullet hit his head and took the top off." Not "back." "Top." In fact, Ms. Hill made no claims of seeing the explosion from the back of Kennedy's head so many conspiracy theorists assume she saw until her co-written book The Last Dissenting Witness appeared in 1992, and related "The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air." That this was "poetic license" inserted by her co-writer, Bill Sloan, should be readily apparent.

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head. A few days later, however, newspaper accounts of the shooting quoting Brehm claimed he saw "the President’s hair fly up." In 1966, when interviewed by Mark Lane, moreover, he filled in the details, and claimed "When the second bullet hit, there was—the hair seemed to go flying. It was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet…I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb…it seemed to have come left and back." While some might wish to take the flight of this one piece of skull as an indication the fatal shot came from the front, they really shouldn't rush to such a judgment. You see, not only did Brehm long claim he thought the shots came from behind, but he paused before he told Lane "the hair seemed to go flying." During this pause, in an obvious indication of where he recalled seeing a wound, he motioned not to the back of his head but to...his right ear. 

But no matter how you take Brehm's statements, what with Life Magazine’s printing frames from Zapruder's film, and these frames confirming the wound location described by the "right side and top of the head" witnesses, and the autopsy photos confirming once again this wound’s location, one should think that if there was anything solid about the Kennedy assassination medical evidence it was that there was a large wound on the top and right side of Kennedy's head near his temple.  

But, should one think as one should, ironically, one would be wrong. The initial statements and reports of the doctors attending Kennedy at Parkland reflected an almost universal belief the large head wound was in back of his ear. In 1967, Josiah Thompson published his book Six Seconds in Dallas, this featured a depiction of Parkland doctor Robert McClelland’s impression of Kennedy's large head wound. As shown on the "Who to Believe?" slide above, the wound in this drawing was on the right rear portion of Kennedy’s head. Such a wound is, of course, thoroughly incompatible with the wound depicted in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

In 1979, the HSCA Authenticity Report attempted to smooth this over by declaring: “In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts.”  But this declaration proved too little too late. Writer David Lifton had already begun work on Best Evidence, a book which theorized that the President’s body had been altered while en route to the autopsy. Still others, after the HSCA published sketches of the autopsy photos showing no large exit on the back of Kennedy’s head, developed theories that it was the autopsy photos themselves that had been changed.  In time, by the late 90’s, after a number of previously withheld HSCA interviews were ordered released by the ARRB, it was learned that many of the Bethesda witnesses had also remembered seeing a large wound on the back of Kennedy’s head, and that a still unnamed person had lied about this in the HSCA Authenticity Report. With that, all faith in the photographic evidence was shattered. People began suspecting that the Zapruder film, which had led many to suspect a conspiracy in the first place, was in fact a fabrication designed to convince people there was no large wound on the back of the head.

 

Alteration Analysis

But, in light of the fact that none of the closest witnesses saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, such speculation is rather silly, now isn't it?  If the Newmans, Burkley, Zapruder, Sitzman, et al were all lying about what they saw on November 22nd, they wouldn’t have described the wound near the temple as an entrance, now would have they? They saw one large wound and assumed it to be an entrance. Later, Dr. Humes found a small entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head and decided the large head wound was an exit.  It was logical, and almost correct.  What isn’t logical is to accept that the body was changed between Dallas and Bethesda, or that the statements of the Bethesda doctors prove the autopsy photos a fraud. To trust the words of so many at Parkland Hospital that the only large head wound was on the far back of Kennedy’s head, after all, would mean (if one is to be consistent and trust the earliest witnesses, e.g. Newman and Zapruder) that the wound was first altered en route to the hospital, only to be changed back a few hours later on Air Force One en route to Washington. 

Bunkum. Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together", an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's published notes, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” This would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy. 

But that's not all she had to say. For his 2007 book Brothers journalist David Talbot located and read the rest of White's notes and discovered that Mrs. Kennedy made several additional references to her husband's wounds. According to these notes, while describing the immediate aftermath of the shots, she said:  "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.'  I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..."  These notes further detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."  Thus, according to White, she said "top" and not "back" not once but twice... 

That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others correspond to the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as presented by the Parkland witnesses. 

We get letters...

Here are two responses to my mere suggestion that the Parkland witnesses could be wrong...and that the autopsy photos and x-rays of Kennedy are unaltered...

From a January 16, 2006 e-mail from David Lifton: 

Pat,
A professor friend of mine attended this past year's Lancer conference and was highly critical of your presentation.  He was incredulous that people would pay money to fly to Dallas and stay in a hotel—being there because they wanted information about the conspiracy that took JFK's life--and then be presented with a lecturer who tells them that the body had not been altered, when, in this case, the alteration of the body is the key to the case. I had never heard of you before, but followed a link he sent. Either in your presentation or at your website, you stated something to the effect that "I think too much is made of the Dallas doctors' observations."… From my brief reading of your material, your entire analysis is based on these wrong-headed and mistaken notions; e.g., the notion that the Dallas observations can be dismissed.  In addition, there are any number of other mis-statements that are made and follow from that false premise, or foundation. Of course, it’s a free country and anyone is free to assert whatever they wish about anything… My history professor friend was astounded that Lancer would present this sort of thing as a "serious" analysis of the medical evidence. I'm sure you won't be happy with these comments, but that's my opinion.

You say your background is in music.  Were you to attend law school, and take a course in evidence, you would immediately see that you cannot approach the medical data as you do--you might still not agree with my analysis, but I don't think you would ever publicly present this sort of reasoning as the basis for a medical analysis in this case. In fact, contrary to your assertions, the primacy and importance of the Dallas doctors observations cannot be overemphasized.

DSL

From an online discussion on The Education Forum:

QUOTE(James H. Fetzer @ Jan 17 2006, 04:19 AM)

I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now. You are suggesting that you have the competence and the expertise to interpret X-rays; in particular, that your competence and expertise is even greater than that of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.? I am astounded. Let me ask: How many trips into the National Archives have you made? How extensively have you tested the "original" X-rays using optical densitometry? Have you ever even studied David's chapters on the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And is your vast competence supposed to extend to issues of alteration of the Zapruder film as well? You must be some kind of mental giant! Why don't you explain to us how optical densitometry works and how David was able to ascertain empirically that the X-rays were altered? I would like to see a demonstration of your expertise. Believe it or not, I actually asked him to come to this forum and review claims that have been made about the X-rays. He has scanned many posts but has yet to find something that merits comment. So why don't you make a condensed case for your own views and I will share them with him, right after you show us the extent of your own competence to render these findings. Are you aware that David is Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Are you Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Frankly, I think all these issues are far beyond your competence, that you are completely out of your depth, but that some fantastic egoistic motivation drives you to pretend that you know things you don't and possess skills you never had. That is simply stupifying. And are you implying that you can understand the alteration issues with regard to the film WITHOUT studying Costella's work, which is visually displayed on my web site? You are truly an amazing guy! You appear to be ignorant of the most basic issues.

 

JFK and the Unthinkable

From reading the emails of Lifton and Fetzer, not to mention the 20 or so equally nasty emails or posts I've received in the years since for--gasp--daring to suspect that the observations of a few doctors who didn't even taken notes could be wrong, and that the autopsy photos could be accurate, one might assume I've violated some unwritten code among conspiracy theorists.

And indeed I have. By using common sense and proposing that one can't simply cherry-pick one group of witnesses and say they are right, while ignoring both the first witnesses (the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Zapruder film) and the best witnesses (the autopsy doctors, the autopsy report and photographs), I have shat upon the altar before which many conspiracy theorists genuflect. To conspiracy theorists of a particular stripe, this is every bit as sacrilegious as my suggestion Dale Myers' animation is a fraud is to single-assassin theorists. 

 

IMO, if you have photos of an event--let's say a fatal car accident--in which both the police photographs of the cars after the event, those witnessing the event, and the statements of the tow truck drivers removing the wreckage, record the event as having occurred at one intersection, and the paramedics and first police responders record it as having taken place half way down the block, you assume the location in the photographs to have been correct.


Now, IF the Parkland witnesses all claimed to get a good look at the wound, and all claimed to see a wound in the same location, and were all willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that the autopsy photoI might be tempted to change my mind 

Use Horne's witnesses, starting with Boswell

From Boswell's ARRB testimony:  scalp laceration was not on right rear.

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.  

And then later

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing.

NO laceration in right occipital! 

Still compare this to 9-16-77 HSCA interview:

When asked about the red spot, Boswell said

"It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp" When Petty doubts him "It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and this exposed almost the entire--I gfuess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to""


In HSCA FPP report, vol 7 p 115, as an explanation for HB and F thinking the wound was lower, it is noted, when discussing the red spot, that "Dr. Humes first suggested that it might represent an extension of a more anterior scalp laceration, incident to the exit wound, in spite of the fact that within the photograph the margins of the wound appear to be intact around the entire circumference."

Consider Doug Horne. On page 111 of his opus, Inside the ARRB, he quotes Dr. Boswell's response, after being asked by Jeremy Gunn if this 17 by 10 measurement reflected missing bone or fractures in the skull. Boswell responded: "Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small skull fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which--I think two of which we subsequently retrieved." Now look what Horne says but four pages later, when discussing Dr. Boswell's approximation of the borders of this defect on a skull model: "The 3-D skull drawing by Boswell was critical, because his autopsy sketch of the top of the skull had by its very nature not shown the condition of the rear of the head. Boswell's 3-D skull diagram completed the rest of the picture. And he wasn't depicting fragmentation or areas of broken bone, he was depicting areas of the skull denuded of bone. It was electrifying." 

 

Q: Just one last point that I would like to just clarify in my one mind is: On the piece for the markings for the 10 by 17 centimeters that were missing, would it be fair to say that when you first examined the body prior to any arrival of fragments from Dallas, the skull was missing from approximately those dimensions of 10 by 17?

Page 72

A. Yes. 

Problem: Horne knows full well that Boswell means fractured skull. NONEof his other back of the head witnesses described so much skull missing. So what does Horne do? FIND OUT

 

Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp?

A. Right across here and--

Q. Approximately across the midline?

A. What I previously described, post-

Page 91

occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye.

Q. Okay. Could you make another drawing--and we'll put Line No. 2 on this--to show the approximate direction of the large laceration that you just referred to?

A. Well, it's not a--I can't say what direction, but--and then this came on down like so, and--actually, I think it came right into here.

Q. Okay. I'm going to put a 2 in a circle right next to that line, and the 2 will signify the approximate direction and shape of the large laceration. Would that be fair?

A. Mm-hmm.

 

Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit?

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the

Page 98

scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs?

A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs.

Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or before X-rays?

A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were left intact.

Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was taken?

Page 99

A. Yes.

Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the--

A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back.

 

Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.
Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.
Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir. 

And O'Neill

Then go onto O'Connor


Then there was no alteration...

Then use the Groden photo

Gary, of the 14 people pointing towards the back of their head in the photos you present, how many of them changed their minds at some point later on after being shown the autopsy photos and x-rays?

If I recall, 3. I believe Carrico, Riebe, and Custer all came to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are accurate depictions of the President's wounds. NEED IMAGE Custer actually says "From the top of his head almost back near the base of the skull, that part was gone." He starts above the ear.

That leaves 11. Well, Rike never saw the wound, and was just judging by the feel of the wound through the sheets. And O'Neill was describing what he claimed was an exit wound from a small entrance wound lower on the head. That leaves 9.

Well, of these 9, Dulaney is clearly describing a wound on the crown of the head, inches away from the wound behind the right ear described by others, and Ward is pointing to a location above his ear. So that leaves 7 so-called "back of the head witnesses."

Of these 7, how many made a statement on the wound location within ten years of the assassination, and before coming into contact with the JFK research community?

Let's see...McClelland's initial report claimed Kennedy suffered a gunshot wound to the left temple, so he's not exactly credible.

And then there's Jones, who testified to a wound on the back of the head, but eventually came to claim he was on the left side of Kennedy and didn't get a good look at the wound.

And then there's Salyer, who testified before the Warren Commission and told them there was a wound in Kennedy's right temporal region. He also says "this is the parietal bone right here" as he points to his occipital

And then there's Peters, who has consistently tried to have it both ways by testifying and continuing to claim that the wound was in the occipital region, but then telling Nova the autopsy photos were "pretty much as I remember President Kennedy" and telling Posner that the "head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than to the rear." He also points to a spot in the middle of the back of the head, at the crown, in the Groden/KROn footage. Is The shot in Groden him lifting his hand to the back of his head BEFORE he points it out! NO!! NEED IMAGE Later in Groden he points out where he thought the wound was on the boh photo--and says it was on the RIGHT side of the head!  NEED IMAAGE

So that leaves what? Crenshaw, Bell, and O'Connor? Well, Crenshaw and Bell never described the wound location for decades after the assassination, and when they did so for the ARRB, they placed the wound almost entirely on the occipital bone, behind and below the top of Kennedy's ear. This is in opposition to the occipito-parietal wound described by Dr. Clark, the only doctor at Parkland to actually examine the wound.

Well, this leaves O'Connor...who created a drawing of the wound location for the HSCA in which it was in the upper right quadrant of the back of the head, and then moved it to beneath the top of the ear when filmed years later. In the Groden video footage--not the same as in the picture WHERE DID THIS PICTURE COME FROM?--he starts from the forehead NEED IMAGE and says the wound was an "open area all the way across into the rear of the brain right there" (at which point he is pointing to the occipital bone.

These witnesses were not consistent with each other or themselves. They are simply not reliable enough for anyone to claim, based upon their statements, that the autopsy doctors lied, and the Zapruder film and autopsy photos were faked. The recollections of eyewitnesses, even days after an event, are just too prone to suggestion by those with an opinion or an agenda for us to accept them without question.

 


Well, then why did so many of these witnesses incorrectly and uniformly recall the wound location?

One possible factor in so many of the Parkland witnesses thinking the wound was further back than it was has to do with the way people perceive the human face. While recollections of the exact location of the President’s head wound varied from being on the top of his head to being at the very back of his head, all the witnesses remembered clearly and correctly that the wound was not on his face.  It seems likely then that the main focus of everyone’s attention was in fact the President’s face. When one considers that most people perceive their ears as representing the far sides of their face, it’s possible to understand how a witness to a wound not on a face could remember it as being a wound behind the ear. And once someone remembers something incorrectly they will continue to remember it incorrectly, as their mind loses its original impressions and becomes instead a memory of what they most recently remembered. 

The research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus provides us with a model for this kind of argument.  On Table 3.1 of her book Eyewitness Testimony she presents a chart demonstrating memory accuracy in relation to saliency or importance.  This shows that when it came to salient details, (what was determined after the event to be most frequently discussed or noticed) the recollections of the eyewitnesses to the event used as a test were up to 98% accurate, while the recollections of the details that were less widely noticed were as low as 64% accurate.  Since no one at Parkland Hospital had a clue where the shots came from, or what the position of the limousine was on Elm Street when the shots were fired, there is no reason to believe the exact location of the President’s head wound would have been considered a salient detail.   What one might assume was a salient detail was whether or not the President’s handsome face had been damaged, since on that detail the witnesses were 100% accurate.  Admittedly, this is working backwards.  Perhaps someone can design a test to see if people used to looking at something in an upright position, such as the President’s face, will remember a defect on the top of that object while it is lying flat, as a defect on its back.  

Professor Barbara Tversky of Stanford University has conducted a number of tests similar to the one I’ve proposed.  In her articles and papers, available online, she describes studies that demonstrate:

1) People engage in selective rehearsal when they retell events, leaving out certain details to accomplish a maximum effect.  The re-telling of these events reinforces certain aspects of the event and downplays others.  Over time, the original memory is replaced by the memory that has been re-told. (This could help explain why so many witnesses’ stories have changed.)

2) When people talk about their emotional response to a traumatic event, they encode a better memory of their emotional response to the event, but make more mistakes in free recall.  (This could help explain why the stories of the most passionate witnesses have changed the most.)

3) When people are forced to take a position of advocacy on an event on which they initially had no bias, their memories become biased as a result.  (This might help explain the behavior of Earl Warren and Arlen Specter.)

4) People tend to describe environments as if they were viewing them from above. (Since Kennedy’s wound on the top of his head was on the far side of those standing at the foot of his bed, this might cause them to remember it as being on the back of his head, the far side when viewed from above.)

 5) Mental rotation of an image is one of the most difficult transformations made in the human mind. (Dr. Robert McClelland, who stood at the head of the table looking down on Kennedy and whose later statements and drawings have been used by conspiracy writers to support that the President’s large head wound was on the back of his skull, originally stated “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.”  There were others who remembered the head wound being low on the back of the head, where they couldn’t have even seen it.)

6) People make small corrections in their memory.  Nearly symmetric items are remembered as more symmetric than they really are. When people are shown two outlines of South America, for instance, one as it appears on a map and one as it would appear if its northern-most point was directly in line with its southern tip, people incorrectly pick the “corrected” version when asked to pick the actual shape of the continent. (Perhaps this explains why  a number of those who remembered the wound as being on the back of Kennedy’s head had clear memories of it being smack dab in the middle of the back of his head.)

Unfortunately, regular contact with researchers, who’ve tracked down eye witnesses years after the fact and asked questions about details that witnesses would normally not remember even the next day, has almost certainly added to the decay in eyewitness reliability.  When attempting to remember things so far in the past, witnesses are likely to inadvertently mix together their memories with suggestions offered by the researchers, and accidentally create false memories. While a question such as “Did you see any men behaving strangely?” might illicit a simple “no” for an answer, a question such as “You know there are a lot of us who believe there was a headshot from the area of the grassy knoll, and the Zapruder film reveals the shot came from the front…A number of others recall seeing a man in a hat. I was wondering if you saw anyone running in that direction…” might illicit “Y’know, I think maybe there was someone.  It seems I recall a man in a hat running over there. Yeah, I remember.”  

While not making a specific reference to the Kennedy assassination, a July 2009 segment on CBS' 60 Minutes dealt with this very issue. Iowa State University Professor Gary Wells, interviewed by Leslie Stahl, detailed a study in which people were shown a tape of a crime, and then asked to identify the perpetrator in a line-up. Despite the fact the perpetrator was not in the line-up, most selected the suspect bearing the closest resemblance to the perpetrator. Now, this would be bad enough, but Wells studied the effect of positive re-enforcement on this identification, and received some startling results. He found that when his subjects were lied to and told they'd made a correct identification, they were more than 6 times as likely to say they'd had a good look at the suspect. He also found a more than 350% increase in those claiming they were "certain" of their identification in those who'd been told they'd been correct. This, of course, not only suggests that the memories of many of the eyewitnesses "friendly" to conspiracy theorists have been tainted, but that the memories of many of the witnesses "friendly" to the position Oswald acted alone, who continue to be convinced of his sole guilt without ever studying the case, are equally tainted.

 

Perceptions of Perception

But how can this be, you might ask? Can the memories of doctors, seasoned professionals, while on the job, be as unreliable as that of an average Joe witnessing a crime?

Absolutely. The more I have read of cognition and memory, the more I have become convinced that the Parkland witnesses who remembered seeing one large wound on the back of Kennedy’s head were mistaken, and that they had mis-perceived or mis-remembered a wound that was in fact in front of Kennedy’s ear.  One’s perception of reality is highly subjective, a mixture of what one expects to see, what one wants to see, and what is actually there.  Magicians and illusionists have known this for centuries. TV producers are aware of this as well (see the chapter entitled Bullshit and Beyond). 

A discussion of cognition and memory follows…

The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal notes that “We all have a blind spot in our visual fields that our brains fill in.  In the area of the retina where the branches of the optic nerve collect to exit the eyeball all visual receptors are pushed aside.  Thus there is no registration of stimuli from the corresponding area in space.  Yet none of us notices the gap—the brain fills it in by extrapolating the scene on all sides of the blind spot.”  (This means that a certain percentage of what we actually see is invented in our minds based upon what we expect to see.  This has implications for memory as well.  FWIW, I also read about this in a Time/Life book on the senses.)

Additionally, Blackmore, in Dying to Live, notes that “under severe psychological stress, physiological trauma, or attentional manipulations such as meditation, sensory deprivation or hypnosis the brain’s representational apparatus may lose access to the sense data that are ordinarily its most predictive and useful inputs.  So deprived, it begins to search for the next best alternative, usually images stored in memory banks.” (This leads me to believe that watching the death of a much-loved or respected person might hinder a witness’ ability to accurately remember the fatal wounds.  More specifically, the sight of Kennedy lying dead on his back may have led some or all of the Parkland witnesses to remember images of him while he was alive, and standing up.  These images of an erect Kennedy may have led to their remembering the wounds on his body as though he were standing up. A wound behind his ear while he lay on his back--at the top of his head-- might thereby have been transposed to a wound behind his ear while standing--at the back of his head. Admittedly, this is reaching...)

Even so, a 1992 article in Memory and Cognition by Reinitz, Lammers, and Cochran confirms: “Miscombination of stored stimuli features can produce illusions of memory.”  They then break down that:  1) “research has supported the notion that memories are sometimes reconstructed at the time of retrieval;” 2) “research has clearly demonstrated that subjects mistake their inferences for material that they had actually experienced;” 3) “Underwood (1969) proposed that memory for an event consisted in a collection of quasi-independent attributes such as spatial relations between stimulus items, stimulus frequency, etc;”  4) “findings demonstrate that in many situations, subjects can retrieve some stimulus features in the absence of others.” They then summarize their findings by stating “previously encountered stimuli that cannot be consciously remembered can unconsciously affect judgments by producing a feeling of familiarity…in the current experiments, the subjects were unable to explicitly remember all of the stimuli they had seen during study. Instead, the subjects based their recognition responses partly on the degree to which the stimuli seemed familiar. Since conjunction stimuli contained more old features than did feature stimuli, they produced greater overall familiarity and so were judged as old (familiar) more often.” (From this it seems likely that, in opposition to the beliefs of most researchers, the Parkland doctors would be more likely to remember the locations of Kennedy’s wounds incorrectly than would laymen. They knew what the President looked like.  They knew what a gunshot wound on the back of the head looked like. Thus, a mental image of the president with a wound in this location would feel more familiar to them than to non-medical personnel.)

Still, researching how doctors might remember a wound incorrectly is probably beside the point.  Since most of the doctors at Parkland reported Kennedy’s head wound incorrectly from their earliest reports, we need to explore whether so many could logically perceive something incorrectly in the same manner (or nearly the same manner—the exact location of the rear head wound as depicted by the Parkland witnesses in Robert Groden’s book the Killing of the President varies slightly from photo to photo).  A 1979 article in Cognitive Psychology by Nickerson and Adams demonstrates that often people will recall items they look at every day incorrectly and in a fairly uniform manner. They found that of the eight features (front and back) of four U.S. coins--pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters--the average American could accurately recollect only three of them. A 1983 article in Memory and Cognition by Rubin and Kontis followed up on this and found that when asked to draw the front sides of these four coins from memory, the drawings most frequently created by the participants in their study depicted the President’s left profile (the penny, in fact, depicts Lincoln’s right profile), centered (the dime, in fact, displays Roosevelt’s head to the right of center), with the words IN GOD WE TRUST across the top (the penny, in fact, is the only coin with those words across the top), the value of the coin, i.e. one cent, five cents, etc., across the bottom (none of them, in fact, have the denomination on the front side of the coin) and the year written horizontally on the right (the quarter displays the year on the bottom and the nickel has it vertically on the right).  None of the coins as most commonly recalled had the word LIBERTY on the front of the coin, when, in fact, it is on the front of every single one of them. When Rubin and Kontis asked their subjects to suggest a design for a new coin, moreover, they found that the most common design suggested was identical to the most common representation of the other coins—a left profile with IN GOD WE TRUST across the top, the year on the right and the denomination on the bottom. (This suggests that people’s visual memories are not like cameras and that the specific features of an image can be altered in one’s memory to fit a pre-conception of the image. More importantly, it suggests that these pre-conceptions are not random and that there is something about the way we process information that distorts the substance of the information we process.)  

This last point is re-enforced by the following exercise.

Count every ' F ' in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE 
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI 
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH 
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS... 

Now, how many were there?

3? 4? 

Wrong. For some reason, when people are asked to look for "F"s they almost always overlook the "F"s in words where the "F" makes the sound of a "V", such as the "F" in "of".  There are three "of"s in the above text. The correct answer is therefore six. That we can be blind to letters right in front of our face simply because the words containing these letters use these letters in unorthodox ways undoubtedly supports that we can be confused by the appearance of an object, and think something on the top of someone's head, was on the back of his head. I mean, I looked at the above text three times before I spotted the three "of"s.  And I was looking for the "F"s. 

Should one doubt that eyewitnesses could uniformly misinterpret something as basic as the location of a head wound, however, one should look at the illusion below created by Edward Adelson. Square A is darker than square B, right?  I mean, we can all tell dark from light, right?

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong again. When one follows a line the shade of square A down to square B, one can see that square A and  square B are indeed the same shade, and that our brain has adjusted for the shadow coming from the cylinder by perceiving square B at a shade lighter than its actual shade.  

 

 

So, could the "shadows on a checkerboard", so to speak, lead the Parkland witnesses to improperly recall the location  of Kennedy's head wound?

Or is there something intrinsically different about improperly perceiving shades of gray and improperly perceiving the appearance of another human being?



A Matter of Perspective

The Einstein-Monroe illusion, in which an image of Albert Einstein becomes an image of Marilyn Monroe as it grows smaller to the eye, demonstrates that the fine details of an image that can not even be seen from distance can drastically change one's perception of the image when viewed from up close. This should make us wonder if there were some minor details visible in the autopsy photos--which show the large head wound to be on the front half of Kennedy's skull--which escaped the attention of the eyewitnesses claiming the wound was on the back of the head.

In the Einstein-Monroe illusion the addition of crinkly hair, crinkly eyebrows, and a mustache, which can only be seen when viewing the image up close, changes the image from one of Monroe to one of Einstein.  Was there a detail missing from the Parkland witnesses' recollections that led them to improperly recall  the location of the large head wound?


Rotation and Perception

I suspect there was. When I began researching facial recognition I was surprised to find that there has been a substantial amount of research on the difficulty of properly interpreting faces when seen upside down. The results of this research support the conclusion that the Parkland doctors’ seeing Kennedy solely while he was lying on his back--and thus in a rotated position-- played a factor in their subsequent confusion about the exact location of his wounds. 

In an article in the Journal of Vision entitled “Are Faces Processed like Words?” Marialuisa Martelli, Najib J. Majaj, and Denis G Polli decided yes, they are. They also noted that just as we have trouble reading words upside down we have great trouble reading faces upside down. This is significant as Kennedy’s head wound could not have been viewed while looking at his face from the front. As he was lying on a stretcher, a wound on either the top or the back of his head could only have been viewed with his face in profile or upside down. A 1986 article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology by Diamond and Carey indicates that expertise has little bearing on this issue. Their studies showed that dog experts had as much trouble identifying upside down photos of individual dogs as non-experts. A 1987 article by Young, Hellawell and Hay in Perception is also helpful. They found that when they made photographic composites of famous faces their subjects had more trouble recognizing the faces when looking at them right side up than when looking at them upside down. They concluded that when faces are viewed right side up people interpret them as a whole, but when turned upside down they recognize them based upon their isolated features.  This research was supported by a 1993 study reported in Cognitive Psychology by Bartlett and Searcy.  Their research indicated that altered faces with inverted eyes and mouths were perceived as being far less grotesque when viewed upside down than when viewed right side up.

A 1998 article in Perception by Dominique Valentin, Heve Abdi, and Betty Edelman further tracked the accuracy of facial recognition against rotation. They found that people were more than twice as likely to identify a face incorrectly when it was rotated 90 degrees. They also found that people use two strategies in facial recognition. When rotated less than 30 degrees, faces are identified by their configuration, i.e. how the eyes, nose, mouth, and ears all fit together. (Thus, they process the features collectively, or “wholistically”.)  Faces rotated more than 30 degrees, however, are identified by their peculiarity, i.e. their distinctive marks.”  (Thus, they process the features separately.)  Those seeing Kennedy in the crowded emergency room, therefore, would most logically have recorded the images of his head wound without a specific reference point.  Upon recall, however, they might very well have remembered that the wound was surrounded by hair and in back of the ear. The wound described by the doctors and the wound seen on the photos are both in the hair and behind the right ear, when viewed from different angles. If a doctor remembered the location incorrectly, and discussed its location with his colleagues afterward, he might very well have influenced their memories as well.

The effect rotation or inversion of an image has on our ability to measure spatial differences has also been studied. A 2000 article in Perception by Freire, Lee, and Symons noted that “accuracy in detecting spatial differences among faces fell from 81% with upright presentation to 55% with inverted presentation.  By contrast, accuracy in detecting featural differences was unaffected by inversion (91 vs. 90).”  Here once again, we see that people are more than twice as likely to make mistakes when reading a face that’s been rotated away from the upright position. A 1990 study reported in Perception by Kemp, McManus, and Piggott had achieved similar results. It concluded that “subjects are significantly less sensitive to the displacement of features in negative or inverted faces than they are in normal faces…”   Their study also measured recognition errors related to the horizontal movement of features against recognition errors related to the vertical movement of features. They concluded that when photographs are altered via the movement of the eyes further apart, closer together, further up, or further down, people will fail to notice the vertical movement almost three times as often as they will fail to notice the equivalent horizontal movement.  

If one is to take these last two studies in tandem, therefore, and assume that half the spatial differences reported in the 2000 study were vertical differences, then one might venture that a person is more than 3 ½ times more likely to make a mistake involving the vertical location of a wound on a man’s head when he is lying down than when upright. Is it just a coincidence then that this is the mistake suggested?  Is it so illogical to assume that such a mistake occurred?  Further support comes from Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes, edited by Mary Peterson and Gillian Rhodes. This article summarizes much of the recent research on face recognition and reinforces that we identify faces based upon the relative positions of its features, that we do this best when the face is upright, and that when we identify faces piecemeal, such as when it’s been rotated more than 30 degrees, we make mistakes.  

In 2009, while browsing through a 1964 book entitled Perception, edited by Julian E. Hochberg, I realized why none of this research regarding facial recognition should come as a surprise. From our youngest days, we learn to recognize people even when they are at a distance... Even when they are at an angle... Even when they are upside down... We don't look at a far off man and say "Wow! Look how small he is!"  We don't look at an upside down face and say "Holy moly, that man has his mouth where his eyes should be!" No, we look at the upside down face, compare it to what in our mind's eye we THINK his face would look like if turned upright, and compare it to faces known to us. We then recognize the face as dad looking down at us in our crib. 

We continue to do this in adulthood. As a result, when we look at faces at angles other than the upright position in which we normally identify them, we don't actually SEE them as they are. We INTERPRET them in our mind's eye, and compare them to faces we've seen before...in the upright position. It only makes sense then that those looking at Kennedy while he lay on his back would be looking at his face, and identifying his face based upon 1) their interpretation of what his face would look like when upright, and 2) their recollection of what Kennedy looked like when upright. They were not studying his face or his head wounds as they were in three dimensional space. It should not be surprising, then, that some confusion would result...

Should one still doubt that our perceptions are so erratic that people might remember a wound behind the ear while lying flat (a wound on top of the head) as a wound behind the ear while standing (a wound on the back of the head) one should contemplate a happy face. Literally.  We perceive happy faces and caricatures as representing human faces, but they do not resemble us at all.  Our nose is not in the middle between the tops of our heads and our chins, our eyes are. Our foreheads are the same size as our mouth, nose, and chin combined, and yet we scarcely even notice them, let alone represent them accurately on stick figures or gingerbread men... Our acceptance that happy faces resemble faces suggests that we pay little attention to the relative positions of our ears and forehead to our face, and that any wound remembered in relation to our ears and forehead is a wound likely to be remembered incorrectly.

But do the Dallas doctors’ earliest statements support this conjecture?  Is there anything in their words to suggest they inspected the back of the head, or located the wound in comparison to the hairline or neck?

 

The Parkland Doctors’ First Written Statements

Appendix VIII - Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas

Commission Exhibit No. 392

The President arrived in the Emergency Room at exactly 12:43 p. m. in his limousine. He was in the back seat, Gov. Connally was in the front seat of the same car, Gov. Connally was brought out first and was put in room two. The President was brought out next and put in room one. Dr. Clark pronounced the President dead at 1 p. m. exactly. All of the President's belongings except his watch were given to the Secret Service. His watch was given to Mr. O. P. Wright. He left the Emergency Room, the President, at about 2 p.m. in an O'Neal ambulance. He was put in a bronze colored plastic casket after being wrapped in a blanket and was taken out of the hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The Gov. was taken from the Emergency Room to the Operating Room.

The President's wife refused to take off her bloody gloves, clothes. She did take a towel and wipe her face. She took her wedding ring off and placed it on one of the President's fingers.

Summary

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.

Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart.

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark.

Kemp Clark, M. D.
Director
Service of Neurological Surgery
KC:aa

cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School
cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital 

(Note: this summary was written by Dr. Clark. Here he describes the head wound as right occipito-parietal, which would place it just behind the right ear. As no notes were taken in the ER, however, it seems clear Dr. Clark was relying solely on his memory of a wound seen hours before. As a result, it is not unreasonable to suspect he made a rotation error.) 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 

DOCTOR: Carrico

When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone.

In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS a tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained.

Charles J. Carrico  M.D  

(Note:  Dr. Carrico was the first doctor on the scene. Here he fails to specify the exact location of the head  wound.  Perhaps he, in fact, had no clear recollection of its location. In any event, he would later make statements suggesting the wound was in the occipital bone. After viewing the autopsy photos in the Archives, however, he would disavow these statements, and insist instead that Kennedy’s wounds were as shown in the photos.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY

Staff Note

At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.
1630 hr 22 Nov 1963

(Note: Perry simply describes the large head wound as posterior.  When Kennedy was lying flat on his back, of course, the wound on the top of his head was ...posterior.  Perry has since stated that the autopsy photos accurately depict the wounds.) 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER

Note of Attendance to President Kennedy

I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with extensive lacerations and contusions. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.

Charles R. Baxter M.D.
Associate Prof of Surgery
Southwestern Medical School

 

(Note:  Baxter’s statement is a bit strange. 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 would  eventually try to clear this up. When he testified before the Warren Commission, at a time long before anyone was talking about the difference in wound descriptions of those viewing Kennedy in Parkland and Bethesda, he testified  that "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. Baxter also later told the ARRB "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.”)

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963

12:20pm to 13:00 hrs

Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.

A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well .

The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time.

He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels.

Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound.

There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination. The previously described lacerated brain was present.

By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me.

W. Kemp Clark  

22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs -

(Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, his colleagues have noted that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken.  His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that the Dallas doctors did not see the large head wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the bones back in place, and that they instead saw the posterior aspect of this wound behind the ear, which was not recorded in the autopsy photos due to the autopsists' closing of the bone flaps on back of the head. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole beneath some bone flaps. This means that either the large head wound was on the top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or it was on the back of the head as described by Clark and the Zapruder film and autopsy photos have been faked.  I choose the first alternative.) 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of  Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.
Asst. Prof. of Surgery
Southwestern Med.
School of Univ of Tex.
Dallas, Texas

(Note: in this, his earliest statement on the assassination, Dr. McClelland reveals that he was easily confused and prone to speculation.  First of all, he gets himself all turned around and mistakenly says there was a wound in the left temple. He says nothing of  a wound on the back of the head or behind the ear. Second of all, he states, without offering any supporting evidence, that the throat wound was a fragment wound.  

On March 21, 1964, Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission. He said: “As I took the position at the head of the table that l have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered ... the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.” 

Since Kennedy was by all reports lying on his back, it is impossible to understand how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy’s head. It seems likely then that McClelland, as Clark, was confused by the rotation of Kennedy’s skull. Incidentally, McClelland, while insisting that the wound he saw was posterior, nevertheless defends the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He explains that the back of the head photo depicts sagging scalp pulled over a large occipito-parietal wound. This assertion is utterly fantastic and is unsupported by every book on wound ballistics ever written. Scalp overlying explosive wounds does not sag, it tears. No such tears were noted on the back of Kennedy's head at autopsy.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR  Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR

Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the  U.S.A., President Kennedy At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M.

F. Bashour M.D.
Associate Professor of Cardiology
Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas.

(Note:  there is not much to say about Dr. Bashour’s statement, but the next statement, holds the key.)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, DALLAS
November 22, 1963  1630

To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury . There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage .

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300.

Sincerely, M. T. Jenkins, M.D .

 

The Trendelenburg Position

At first glance, Dr. Jenkins’ statement is not particularly eye-opening.  As with Baxter, he describes the wound as “temporal and occipital.”  As with Clark he makes sure we know there is missing bone, describing “a great defect in the skull plate” incompatible with the “sprung-bone theory” so popular with so many conspiracy theorists.  As with Carrico, Jenkins would later acknowledge his estimation of the wounds was incorrect, and decide he did not see cerebellum. In 1992, he told writer Gerald Posner that "The description of the cerebellum was my fault…When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Oh yes, you did.)

Almost hidden in Jenkins’ November 22, 1963 statement, however, is something which convinces me that my theory about the Parkland witnesses is not just reasonable, but absolutely correct.  When discussing Kennedy’s early treatment, he reports: “During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position.  I looked up the term "Trendelenburg Position", and found this description:  “In the Trendelenburg position the body is laid flat on the back with the head lower than the pelvis in contrast to the reverse Trendelenburg position. This is a standard position used in surgery in gynecology. It allows better access to the pelvic organs as intestines move cranially by gravity. It was named for the German surgeon Friedrich Trendelenburg.”  Elsewhere, I found an even better description: “Tren·de·len·burg position n. A supine position with the patient inclined at an angle of 45 degrees; so that the pelvis is higher than the head, used during and after operations in the pelvis or for shock.”

Well, this surprised me, as no one else had mentioned that Kennedy was not only flat on his back, but topsy-turvy. Perhaps they’d simply forgotten. If so, it may not have occurred to them that a wound on the top of the head slightly in front of the ear would appear posterior to the ear if the patient was in the Trendelenburg position. This problem with orientation, moreover, would help explain how Dr. Robert McClelland could testify he “could actually look down into the skull cavity itself” whilst simultaneously embracing the contradictory attitudes that the wound was on the back of Kennedy’s head and that Kennedy was lying on his back. It seems more than a coincidence, after all, that if the wound was on top of Kennedy’s skull, as presumed, while Kennedy was in the Trendelenburg Position, as asserted, the wound would have been observed as claimed.   

Should one still be skeptical that the confusion over the location of Kennedy’s head wound came from the rotation of his body when observed by the doctors, one should feel free to go back to the Lincoln/Kennedy comparison slide here , and take a closer look at the locations of the red stars over President Lincoln. 

(In September 2008, I put this slide up on an online forum, and asked if anyone noticed anything. After a few days passed, and no one responded, I offered the hint that there was something odd about the red stars I'd placed on the images of President Lincoln. Finally, after more than 500 views, a member offered that the red stars were not in the same location on the images of Lincoln, and that one was above Lincoln's ear, and the other was on the back of his head. That it took so long for someone to state something so obvious, once one compares the red stars to the top of the ear, supports my suspicion that the majority of those viewing this slide did not perceive the red stars in relation to the top of the ear, but to the middle of the ear. This, in turn, supports my suspicion that the Parkland witnesses were similarly confused.)

"Well, hold on right there," you must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important to recall that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple. As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the temporal region, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. While Dr. Giesecke thought the wound was on the left side of the head, he nevertheless testified before the Warren Commission that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the browline to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others.

And then there's the Johnny-come-lately, Dr. Grossman... While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in the 1990's with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear. 

Should one still refuse to believe that the rotation of Kennedy on the hospital stretcher led to the apparent confusion about his head wound location, one should know that, no matter the explanation, such confusions occur. In the early 1990's, now Associate Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana created a video of six people passing basketballs back and forth, while moving around in a circle. Simons played this video to unsuspecting subjects, asking them how many passes were made, or whether the women in the video made more passes than the men. No matter. The passing was just a distraction. During the middle of the short video-taped passing demonstration, a man in a gorilla suit walked into frame and stood in the middle of the basketball players. What Simons really wanted to know was if anyone counting the number of passes would notice this man in the gorilla suit. He got his answer, which continues to confound people to this day. He found that, upon first viewing, only about 50% of those looking straight at--no, actually studying--a video of a man in a gorilla suit, had any recollection of seeing him, when their attention was drawn to unrelated details. One can view this video, here.

The application of Simons' experiment to the Kennedy case should be obvious. From the failure of so many to note the gorilla in the room one can easily extrapolate that the team trying to save Kennedy's life was so focused on trying to save his life that the exact location of his head wound was only a fuzzy afterthought.

And should this explanation not suffice, and should one still refuse to believe that the excitement of a trauma room can lead to mistakes in bullet wound identification (and/or that trauma room physicians are not properly trained to judge the direction of bullet wounds) one should know that Wake Forest University indirectly studied this from 1987-1992, by comparing the reports of trauma specialists with the corresponding reports of forensic pathologists. This study, as described in an April 28, 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, with multiple gunshot wound victims, trauma specialists mistakenly identified the number of shots or the direction of fire 74% of the time, and that, even with single shot victims with through and through wounds, they were mistaken 37% of the time.  Doctors make mistakes. Lots of 'em.