Never before interviewed witness
Robert Riley
I would like to also notify someone in the research community of a Dallas
Doctor who has never, to my knowledge, been interviewed by a researcher to
get his eyewitness account.
I was in dallas about 10 years ago and after much time spent at Dealey
Plaza, went with 2 other friends to a flea market that was set up a few
blocks away.
I stopped at one booth that had a number of history books and decided to
replace my hardback copy of the abridged, consolidated version of the
Warren Commission Report with a copy this gentleman had. In making small
talk after purchasing the book, I come to find out that he was a young
attending physician in 1963 at Parkland and was one of the first
responders in JFK's trauma room, but was pushed aside when the heavy
hiiters, the more experienced doctors came on the scene.
His name is William Zedlitz. and I believe he is at Baylor Medical now.
He sells books at flea markets as a hobby- at least he did 10 years ago.
One researcher told me he did find reference in the 26 volumes to a
William Zedelitz.
My belief is that because his last name Zedlitz was misspelled in the
Commission Report, no one ever tracked him down.
I will never forget him describing in detail the head wound in the back of
the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
Doctors testify to, and when I asked him why those wounds don't match up
to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me that he
had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
22 til then.
So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience for me.
He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
last name Zedlitz.
Would love some feedback if you have time.
Thanks!
Robert Riley
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
yeuhd
The name of Dr. William Zedelitz [sic] comes up in the WC testimony of
Parkland surgeon Dr. Martin G. White:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=13893
William H. Zedlitz, M.D., is still licensed to practice in Texas:
Dr. Zedlitz wrote in 1998 that JFK had a "massive head injury to the
right occipitoparietal area (right posterior lateral) of the cranium":
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/dparchiv1.htm
Which is also where the WC and the HSCA said the exit wound was:
Bethesda autopsy report: "There is a large irregular defect of the
scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but
extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm
To which the HSCA panel of pathologists concurred after examining the
photographs and X-rays:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0064a.htm
Dr. Zedlitz described the same wound to Walt Brown.
Did this "Dr. Zedlitz" you met offer any identification? A business
card? I have trouble picturing a surgeon spending his time peddling
used books at a stall.
TheTruth
Thanks for the info. We already know from Dr Crenshaws testimony that
the throat wound is an entrance wound in addition to the details of
the head wound.
Have you read Dr. Crenshaws book? It probably corroborates what Mr
Zedlitz told you!
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Silence-Signet-Charles-Crenshaw/dp/0451403460
Barb Junkkarinen
Thanks for posting this, Robert ... you never know when someone will
have new info that may be important. Vince Palamara found and
interviewed Dr. Zedlitz in 1998, and I believe that info is included
in one of his books, probably the medical evidence reference book ...
I don't recall when that came out, but it's been a few, if not
several, years.
There is also info on the net that Zedlitz was at the 2004 Lancer
conference.
If you google: "William Zedlitz" + JFK + Parkland
Several items come up.
Bests,
Barb :-)
bigdog
Sounds like a guy who feels he got cheated out of his 15 minutes of
fame.
The Dutchman
Didn't the doctor answer your question about why he thought the wounds
didn't match up with the autopsy photos? You're leaving me hanging, no
offense. What else did Dr. Zedlitz say?
parousia
Thanks for posting this for me- I now am up and going on my own.'I
told this same story to Vince Palamara shortly after my trip to Dallas
and he was the one who told me that there was a Zedelitz in the Warren
Report. I just found an article Mr. Palamara wrote in the JFK/DPQ
archives. He apparently wrote this after I told him the story of
finding him, so I guess Mr. Zedlitz has been interviewed by someone
other than little old me.
See Palamara's story at JFK: Deep Politics Quarterly under the
archives entitled "PARKLAND EMERGENCY-ROOM DOCTOR FOUND:
WILLIAM H. ZEDLITZ, MD "
My enduring memory of my 15 minute conversation with Mr. Zedlitz will
always be the genuine tears he shed. They came from seemingly nowhere
and my lasting impression was that those tears had been pent up for
years and they came after I asked why his recollections and those of
the other Parkland doctors seemed to be at odds with the Governments
OFFICIAL explanation and with the photographs that for years had serve
as pablum to the public.
I am pretty sure he felt ashamed for his government.
For those of us who never write articles or books but love the story
and continue to ask the questions, experiences like these are very
exciting and leave a huge impression on you.
Look forward to talking with more of you on this site.
Robert Riley
claviger
How could he see a wound in the back of the head when the President
was placed face up on the hospital gurney?
The answer is he couldn't. The only wound visible was the gaping wound
on top of the head.
tomnln
ZEDELITZ, DR. WILLIAM, Parkland Hospital, VI, 83
Mentioned by Dr. White during his testimony.
"Robert Riley" <rri...@solutionsco.net> wrote in message
news:CF6EDFFAD77D46DD8FACA277AB64E85F@RobertLap...
John Canal
>the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
>Doctors testify to, and when I asked him why those wounds don't match up
>to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me that he
>had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
>22 til then.
>
>So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience for me.
>He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
>last name Zedlitz.
>
>Would love some feedback if you have time.
>Thanks!
>Robert Riley
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Robert,
There is no conflict between the wound Dr. Zedlitz said he saw and the
so-called "official autopsy photo of the back of the head....none
whatsoever. That's because the photo you're referring to wasn'r taken when
the body was first received--had it been then, yes, there would have been
a conflict.
If there such a conflict then there would be a conflict between potos
taken of a car badly damaged in an accident--when the car was brought into
the body shop--and photos of the same car after body-shop workers had
performed at least some of their work.
Now, the photo you're talking about was taken much later in the
procedure...that's why the scalp is being held up (it was previously
reflected as a first step to remove the brain). As confirmation that the
brain had been removed by the time that photo was taken, in Finck's letter
to Bloomberg he clearly stated that he had helped the photographer take
pictures of the internal and external aspects of the entry wound.....the
photo you [and so many others] said conflicts with what Zedlitz described
is the only photo of the external aspect of the wound, hence Finck helped
Stringer take that photo....and Finck arrived AFTER the brain was removed.
If you get time read the article linkd below that Dr. McAdams was
open-minded enough to include on his website. It explains a lot, IMO.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that all those Dr's with years and years of
anatomy training would get the top and back of JFK's head confused? If
you do, well I won't say anything because it won't get past the
moderators.
pjsp...@aol.com
autopsy was over and restoration begun, with the scalp manipulated, is
actually completely consistent with the other autopsy photos taken at
the beginning of the autopsy, with the exceptions that the hair has
been washed and the "wing" of bone by the right ear has been removed.
Which is as expected. In autopsy photography, the first photos taken
are establishing shots. Then the body is cleaned up a little and
photos are taken to illustrate specific injuries. This photo was taken
to illustrate the bullet entrance by the EOP.
An attempt to show this photo is consistent...
http://www.patspeer.com/bywayofillust.jpg
Demonstrations of the EOP entry on the scalp:
http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/aboveor.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/eyeof.jpg
parousia
I appreciate what you are saying. And I don't hink reading other
researcher's material for 30 years makes me any sort of expert. But
can't we all agree that something is off with the Xrays and photos?
Maybe I am way over simplifying this, but are all the nurses and
doctors wrong about that back of the head -the occipital protuberance
area, cerebellar tissue oozing out the back? I mean all of them? So
are we saying that the picture of the posterior of the head from which
Ida Dox made the drawing shows the scalp being pulled tight and
covering up a large wound in back? Or are you saying that there was in
fact no such wound?
parousia
>
> - Show quoted text -
My guess, and it is only that (I wasn't there) is that Doctors
probably check and maybe even touch a body even when it is laying face
up. Probably wouldn't have been too hard to determine where the
leaking cerebellar tissue was coming from. With that said, I would
like to hear Mr. Zedlitz explain that scenario.
The Dutchman
> If you get time read the article linkd below that Dr. McAdams was
> open-minded enough to include on his website. It explains a lot, IMO.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
>
> --
> John Canal
> jca...@webtv.net
By Jove, I think you've got it.
parousia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep. Read Dr. Crenshaw. I still have a huge problem wrapping my head
around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong. Do you think that they
would have examined the head area, moving the body, to be able to say that
yes, the area right by the OEP was "blasted out"? If they are right, then
aren't we talking entry from the front, not saying their couldn't have
been 2 head shots- one entering from rear also? Didn't Audrey Bell say she
felt the open wound in the back by the OEP when she wrapped the head in
sheets?
It doesn't seem that complicated....
parousia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny! Well, this obviously came out of nowhere- I'm thinking what are the
odds? My first trip to Dallas, I am totally psyched about seeing all the
sites- but I never pass up flea markets- love to scrounge for old
stuff--Just wanted a decent reference copy of the Warren report volume,
and the guy who sells me this was there? So, I'm not an interviewer, no
notebook, just shooting the breeze- but the MOMENT I made the statement
and asked the question about it not matching up, he just starts
sobbing---so there I am feeling bad for this older guy, thinking maybe I
offended him by insinuating he was lying or something. But his hand was
placed on the REAR portion of his head, and he said he din't know why the
discrepancy. I think at that point I just began talking about the fact
that I wished all the surviving key medical witnesses could be put in one
room and have some moderators ask the key questions.
I wish I could go back and ask some more probing questions like a real
researcher would have. sigh...
parousia
>
> William H. Zedlitz, M.D., is still licensed to practice in Texas:
>
>
> Dr. Zedlitz wrote in 1998 that JFK had a "massive head injury to the
> right occipitoparietal area (right posterior lateral) of the cranium":
>
> http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/dparchiv1.htm
>
> Which is also where the WC and the HSCA said the exit wound was:
>
> Bethesda autopsy report: "There is a large irregular defect of the
> scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but
> extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm
>
> To which the HSCA panel of pathologists concurred after examining the
>
> Dr. Zedlitz described the same wound to Walt Brown.
>
> Did this "Dr. Zedlitz" you met offer any identification? A business
> card? I have trouble picturing a surgeon spending his time peddling
>
> - Show quoted text -
The part about offering identification--no. I am going to see if I can
find a picture of this guy online-but, you know, it wasn"t like I was
there looking for an eyewitness from Parkland. And I'm from Iowa- I
usually believe people when they tell me their name. Actually I know a few
professionals who love to sell junk at flea markets, etc. as kind of a
hobby. One prominent brain surgeon here in my city loads up boxes of comic
books and goes to shows in malls. I think it makes them feel "normal"
maybe? I don't know. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was a hell of an acting
job with the tears when I asked him about the wounds...
truth stranger than fiction.?
yeuhd
> had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
> 22 til then.
Another reason why I doubt you actually spoke to Dr. Zedlitz. From an
account of the "November In Dallas" Conference 2003:
"Dr. William Zedlitz, a Parkland staff member in 1963, addressed the
conferences on his personal experiences in the trauma room during the
earliest examination of the President. He also described his personal
efforts in feeling and exploring the President's head wound, a first ever
description of the exact size, location and nature of this wound. His
experience constitutes possibly the best description ever registered as to
the nature of this wound prior to the President's body leaving Parkland
hospital."
parousia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you! I was thinking precisely that
Anthony Marsh
Your guess is wrong. They had a lot of other things to deal with. They
were not forensic pathologists. Their job was not to determine the gunshot
pattern. They were emergency room doctors. Their ONLY job was to try to
save his life. They never had the time to examine the body for all wounds.
They never turned the body over.
And these are guys who could not tell the difference between cerebral
tissue and cerebellar tissue.
> probably check and maybe even touch a body even when it is laying face
> up. Probably wouldn't have been too hard to determine where the
> leaking cerebellar tissue was coming from. With that said, I would
> like to hear Mr. Zedlitz explain that scenario.
>
Pretty much useless hearsay.
John McAdams
>On Nov 3, 4:44=A0pm, "Robert Riley" <rri...@solutionsco.net> wrote:
>> He also told me that he
>> had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
>> 22 til then.
>
>
>Another reason why I doubt you actually spoke to Dr. Zedlitz. From an
>account of the "November In Dallas" Conference 2003:
>
What you posted seems to me more consistent with Zedlitz embroidering
his story a bit, rather than somebody impersonating Zedlitz.
But of course, that may have been exactly what you were implying. :-)
>"Dr. William Zedlitz, a Parkland staff member in 1963, addressed the
>conferences on his personal experiences in the trauma room during the
>earliest examination of the President. He also described his personal
>efforts in feeling and exploring the President's head wound, a first ever
>description of the exact size, location and nature of this wound. His
>experience constitutes possibly the best description ever registered as to
>the nature of this wound prior to the President's body leaving Parkland
>hospital."
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/Dallas03.html
>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
> > How could he see a wound in the back of the head when the President
> > was placed face up on the hospital gurney?
> > The answer is he couldn't. The only wound visible was the gaping wound
> > on top of the head.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> My guess, and it is only that (I wasn't there) is that Doctors
> probably check and maybe even touch a body even when it is laying face
> up. Probably wouldn't have been too hard to determine where the
> leaking cerebellar tissue was coming from. With that said, I would
> like to hear Mr. Zedlitz explain that scenario.
This issue has been discussed many times on this forum. Emergency room
procedures are completely different than autopsies. If you read the
testimonies of the ER doctors not one visually examined the back of the
skull, the reason being the President was already turning blue from lack
of oxygen when he arrived in Trauma Room 1. The immediate priority was to
get him breathing and the ER team focussed first on a tracheostomy. The
next priority was massive blood loss. Two fluids were injected into the
leg and arm of the President along with a blood transfusion. The next
problem was blood pressure and heartbeat and emergency procedures were
performed to resuscitate the heart. Despite all life saving procedures the
massive injury to the head caused the President's death.
The President arrived sometime after 12:35 pm and was declared dead at
1:00 pm. So the ER team frantically worked on the President for only about
20 minutes. In that time three major life saving procedures were applied
to the patient. There was no time to examine the body for multiple wounds
during the emergency procedures. After the President expired there was no
reason to further examine the body because that would be the official
responsibility of the pathology team of doctors, which by law should have
taken place in Dallas County. If the law had been followed the hospital
pathology team would immediately perform a postmortem examination of the
body. Instead the President was removed and taken to Bethesda Naval
Hospital for the autopsy. That was of course a mistake since the most
prominent gunshot wound hospital in the world was right across town at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The ER team in TR1 observed a massive wound on the head of the President.
Since the body was lying on the operating table in the anatomic position
the only part of the head visible was the front, sides, and top of the
head. The back of the head was resting on the surface of the operating
table. There has been confusion over the medical term "posterior" as used
by doctors. This term is sometimes used as specific and other times as
general, as in "towards the back". The exit wound caused major sections of
the cranium to open up but remain attached by flaps of skin. When the body
was placed on the ER cart and transferred to the operating table gravity
would cause the flaps to fall in such a way to make the wound appear more
to the rear. This was a massive wound with blood, fluid, and brain matter
mixed, oozing out and down on the table and floor. It would not be easy to
see or examine the back of the skull in these circumstances. What was
visible to the entire ER team is the gaping wound on top of the head,
exactly where we see it in the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
Of course something is off. But that does not prove that they are fakes.
It may indicate that there was some tampering along the way, such as
destroying or manipulating prints. You have not seen all the prints, maybe
only a handful. And you have been intentionally misled by some
interpretations.
> Maybe I am way over simplifying this, but are all the nurses and
> doctors wrong about that back of the head -the occipital protuberance
> area, cerebellar tissue oozing out the back? I mean all of them? So
Yes.
> are we saying that the picture of the posterior of the head from which
> Ida Dox made the drawing shows the scalp being pulled tight and
> covering up a large wound in back? Or are you saying that there was in
> fact no such wound?
>
No wound anywhere on the back of the head.
Anthony Marsh
> The back of the head photo many assume was faked or taken after the
> autopsy was over and restoration begun, with the scalp manipulated, is
> actually completely consistent with the other autopsy photos taken at
> the beginning of the autopsy, with the exceptions that the hair has
> been washed and the "wing" of bone by the right ear has been removed.
> Which is as expected. In autopsy photography, the first photos taken
> are establishing shots. Then the body is cleaned up a little and
> photos are taken to illustrate specific injuries. This photo was taken
> to illustrate the bullet entrance by the EOP.
>
> An attempt to show this photo is consistent...
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/bywayofillust.jpg
>
> Demonstrations of the EOP entry on the scalp:
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
> http://www.patspeer.com/aboveor.jpg
> http://www.patspeer.com/eyeof.jpg
>
There is no wound on the back of JFK's head. The HSCA wound is fiction,
but it is much too high to be called an EOP wound. YOUR EOP wound is just
your imagination. Canal's stretchable scalp explanation is physically
impossible.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, those doctors with all their years of training couldn't tell the
difference between cerebellar and cerebral. Or left from right.
John Canal
parousia says...
>
>On Nov 4, 9:47=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >I will never forget him describing in detail the head wound in the back =
>of
>> >the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
>> >Doctors testify to, and when I asked him why those wounds don't match up
>he
>> >had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
>> >22 til then.
>>
>e.
>> >He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
>> >last name Zedlitz.
>>
>> >Would love some feedback if you have time.
>> >Thanks!
>> >Robert Riley
>> >Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> There is no conflict between the wound Dr. Zedlitz said he saw and the
>> so-called "official autopsy photo of the back of the head....none
>n
>> the body was first received--had it been then, yes, there would have been
>> a conflict.
>>
>> If there such a conflict then there would be a conflict between potos
>o
>> the body shop--and photos of the same car after body-shop workers had
>> performed at least some of their work.
>>
>> Now, the photo you're talking about was taken much later in the
>> procedure...that's why the scalp is being held up (it was previously
>> reflected as a first step to remove the brain). As confirmation that the
>r
>> to Bloomberg he clearly stated that he had helped the photographer take
>> pictures of the internal and external aspects of the entry wound.....the
>> photo you [and so many others] said conflicts with what Zedlitz described
>> is the only photo of the external aspect of the wound, hence Finck helped
>.
>>
>> If you get time read the article linkd below that Dr. McAdams was
>> open-minded enough to include on his website. It explains a lot, IMO.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>I appreciate what you are saying. And I don't hink reading other
>researcher's material for 30 years makes me any sort of expert. But
>can't we all agree that something is off with the Xrays and photos?
>Maybe I am way over simplifying this, but are all the nurses and
>doctors wrong about that back of the head -the occipital protuberance
>area, cerebellar tissue oozing out the back? I mean all of them? So
>are we saying that the picture of the posterior of the head from which
>Ida Dox made the drawing shows the scalp being pulled tight and
>covering up a large wound in back? Or are you saying that there was in
>fact no such wound?
Yes, I think there was a wound in the right rear of the head with a small
entry wound along its lower margin. And, BTW, it wasn't just the PH docs
who described a BOH wound...many of the Bethesda eyewitnesses, including
HB&F and the FBI guys, also described such a wound.
But that's not the issue you addressed earlier....you seemed to be
referrng to a "conflict" between the official photos that show a pretty
much undamaged back of his head (BOH) and the description the PH docs gave
of the wound in the BOH.......and I pointed out that there was NO conflict
because the photos showing the BOH were NOT taken when the body was first
received. IOW, those photos were not meant to document the extent of
damage to the BOH when the body was first received...the photos
"supposedly" show were the entry was.....in the scalp. The other set that
show the back wound and a pretty much undamaged BOH was obviously taken
about the same time....later in the autopsy.
Again, if you get a chance and want to understand what was going on with
those particualr photos you may get an enlightening perspective from the
article I provided a link to earlier.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>The back of the head photo many assume was faked or taken after the
>autopsy was over and restoration begun, with the scalp manipulated, is
>actually completely consistent with the other autopsy photos taken at
>the beginning of the autopsy,
But the brain was out when those phots were taken.....are you calling the
autopsists liars? Even Boswell finally reembered that when the BOH photos
were taken, bone behind the scalp was missing down to the base of the
ear....does that sound like the beginning of the autopsy?
Also, supposedly you think a bullet entered where the autopsists said it
did...slightly above the EOP, right? Ok, that means the bullet wound have
entered 2-3 inches above the hairline, right? So, if the photo was taken
BEFORE any restoration (scalp undermining & stretching, not to mention
suturing), then how do you explain the fact that the entry is about FIVE
or more inches above the hairline in the photos? Are you going to use the
flimsy excuse that the other near-EOP entry folks use, i.e. that the red
splotch centered in the photo is not the entry and is clotted blood or
some other B/S like that? How about providing a straight forward answer to
that? Thanks in advance.
with the exceptions that the hair has
>been washed and the "wing" of bone by the right ear has been removed.
>Which is as expected. In autopsy photography, the first photos taken
>are establishing shots. Then the body is cleaned up a little and
>photos are taken to illustrate specific injuries. This photo was taken
>to illustrate the bullet entrance by the EOP.
>
>An attempt to show this photo is consistent...
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/bywayofillust.jpg
>
>Demonstrations of the EOP entry on the scalp:
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/aboveor.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/eyeof.jpg
>
>
>On Nov 4, 7:47=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >I will never forget him describing in detail the head wound in the back =
>of
>> >the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
>> >Doctors testify to, and when I asked him why those wounds don't match up
>> >to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me that =
>he
>> >had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
>> >22 til then.
>>
>> >So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience for m=
>e.
>> >He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
>> >last name Zedlitz.
>>
>> >Would love some feedback if you have time.
>> >Thanks!
>> >Robert Riley
>> >Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> There is no conflict between the wound Dr. Zedlitz said he saw and the
>> so-called "official autopsy photo of the back of the head....none
>> whatsoever. That's because the photo you're referring to wasn'r taken whe=
>n
>> the body was first received--had it been then, yes, there would have been
>> a conflict.
>>
>> If there such a conflict then there would be a conflict between potos
>> taken of a car badly damaged in an accident--when the car was brought int=
>o
>> the body shop--and photos of the same car after body-shop workers had
>> performed at least some of their work.
>>
>> Now, the photo you're talking about was taken much later in the
>> procedure...that's why the scalp is being held up (it was previously
>> reflected as a first step to remove the brain). As confirmation that the
>> brain had been removed by the time that photo was taken, in Finck's lette=
>r
>> to Bloomberg he clearly stated that he had helped the photographer take
>> pictures of the internal and external aspects of the entry wound.....the
>> photo you [and so many others] said conflicts with what Zedlitz described
>> is the only photo of the external aspect of the wound, hence Finck helped
>> Stringer take that photo....and Finck arrived AFTER the brain was removed=
>.
>>
>> If you get time read the article linkd below that Dr. McAdams was
>> open-minded enough to include on his website. It explains a lot, IMO.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
The Dutchman
> maybe? I don't know. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was a hell of an acting
> job with the tears when I asked him about the wounds...
>
> truth stranger than fiction.?
Anybody and everybody goes to flea markets. It's an addiction for some
people. A great way to hob-knob with others. One of my ex girlfriends
used to arrive at this one flea market where I used to live at 5 AM--
every Saturday, because after 8 or so it was slim pickins.
yeuhd
Are you the same person who posted above as Robert Riley? If so, why
the name change mid-thread?
bigdog
No.
> Maybe I am way over simplifying this, but are all the nurses and
> doctors wrong about that back of the head -the occipital protuberance
> area, cerebellar tissue oozing out the back? I mean all of them?
The staff at Parkland spent little or no time examining the head
wound. Their efforts were spent trying to stabilize respiration and
heartbeat, a losing effort.
> So are we saying that the picture of the posterior of the head from which
> Ida Dox made the drawing shows the scalp being pulled tight and
> covering up a large wound in back? Or are you saying that there was in
> fact no such wound?
The autopsy report described the gaping defect in the skull as chiefly
parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
regions.
bigdog
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep. Read Dr. Crenshaw. I still have a huge problem wrapping my head
> around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
> Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong. Do you think that they
> would have examined the head area, moving the body, to be able to say that
> yes, the area right by the OEP was "blasted out"? If they are right, then
> aren't we talking entry from the front, not saying their couldn't have
> been 2 head shots- one entering from rear also? Didn't Audrey Bell say she
> felt the open wound in the back by the OEP when she wrapped the head in
> sheets?
>
> It doesn't seem that complicated....
It isn't complicated at all. When a bullet passes through the wall of a
skull, it creates a beveled, or cone-shaped hole. The hole will be smaller
on the side the bullet strikes the skull than on the opposite side. The
beveling of both the entrance and exit wound proves beyond all doubt that
the bullet entered the back of JFK's skull and exited the upper right.
Every qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the medical evidence
agrees on that point. It is absolutely conclusive.
yeuhd
> around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
> Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong.
The reports of what the Parkland Hospital personnel saw have been
distorted by conspiracy buffs using selective quotations: differences
from Bethesda witnesses have been emphasized, and similarities have
been downplayed or omitted.
See the section "Parkland and Bethesda Eyewitnesses" in the middle of
this page:
John Canal
parousia says...
>
>On Nov 5, 7:10=A0am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 8:43=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 3, 3:44=A0pm, "Robert Riley" <rri...@solutionsco.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I would like to also notify someone in the research community of a Da=
>llas
>> > > Doctor who has never, to my knowledge, been interviewed by a research=
>er to
>> > > get his eyewitness account.
>>
>y
>> > > Plaza, went with 2 other friends to a flea market that was set up a f=
>ew
>> > > blocks away.
>>
>> > > I stopped at one booth that had a number of history books and decided=
> to
>> > > replace my hardback copy of the abridged, consolidated version of the
>all
>> > > talk after purchasing the book, I come to find out that he was a youn=
>g
>> > > attending physician in 1963 at Parkland and was one of the first
>> > > responders in JFK's trauma room, but was pushed aside when the heavy
>> > > hiiters, the more experienced doctors came on the scene.
>>
>w. =A0
>> > > He sells books at flea markets as a hobby- at least he did 10 years a=
>go.
>>
>> > > One researcher told me he did find reference in the 26 volumes to a
>> > > William Zedelitz.
>>
>> > > My belief is that because his last name Zedlitz was misspelled in the
>> > > Commission Report, no one ever tracked him down.
>>
>ck of
>> > > the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parklan=
>d
>> > > Doctors testify to, and when I asked him why those wounds don't match=
> up
>> > > to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me th=
>at he
>> > > had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form Novem=
>ber
>> > > 22 til then.
>>
>> > > So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience fo=
>r me.
>> > > He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of tha=
>t
>> > > last name Zedlitz.
>>
>> > > Would love some feedback if you have time.
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Robert Riley
>> > > Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>
>> > How could he see a wound in the back of the head when the President
>> > was placed face up on the hospital gurney?
>> > The answer is he couldn't. The only wound visible was the gaping wound
>> > on top of the head.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Do you SERIOUSLY believe that all those Dr's with years and years of
>> anatomy training would get the top and back of JFK's head confused? If
>> you do, well I won't say anything because it won't get past the
>> moderators.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Thank you! I was thinking precisely that
If I can throw my 2 cents worth in here, the reason, IMHO, that the
majority of LNTs come to the absurd conclusion that about 25 credible
doctors, including HB&F, were either hallucinating or lying about seing a
BOH wound (aside from the entry), is because most CTs insist that a BOH
wound proves there was a frontal shooter.....which, in turn, makes the
LNTs deny the obvious, i.e. that such a wound did exist.
IMO, both sides need to take a deep breath and think more open-mindedly
about the liklihood, or at least possibility, that the BOH wound (as
described by the PH docs and others) was collateral damage from the bullet
that was fired from the SN and entered his BOH.
Now, if I've somehow miraculously still have your attention, consider
this: If the bullet entered just above the EOP (and it did--that's been
scientifically proven) and, as it penetrated the skull, deformed and
deflected up about 2 degrees (with the largest pieces exiting somewhat
high just forward of the coronal suture), it's likely that the skull
fragmented above the entry hole.
Ok, if that sounds silly, indulge me for a few more minutes and visualize
this demonstration. First, in your mind's eye, pierce a sheet of glass
with a rod, with the hole the precise size [diameter] of the rod. Ok, so
far we have a sheet of unbroken glass except for the hole with the rod in
it, right? "Yes", is the answer. Now, let's do step two. Push the end of
the rod sticking out of the glass down about 20 degrees. You can bet your
last dime that the glass will shatter. IMO, that's why the BOH skull
fragmentation was collateral damage from the bullet that entered the BOH
and deflected up as it penetrated the skull....what I'm trying to say is
that the BOH skull damage caused by the deflection up of the bullet (it
was about 20 degrees) can be compared to the damage to any glass that
would be caused by the end of the rod in the visualized demonstration
being pushed down about 20 degrees.
Clear as mud, right? No problem.
The bottom line for me is that if the majority of the CTs wouldn't insist
on a BOH wound being proof of a frontal shot, the LNTs wouldn't insist
that the stupid and ridiculous conclusion that 25+ credible PH and
Bethesda eyewitnesses were hallucinating or lying about seeing a BOH wound
was fact.
One more thing, because the photos showing the BOH were not taken any
where near when the body was first received the strongest "evidence" that
the no-BOH-wound theorists have that no such wound existed is the lateral
X-ray. Sooooo, consider two things about that "evidence".
1. Ask yourself if it was possible that Boswell could have pushed the rear
scalp with loose pieces of skull still adhered to it back into place
before the x-rays? If any LNT said that would have been impossible, I
suggest you not don't listen to them anymore...because they're not being
logical.
2 First, remember that Boswell said he put back pieces of skull before an
x-ray or photo was taken. Now, ask yourself out of all the x-rays and
photos that were taken, which one/s could have been taken after he
replaced pieces of skull? I suggest there's only one likely
candidate---yup, the lateral x-ray.
So, IMO, the LNTs must decide which is more likely: 1) that of all those
eyewitnesses were hallucinating or lying about seeing a BOH wound or 2)
that Boswell pushed the rear scalp (with a tear in it and some loose
pieces of rear skull still adhered to it) back into place beore the
lateral x-ray was taken....just as it's likey he described doing.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
yeuhd
> What you posted seems to me more consistent with Zedlitz embroidering
> his story a bit, rather than somebody impersonating Zedlitz.
>
> But of course, that may have been exactly what you were implying. :-)
If I am implying anything, it is that some assassination buff working a
book stall in Dallas impersonated Dr. Zedlitz to an out-of-towner.
Thalia
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep. Read Dr. Crenshaw. I still have a huge problem wrapping my head
> around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
> Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong. Do you think that they
> would have examined the head area, moving the body, to be able to say that
> yes, the area right by the OEP was "blasted out"? If they are right, then
> aren't we talking entry from the front, not saying their couldn't have
> been 2 head shots- one entering from rear also? Didn't Audrey Bell say she
> felt the open wound in the back by the OEP when she wrapped the head in
> sheets?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not that complicated, but the inconvenient fact that so many
witnesses, including Clint Hill, SS agent, saw a hole in the right, rear
of the President's head demonstrates the high possiblity of a massive
cover-up and a shot from the front. The Lone Nutters will never, ever
accept this so they come up with "untruths* that the President was lying
on his back and how could anyone see his head wound when he was on his
back? Which, of course, is just plain ridiculous, but we all have to go
along like it is some kind of valid argument.
John McAdams
What Clint Hill really said:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ClintHill.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Nov 4, 5:13�pm, TheTruth <a5150d...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 1:44�pm, "Robert Riley" <rri...@solutionsco.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the info. We already know from Dr Crenshaws testimony that
>> the throat wound is an entrance wound in addition to the details of
>> the head wound.
>>
>> Have you read Dr. Crenshaws book? It probably corroborates what Mr
>> Zedlitz told you!
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Silence-Signet-Charles-Crenshaw/dp/0...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yep. Read Dr. Crenshaw. I still have a huge problem wrapping my head
>around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
>Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong.
Mostly they weren't wrong, but have had their testimony misinterpreted
by conspiracy authors.
Cranshaw severely lacks credibility.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Fair enough.
After Cranshaw, and some of the wilder beliefs of McClelland (although
I think he is being honest), I could easily see how a doctor might
start telling "interesting" stories that push the bounds of truth a
bit.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thalia
Get Groden's book "The Killing of a President" there is a photo where
all the Dr's place their hand where they saw the hole, it was in the
back of his head, nowhere near the top. Audrey Bell. the ER nurse,
who had to bandage the wound clearly stated it was in the back of his
head. Clint Hill, who saw JFK hunched over in the limo, described the
wound the same way. No mention is made of the "top" - ever. The Dr's
saw the President brains protruding out a whole in the back of his
head. They also described the Presidents throat wound as very small.
The following is taken from the essay:
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
The Parkland doctor most qualified to report on a head wound and who
apparently had an excellent view of JFK's head injuries was Dr. Kemp
Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery: What did Dr.
Clark report? "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput
extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar
tissues were extruding from the wound."
But Dr Clark wouldn't have a clue in your opinion.
John Canal
bigdog says...
>
>On Nov 5, 8:19=A0am, parousia <RRI...@SOLUTIONSCO.NET> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 9:47=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >I will never forget him describing in detail the head wound in the bac=
>k of
>> > >the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
>up
>> > >to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me tha=
>t he
>> > >had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form Novemb=
>er
>> > >22 til then.
>>
>> > >So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience for=
> me.
>> > >He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
>> > >last name Zedlitz.
>>
>> > >Would love some feedback if you have time.
>> > >Thanks!
>> > >Robert Riley
>> > >Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>
>> > Robert,
>>
>> > There is no conflict between the wound Dr. Zedlitz said he saw and the
>> > so-called "official autopsy photo of the back of the head....none
>hen
>> > the body was first received--had it been then, yes, there would have be=
>en
>> > a conflict.
>>
>> > If there such a conflict then there would be a conflict between potos
>nto
>> > the body shop--and photos of the same car after body-shop workers had
>> > performed at least some of their work.
>>
>> > Now, the photo you're talking about was taken much later in the
>> > procedure...that's why the scalp is being held up (it was previously
>e
>> > brain had been removed by the time that photo was taken, in Finck's let=
>ter
>> > to Bloomberg he clearly stated that he had helped the photographer take
>e
>> > photo you [and so many others] said conflicts with what Zedlitz describ=
>ed
>> > is the only photo of the external aspect of the wound, hence Finck help=
>ed
>> > Stringer take that photo....and Finck arrived AFTER the brain was remov=
>ed.
>>
>> > If you get time read the article linkd below that Dr. McAdams was
>> > open-minded enough to include on his website. It explains a lot, IMO.
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
>>
>> > --
>> > John Canal
>> > jca...@webtv.net
>>
>> I appreciate what you are saying. And I don't hink reading other
>> researcher's material for 30 years makes me any sort of expert. But
>> can't we all agree that something is off with the Xrays and photos?
>
>No.
>
>> Maybe I am way over simplifying this, but are all the nurses and
>> doctors wrong about that back of the head -the occipital protuberance
>> area, cerebellar tissue oozing out the back? I mean all of them?
>
>The staff at Parkland spent little or no time examining the head
>wound. Their efforts were spent trying to stabilize respiration and
>heartbeat, a losing effort.
But 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....what are the odds that all those
witnesses, with two neurosurgeons among them, mistook cerebellum for cerebrum?
They may have been concentrating on saving his life, but they weren't blind. And
my point is that if cerebellum was visible there must have been a BOH wound!
Also, one of those cerebellum witnesses is Humes....was he so rushed he couldn't
distinguish cerebellum form cerebrum?
Lastly, numerous witnesses at Bethesda said or testified there was a BOH wound.
There was and the only reason the official story that there wasn't such a wound
was created was to keep from having the public face the ominous possibility
there was a conspiracy to assassinate
JFK. That's the same reason the entry was "moved" up and even someone you
greatly respect around here, Dr. Rahn, agrees the entry was low where the
autopsists put it....and that's just as his colleague, L. Sturdivan says in "The
JFK Myths".
And pleeese don't tell me there's no way all those forensic pathologists could
be wrong because they were...mainly because almost all of them had either worked
or trained or wrote books together or worked in the same city. Fisher started
the high entry no-BOH-wound foolishness probably to debunk Garrison's multiple
gunmen charges....and many, if not most of the succeeding pathologists not only
revered him [Fisher] but were his close associates...they would never disagree
with his conclusions.
The bottom line is that the BOH wound was collateral damage from the bullet that
hit just where Humes and every other human being that said they saw the entry
said it did...and where it can be scientifically proven it entered: slightly
above the EOP.
>> So are we saying that the picture of the posterior of the head from which
>> Ida Dox made the drawing shows the scalp being pulled tight and
>> covering up a large wound in back? Or are you saying that there was in
>> fact no such wound?
>
>The autopsy report described the gaping defect in the skull as chiefly
>parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
>regions.
Humes was being conservative in the autopsy report (for the same reason there
were no photos taken of the BOH when the body was first received--just from
other angles)...four months later he testified they saw that part of the
cerebellum was severely lacerated.....that was after he knew "the cat had
escaped the bag"...translation: that's after he said he read the reports by the
PH docs that there had been a BOH wound and that many docs had seen cerebellum.
IOW, there was no longer any reason to understate the extent of the BOH wound
like they did in the autopsy report....even another way of saying it that by
March, 64, when he testified before the WC, Humes knew, because of the PH doc's
reports, the existance of a BOH, with pretty much its full extent, was common
knowledge.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
There is no bullet hole on the back of the head.
There is a semi-circle on the forehead where the bullet entered. All the
HSCA forensic pathologists believed it is absolute truth that external
beveling on the skull indicates an exit wound. A few years later Coe and
Peterson found cases of distant rifle shots where there is external
beveling on the entrance wound of the skull.
bigdog
> In article <9ce67141-e0dd-4f76-af00-dab1af6ff...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
wound. If there were such a wound, it should have been visible in the
Z-film. There is nothing there. I'm sure there was a fracture beneath
the scalp that extended into the occipital region as the autopsy
report stated, but that was nothing more than the rear tip of a
massive defect.
> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
100%.
> They may have been concentrating on saving his life, but they weren't blind. And
> my point is that if cerebellum was visible there must have been a BOH wound!
Nonsense.
Humes was just following military orders under threat of court martial.
And you are talking about the SECOND autopsy report, not the first
autopsy report.
bigdog
>
> Get Groden's book "The Killing of a President" there is a photo where
> all the Dr's place their hand where they saw the hole, it was in the
> back of his head, nowhere near the top. Audrey Bell. the ER nurse,
> who had to bandage the wound clearly stated it was in the back of his
> head. Clint Hill, who saw JFK hunched over in the limo, described the
> wound the same way. No mention is made of the "top" - ever. The Dr's
> saw the President brains protruding out a whole in the back of his
> head. They also described the Presidents throat wound as very small.
> The following is taken from the essay:http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
>
> The Parkland doctor most qualified to report on a head wound and who
> apparently had an excellent view of JFK's head injuries was Dr. Kemp
> Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery: What did Dr.
> Clark report? "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput
> extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar
> tissues were extruding from the wound."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a better idea. Look at the Zapruder film and see for yourself
where the blowout was.
Thalia
it wasn't. I personally think the multiple and consistant descriptions of
the head wound by multiple medical experts at Parkland is the best case to
understand the nature of the wounds. The autopsy materials and autopsy
itself could be manipulated. Amd we know there was a massive cover-up as
Johnson and others thought the killing had been a massive conspiracy (that
could lead to WWIII)
John McAdams
Have you actually bothered to *read* the HSCA authentication of the
autopsy photos and x-rays?
And the report of the HSCA FPP?
Look, if you refuse to read those, it really does look like *willful*
ignorance on your part.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
> The Parkland doctor most qualified to report on a head wound and who
> apparently had an excellent view of JFK's head injuries was Dr. Kemp
> Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery: What did Dr.
> Clark report? "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput
> extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar
> tissues were extruding from the wound."
>
> But Dr Clark wouldn't have a clue in your opinion.
You are forgetting the most important doctor of all who was at Parkland
Hospital when the President died in Trauma Room 1. This doctor knew the
President better than any other doctor in the ER that day. His name was
Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal physician. He confirmed the
wounds he observed at Parkland Hospital were the same as described in the
autopsy report at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So now it becomes clear that in
the extremely stressful situation of providing emergency procedures to
save the President the ER team did not perform a careful examination of
the multiple wounds on the torso and skull of this shooting victim. They
only had 20 minutes to save his life and a careful examination was not
possible. After he died it was not their job to perform the autopsy. The
ER team was unaware of the bullet hole in the back, which is why they
wrongly assumed the bullet hole in the neck was an entrance wound.
There is one more important point to consider. Not one doctor mentions
three wounds on the skull. They only recall two wounds on the head. If
they all saw a large wound in the back of the skull how could all these
doctors not notice the gaping wound on top of the head too? If we are to
believe these ER doctors and the Z-film there must be three obvious wounds
on the head of the president, two in the back and one on the top right
side. Why did none of these doctors mention three distinct wounds?
Thalia
> On 7 Nov 2009 01:06:18 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It actually looks like the front of his face was destroyed - which we know
> >it wasn't. I personally think the multiple and consistant descriptions of
> >the head wound by multiple medical experts at Parkland is the best case to
> >understand the nature of the wounds. The autopsy materials and autopsy
> >itself could be manipulated. Amd we know there was a massive cover-up as
> >Johnson and others thought the killing had been a massive conspiracy (that
> >could lead to WWIII)
>
> Have you actually bothered to *read* the HSCA authentication of the
> autopsy photos and x-rays?
>
> And the report of the HSCA FPP?
>
> Look, if you refuse to read those, it really does look like *willful*
> ignorance on your part.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
>
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Yes, I have, and I just read your links again so to be on the safe side. I
am not a medical expert, nor am I particularly knowledgable about X-rays.
However, I do know:
1. That the Zapruder film makes it look like the front of Kennedy's face
was destroyed, so I don't think the Z-film (which, lets face it, has been
interpreted differently by hundreds of researchers on a number of
different topics) should be used to prove the nature of Kennedy's head
wound.
2. LBJ believed it was a conspiracy in the days/weeks/months/years after
the assassination, most likely a communist one, and that his frame of mind
(and Hoover's and Kazenbach's etc etc) was on *proving* to the American
people that Oswald acted alone. This is what he said to Warren, and others
on the WC, in order to convince them to sit on the panel, and of course
skew everything to the Lone Nut POV.
3. Do you remeber how the CIA stole the autopsy materials during the HSCA
investigation? How the autopsy photos show the back of Kennedy's head
intact, despite several doctors and nurses from Parkland stating that the
back of his head had been blown out exposing his brains? If this had
happened in Soviet Russia, we would ALL know something was up just on this
basis alone.
John McAdams
A lot of people are misled by "the blob," a flap of scalp that has
flopped over and appears in his right temple area. But the skull
under that is intact.
But the links I gave you *don't* deal with the Z-film. They deal with
the autospy photos and x-rays.
>2. LBJ believed it was a conspiracy in the days/weeks/months/years after
>the assassination, most likely a communist one, and that his frame of mind
>(and Hoover's and Kazenbach's etc etc) was on *proving* to the American
>people that Oswald acted alone. This is what he said to Warren, and others
>on the WC, in order to convince them to sit on the panel, and of course
>skew everything to the Lone Nut POV.
>
This is entirely irrelevant to the current discussion.
>3. Do you remeber how the CIA stole the autopsy materials during the HSCA
>investigation?
No such thing happened.
An overly curious agent named Regis Blahut got into the materials, and
got his fingerprints on them.
The Ramsey Clark panel in 1968, and the Rockefeller Commission in the
early 1970s, came to the exact same conclusions about the wounds that
the HSCA did. And that was before Blahut got his hands on them.
>How the autopsy photos show the back of Kennedy's head
>intact, despite several doctors and nurses from Parkland stating that the
>back of his head had been blown out exposing his brains? If this had
>happened in Soviet Russia, we would ALL know something was up just on this
>basis alone.
You are accepting what conspiracy books say about the testimony. They
are being (1.) highly selective, and (2.) tendentious in the way they
interpret the testimony.
Just to give you one example, consider Clint Hill:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
Look . . . I don't believe you read the authentication of the autopsy
photos and x-rays. If you had, you would drop these arguments.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>wounds he observed at Parkland Hospital were the same as described in the
>autopsy report at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
So then you're saying he confirmed what the autopsy report said, i.e. that
the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital and that the BOH was
fragmented all the way down to near the EOP? Fine, but that's pretty
consistent with what the PH docs said, no? And also pretty consistent with
what several Bethesda eyewitnesses, who were not under a ER stressful type
of situation, said, no?
So against the statements of all those PH and Bethesda witnesses and
against what the autopsy report said, all you "no-BOH-wound-30+
Eyewitnesses-were-lying-or-hallucinating" theorists really have as
evidence to support your position is: 1) a photo of the BOH that was NOT
taken any where near when the body was first received, and 2) the lateral
x-rays which do not prove that Boswell didn't push the rear scalp, with
loose and out-of-position pieces of rear skull adhered to it, back into
place before they took them [those x-rays]........noting, of course, that
he did testify he replaced pieces of bone before at least one of the
x-rays or photos were taken.....hmmmm, I wonder which one/s?
The botom line, IMO, is that you "no-BOH-wound" theorists have little
basis to disimiss the statements and testimony of so many credible
eyewitnesses.....and least we forget that Humes testified to the WC only 4
months after the assassination that they saw, when the body was first
received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated. Kinda hard
to do without there being an opening in the BOH that extended well into
the occipital....al la where the autopsy report says the rear skull
fragmentation extended down to, eh?
I might add that this BOH wound was probably worsened or made to look
worse than it may have actually been for two reasons: 1) when they
transferred him from the limo to the gurney (I assume someone grabbed his
BOH, not--so-unhurriedly--to keep it from falling back during the
transfer) and 2) because he was on his back for the next several hours
most of the blood and loose brain tissue would have gravitated towards the
rear of his head.
Lastly, don't forget:
1. F8 shows the jagged edge of the skull all the way down to near the
EOP--meaning the bone from there had been fragmented before it was
removed...IOW, they certainly didnt cut that bone out with a saw.
2. The autopsists testified that bone fell out when they reflected the
scalp.
3. Boswell testified that the skull behind the scalp in the BOH photos was
missing when they took those photos "all the way down to the base of the
ear".
4. Boswell's drawings of the BOH indeed show missing skull all the way
down to abut the base of the ear.
IMHO, just like the preponderance of the evidence shows, LHO acted alone,
the preponderance of the evidence shows there was some kind of BOH
wound...not necessarily a blow-out exit wound, but more likely one due to
collateral damage from the rear entering bullet....one that wouldn't have
been noticeable on the Z-film.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> Thalia,
>
>> The Parkland doctor most qualified to report on a head wound and who
>> apparently had an excellent view of JFK's head injuries was Dr. Kemp
>> Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery: What did Dr.
>> Clark report? "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput
>> extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar
>> tissues were extruding from the wound."
>>
>> But Dr Clark wouldn't have a clue in your opinion.
>
> You are forgetting the most important doctor of all who was at Parkland
> Hospital when the President died in Trauma Room 1. This doctor knew the
> President better than any other doctor in the ER that day. His name was
> Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal physician. He confirmed the
> wounds he observed at Parkland Hospital were the same as described in the
> autopsy report at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So now it becomes clear that in
> the extremely stressful situation of providing emergency procedures to
> save the President the ER team did not perform a careful examination of
> the multiple wounds on the torso and skull of this shooting victim. They
> only had 20 minutes to save his life and a careful examination was not
> possible. After he died it was not their job to perform the autopsy. The
> ER team was unaware of the bullet hole in the back, which is why they
> wrongly assumed the bullet hole in the neck was an entrance wound.
>
And so, you claim that Burkley was a forensic pathologist? You believe
everything he said 100%? So you really think back wound was at T-3 as he
said? Do you realize that T-3 makes a SBT impossible? Guess that makes you
a conspiracy believer then.
> There is one more important point to consider. Not one doctor mentions
> three wounds on the skull. They only recall two wounds on the head. If
McClelland said the wound was on the left side of the head. Ever hear 5
blind men describe an elephant?
WBurg...@aol.com
> On 11/5/2009 8:10 AM, Thalia wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:43 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 3:44 pm, "Robert Riley"<rri...@solutionsco.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I would like to also notify someone in the research community of a Dallas
> >>> Doctor who has never, to my knowledge, been interviewed by a researcher to
> >>> get his eyewitness account.
>
> >>> I was in dallas about 10 years ago and after much time spent at Dealey
> >>> Plaza, went with 2 other friends to a flea market that was set up a few
> >>> blocks away.
>
> >>> I stopped at one booth that had a number of history books and decided to
> >>> replace my hardback copy of the abridged, consolidated version of the
> >>> talk after purchasing the book, I come to find out that he was a young
> >>> attending physician in 1963 at Parkland and was one of the first
> >>> responders in JFK's trauma room, but was pushed aside when the heavy
> >>> hiiters, the more experienced doctors came on the scene.
>
> >>> He sells books at flea markets as a hobby- at least he did 10 years ago.
>
> >>> One researcher told me he did find reference in the 26 volumes to a
> >>> William Zedelitz.
>
> >>> My belief is that because his last name Zedlitz was misspelled in the
> >>> Commission Report, no one ever tracked him down.
>
> >>> the President's head- pointing to the same spot all the other Parkland
> >>> to the "official autopsy pictures" he wept openly. He also told me that he
> >>> had never been asked that wuestion, never been interviewed form November
> >>> 22 til then.
>
> >>> So, as a lifelong amateur researcher, that was quite an experience for me.
> >>> He signed my Warren Report i purchased frrom him, so I am sure of that
> >>> last name Zedlitz.
>
> >>> Would love some feedback if you have time.
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> Robert Riley
> >>> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>
> >> was placed face up on the hospital gurney?
> >> on top of the head.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > anatomy training would get the top and back of JFK's head confused? If
> > you do, well I won't say anything because it won't get past the
> > moderators.
>
> difference between cerebellar and cerebral. Or left from right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony they can't all be wrong. Makes no sense.
burgundy
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Yep. Read Dr. Crenshaw. I still have a huge problem wrapping my head
> >> around the fact that so many people think that the Parkland
> >> Doctors,Nurses, techs, must have just been wrong. Do you think that they
> >> would have examined the head area, moving the body, to be able to say that
> >> yes, the area right by the OEP was "blasted out"? If they are right, then
> >> aren't we talking entry from the front, not saying their couldn't have
> >> been 2 head shots- one entering from rear also? Didn't Audrey Bell say she
> >> felt the open wound in the back by the OEP when she wrapped the head in
> >> sheets?
>
> >> It doesn't seem that complicated....
>
> > It isn't complicated at all. When a bullet passes through the wall of a
> > skull, it creates a beveled, or cone-shaped hole. The hole will be smaller
> > on the side the bullet strikes the skull than on the opposite side. The
> > beveling of both the entrance and exit wound proves beyond all doubt that
> > the bullet entered the back of JFK's skull and exited the upper right.
> > Every qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the medical evidence
> > agrees on that point. It is absolutely conclusive.
>
> There is no bullet hole on the back of the head.
> There is a semi-circle on the forehead where the bullet entered. All the
> HSCA forensic pathologists believed it is absolute truth that external
> beveling on the skull indicates an exit wound. A few years later Coe and
> Peterson found cases of distant rifle shots where there is external
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was an egg-shaped hole on the back of JFK's head at Parkland.
Too many witnesses.
claviger
John,
Admiral George G. Burkley was President Kennedy's military physician
and the only medical doctor who was present both during emergency
treatment at Parkland Memorial Hospital and the autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Hospital.
Here is his official statement on the Death Certificate prepared by
him the day after the assassination:
______________________________________________________
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while riding in the motorcade in
Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, and at approximately 12:30 p.m.,
was struck in the head by an assassin’s bullet and a second wound
occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third
thoratic vertebra. The wound was shattering in type causing a
fragmentation of the skull and avulsion of three particles of the
skull at time of the impact, with resulting maceration of the right
hemisphere of the brain. The President was rushed to Parkland Memorial
Hospital, and was immediately under the care of a team of physicians
at the hospital under the direction of a neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark. I
arrived at the hospital approximately five minutes after the President
and immediately went to the emergency room. It was evident that the
wound was of such severity that it was bound to be fatal. Breathing
was noted at the time of arrival at the hospital by several members of
the Secret Service. Emergency measures were imployed immediately
including intravenous fluid and blood. The President was pronounced
dead at 1:00 p.m., by Doctor Clark and was verified by me.
November 23, 1963
George Gregory Burkley RADM
Physician to the President
______________________________________________________
Doctor Burkley also supervised the postmortem examination of the
President at Bethesda Naval Hospital by a team of pathologists. He
observed the condition of the President's wounds in the ER and later
again when the body was cleaned up for examination at BNH. The
Parkland team of doctors did not have the advantage of seeing the body
in a clean condition for closer inspection. For this reason they
missed the entrance wound on the upper back that connected to the exit
wound in the throat. The bloody conditions and the loose scalp
obviously played a part in the inability of the ER doctors to
accurately locate the head wound relative to the damaged skull.
The wording by Dr. Burkley confirms the massive head wound was located
on the right hemisphere of the brain. There is no mention of another
large wound in the back of the skull. Obviously he saw the same wound
at Parkland Hospital and concurred with the autopsy report by the
pathology team. As you can see Dr. Burkley does not get into detailed
measurements nor precise location of the entrance wounds. Those
details were left to the pathologists.
Not one doctor in the ER or the autopsy mentions two large avulsive
wounds on the skull. The only logical conclusion is the doctors in the
most stressful and least favorable conditions were the ones to most
likely make a mistake. Dr. Burkley's statement appears to confirm that
circumstance. The Zapruder film provides further corroboration that
Dr. Burkley was correct.
claviger
Robert,
I can find no mention of William Zedlitz being in Trauma Room 1 during
the ER procedures. Have you been able to confirm he was actually in
the room at the time?
Thalia
So you don't believe reports that Dr Burkley's attorney contacted the
HSCA wanting to provide evidence that Kennedy was shot from more than
one direction? Funnily enough he was never called to testify.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. Point number two is valid. It displays a willingness of the
government to cover-up the truth of JFK's wounds as their motive was
to "prevent World War Three" which I personally suspect might have
been a ruse, but will give them the benefit of the doubt. You have
opinions on his head wound because of what the X-rays show. I find the
X-rays suspicious - I think Dr Mantik has a point about the insertion
of material denser than human bone to cover up the blow out - I can
see it with my own eyes.
2. Blahut got caught red handed - call it what you will.
3. My peronal opinion is that the HSCA (made up of career public
servants) would NEVER have reached a forgery conclusion, regardless of
the evidence. The shockwaves would have been too severe, and the
public would then know that the government must have been behind the
assassination, and it couldn't be blamed of the Mafia, who the public
already knew were criminals.
Anthony Marsh
NEVER rely on witnesses.
Anthony Marsh
They CAN all be wrong.
John Canal
claviger says...
>
>On Nov 7, 2:28=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal physician. He confirmed the
>e
>> >autopsy report at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
>>
>t
>> the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital and that the BOH was
>> fragmented all the way down to near the EOP? Fine, but that's pretty
>h
>> what several Bethesda eyewitnesses, who were not under a ER stressful typ=
>e
>> of situation, said, no?
>>
>> So against the statements of all those PH and Bethesda witnesses and
>> against what the autopsy report said, all you "no-BOH-wound-30+
>> Eyewitnesses-were-lying-or-hallucinating" theorists really have as
>> evidence to support your position is: 1) a photo of the BOH that was NOT
>> taken any where near when the body was first received, and 2) the lateral
>> x-rays which do not prove that Boswell didn't push the rear scalp, with
>> loose and out-of-position pieces of rear skull adhered to it, back into
>> place before they took them [those x-rays]........noting, of course, that
>> he did testify he replaced pieces of bone before at least one of the
>> x-rays or photos were taken.....hmmmm, I wonder which one/s?
>>
>> The botom line, IMO, is that you "no-BOH-wound" theorists have little
>> basis to disimiss the statements and testimony of so many credible
>4
>> months after the assassination that they saw, when the body was first
>> received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated. Kinda hard
>> to do without there being an opening in the BOH that extended well into
>> the occipital....al la where the autopsy report says the rear skull
>> fragmentation extended down to, eh?
>>
>> I might add that this BOH wound was probably worsened or made to look
>> worse than it may have actually been for two reasons: 1) when they
>> transferred him from the limo to the gurney (I assume someone grabbed his
>> BOH, not--so-unhurriedly--to keep it from falling back during the
>> transfer) and 2) because he was on his back for the next several hours
>e
>> rear of his head.
>>
>> Lastly, don't forget:
>>
>> 1. F8 shows the jagged edge of the skull all the way down to near the
>> EOP--meaning the bone from there had been fragmented before it was
>> removed...IOW, they certainly didnt cut that bone out with a saw.
>>
>> 2. The autopsists testified that bone fell out when they reflected the
>> scalp.
>>
>s
>> missing when they took those photos "all the way down to the base of the
>> ear".
>>
>> 4. Boswell's drawings of the BOH indeed show missing skull all the way
>> down to abut the base of the ear.
>>
>> IMHO, just like the preponderance of the evidence shows, LHO acted alone,
>> the preponderance of the evidence shows there was some kind of BOH
>> wound...not necessarily a blow-out exit wound, but more likely one due to
>> collateral damage from the rear entering bullet....one that wouldn't have
>> been noticeable on the Z-film.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>John,
>
>Admiral George G. Burkley was President Kennedy's military physician
>and the only medical doctor who was present both during emergency
>treatment at Parkland Memorial Hospital and the autopsy at Bethesda
>Naval Hospital.
>
>Here is his official statement on the Death Certificate prepared by
>him the day after the assassination:
>______________________________________________________
>
>President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while riding in the motorcade in
>Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, and at approximately 12:30 p.m.,
There was really only one large wound. The blow-out portion began forward
of the coronal suture and extended back to a few cm forward of the Lamboid
Suture. But the skull from the posterior margin of the blow-out portion
down to near the EOP was fragmented....collateral damage from the rear
entering bullet....that means the overall wound was
paietal-occipital.....and there are several PH docs who described the
wound just that way, "parietal-occipital."
Burkley was undoubtedly responsible for no photographs being taken of the
BOH when the body was firat received and none taken even later of the
BOH...IMO, he was afraid that a BOH opening would be misinterpreted as ev.
there was a frontal shooter. As you know there is ev. that he was a
conspiracy believer until he died. BTW, Ebersole was summoned to the White
House after the asassnation and coincidently the 6.5 mm opacity appeared
on the AP film (an obvious effort to raise the entry wound up to the
cowlick).....and where did Burkley have an office?...oh ya, in the WH.
That's of course speculation.
Look, no one changes his mind around here...you've got your scenario that
you'll stick to until Hell freezes over....and it's different than what I
believe happened...so it makes no sense for us to debate this issue. If we
had judges to decide who between us had the better arguments, I'd debate
you, but we don't, so I won't...sooooo, let's just agree to disagree.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
jas
> told this same story to Vince Palamara shortly after my trip to Dallas
> and he was the one who told me that there was a Zedelitz in the Warren
> Report. I just found an article Mr. Palamara wrote in the JFK/DPQ
> archives. He apparently wrote this after I told him the story of
> finding him, so I guess Mr. Zedlitz has been interviewed by someone
> other than little old me.
> See Palamara's story at JFK: Deep Politics Quarterly under the
> archives entitled "PARKLAND EMERGENCY-ROOM DOCTOR FOUND:
> WILLIAM H. ZEDLITZ, MD "
>
> My enduring memory of my 15 minute conversation with Mr. Zedlitz will
> always be the genuine tears he shed. They came from seemingly nowhere
> and my lasting impression was that those tears had been pent up for
> years and they came after I asked why his recollections and those of
> the other Parkland doctors seemed to be at odds with the Governments
> OFFICIAL explanation and with the photographs that for years had serve
> as pablum to the public.
> I am pretty sure he felt ashamed for his government.
>
> For those of us who never write articles or books but love the story
> and continue to ask the questions, experiences like these are very
> exciting and leave a huge impression on you.
> Look forward to talking with more of you on this site.
> Robert Riley
------------------------------
Robert Riley wrote: "My enduring memory of my 15 minute conversation with
Mr. Zedlitz will always be the genuine tears he shed. They came from
seemingly nowhere and my lasting impression was that those tears had been
pent up for years and they came after I asked why his recollections and
those of the other Parkland doctors seemed to be at odds with the
Governments OFFICIAL explanation and with the photographs that for years
had serve as pablum to the public. I am pretty sure he felt ashamed for
his government."
Pretty sure he felt ashamed for his government??
Did you ever stop to think he was crying solely because of the tragedy
of Nov. 22, 1963?
The leaps and bounds to a conspiracy conclusion some people come up
with is truly amazing, I must say.
The "back of the head blasted out" the Parkland doctors said they saw,
and some conspiracists say indicates a shot from the front, is only
part of the story. Truth is, the ENTIRE right side of JFK's upper
skull was destroyed...
...INCLUDING THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE REAR SKULL AREA.
I just don't understand why this concept is so hard for some people to
grasp.
Quite simply, the head wound was so massive, exploded out, and covered
such a large area of the right side of his head, even the trauma
doctors at Parkland didn't know EXACTLY the actual parameters and
precise location of the wound. There was such a huge amount of blood,
fluid, hair, brain matter, and bone in the way that they easily could
have been mistaken and say the wound was only in the rear.
Add to the that, the fact that JFK was primarily on his back on the ER
table, and that oozy mess was moving downwards towards the rear of his
head due to simple gravity, and voile! VISUAL CONFUSION.
It wasn't until LATER at Bethesda that the wound area could be
accurately examined, THEN its exact parameters and measurements could
be taken and recorded accurately.
The trauma doctors at Parkland -- as with all trauma doctors in any
emergency room -- were not concerned with making accurate observations
and measurements of JFK's wounds. They were there to try to save his
life.
THIS IS WHY THERE EXISTS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PARKLAND DOCTORS
AND THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS, NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS A COVER-UP.
I apologize for the caps, but is this really so hard to understand?
claviger
Thalia,
How do you know that is what he thought? He may have thought the
President was shot by two different rifles from the same direction?
Why would he think that? Perhaps he was concerned by the entrance
wound measurement in the back of the skull which was smaller than 6.5
mm. Even so, Burkley's limited statement was correct. Two wounds
caused all the damage, both from behind the President. One wound in
the upper back and one in the head which damaged almost the entire
right hemisphere. No mention of a large wound in the back of the
skull. The Zapruder film proves the ER team got it wrong and confirms
Burkley's statement.
claviger
> In article <ff26cfc4-09bd-4994-a41e-b49e37910...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
John,
If all that is true why is there no mention by any ER doctor of two
major avulsive wounds to the head? If they noticed a large wound in
the back of the head facing the operating table why don't they
remember an even larger wound on the right hemisphere that is more
visible?
John Canal
>d
>> Suture. But the skull from the posterior margin of the blow-out portion
>> down to near the EOP was fragmented....collateral damage from the rear
>> entering bullet....that means the overall wound was
>> paietal-occipital.....and there are several PH docs who described the
>> wound just that way, "parietal-occipital."
>>
>> Burkley was undoubtedly responsible for no photographs being taken of the
>> BOH when the body was firat received and none taken even later of the
>.
>> there was a frontal shooter. As you know there is ev. that he was a
>e
>> House after the asassnation and coincidently the 6.5 mm opacity appeared
>> on the AP film (an obvious effort to raise the entry wound up to the
>> cowlick).....and where did Burkley have an office?...oh ya, in the WH.
>> That's of course speculation.
>>
>> Look, no one changes his mind around here...you've got your scenario that
>> you'll stick to until Hell freezes over....and it's different than what I
>e
>> had judges to decide who between us had the better arguments, I'd debate
>> you, but we don't, so I won't...sooooo, let's just agree to disagree.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>John,
>
>If all that is true why is there no mention by any ER doctor of two
>major avulsive wounds to the head? If they noticed a large wound in
>the back of the head facing the operating table why don't they
>remember an even larger wound on the right hemisphere that is more
>visible?
Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading carefully--there was
really only one large wound--several ER docs testfied or reported that the
wound was occipital-parietal! That's consistent with what F8 shows, the
autopsy report, Humes' testimony, and the later testimony and drawings of
Boswell.
And how about telling us where Burkley stated unequivocally there was ###
NO ### BOH wound? Remember, Humes testified they saw, when the body was
first received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated--IOW,
he was agreeing with the ER docs that the wound extended deep into the
BOH.
And, BTW, in the other thread you state that the entry was smaller than
6.5 mm...don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use the Warren
Report for your information when clearly Humes' testimony is the primary
source for that same information? Here's Humes: "...the smallest diameter
of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm,...." 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Mike Hillman
John,
> >If all that is true why is there no mention by any ER doctor of two
> >major avulsive wounds to the head? If they noticed a large wound in
> >the back of the head facing the operating table why don't they
> >remember an even larger wound on the right hemisphere that is more
> >visible?
>
> Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading carefully--there was
> really only one large wound--several ER docs testfied or reported that the
> wound was occipital-parietal! That's consistent with what F8 shows, the
> autopsy report, Humes' testimony, and the later testimony and drawings of
> Boswell.
It's possible for fractures to extend down into the occiput further
than the avulsed part of the scalp. The Dox drawing illustrates long
fracture lines. The question then was there an avulsive hole visible
in the occiput or a tear? If a tear, then it might be possible a
flap of skin attached to a skull fragment opened and closed. The
photograph of the BOH does not show a hole or a tear, nor does the
Z-film. The film does show what appears to be a bulge in the BOH.
Could this be a tear in the scalp or simply hair reacting to the
impact of the bullet wound?
>
> And how about telling us where Burkley stated unequivocally there was ###
> NO ### BOH wound? Remember, Humes testified they saw, when the body was
> first received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated--IOW,
> he was agreeing with the ER docs that the wound extended deep into the
> BOH.
Dr. Burkley does not mention it in his official statement in the death
certificate, so I must assume there was no avulsive wound in the back of
the skull. If there was a tear incidental to the skull fracture but not a
result of a bullet passing through he might not mention it.
>
> And, BTW, in the other thread you state that the entry was smaller than
> 6.5 mm...don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use the Warren
> Report for your information when clearly Humes' testimony is the primary
> source for that same information? Here's Humes: "...the smallest diameter
> of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm,...." 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The answer is no I do not think it disingenuous to quote from the official
autopsy report by the lead prosector and signed off by the rest of the
pathology team. The language was detailed and later referenced by Dr.
Finck in official correspondence. It is true Dr. Humes waffled on this
issue in testimony before the WC, which is puzzling since it was a very
precise measurement during the autopsy, as it should be. To expand the
wound later in testimony to indicate a less precise measurement is indeed
curious. The report was never amended by Dr. Humes for the record. Wonder
why?
_______________________________________________
The above is a response to this message:
John Canal Nov. 9, 3:37 pm
Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading carefully--there was
really only one large wound--several ER docs testfied or reported that the
wound was occipital-parietal! That's consistent with what F8 shows, the
autopsy report, Humes' testimony, and the later testimony and drawings of
Boswell.
And how about telling us where Burkley stated unequivocally there was ###
NO ### BOH wound? Remember, Humes testified they saw, when the body was
first received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated--IOW,
he was agreeing with the ER docs that the wound extended deep into the
BOH.
And, BTW, in the other thread you state that the entry was smaller than
6.5 mm...don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use the Warren
Report for your information when clearly Humes' testimony is the primary
source for that same information? Here's Humes: "...the smallest diameter
of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm,...." 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
John Canal
jca<http://groups.google.com/groups/unlock?_done=/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/709afff5ae642091/6489d8685c4fed18&msg=08fcb63d9d0d6481>...@webtv.net
John Canal
>
>
>John,
>
>
>> >If all that is true why is there no mention by any ER doctor of two
>> >major avulsive wounds to the head? If they noticed a large wound in
>> >the back of the head facing the operating table why don't they
>> >remember an even larger wound on the right hemisphere that is more
>> >visible?
>>
>> Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading carefully--there was
>> really only one large wound--several ER docs testfied or reported that the
>> wound was occipital-parietal! That's consistent with what F8 shows, the
>> autopsy report, Humes' testimony, and the later testimony and drawings of
>> Boswell.
>
>It's possible for fractures to extend down into the occiput further
>than the avulsed part of the scalp.
Possible, but I don't think they did. Look at the lowest fracture on the
lateral that extends from near the EOP around towards the right side of
his skull--note that its contour is consistent with the skull edge seen in
F8. Zimmerman agreed with me on that. IOW, when F8 was taken, obviously
all the pieces of loose rear skull had come out leaving the edge of the
remaining intact bone at about the level of the EOP. I don't think there
were any fractures below that edge.
The Dox drawing illustrates long
>fracture lines.
OMG, forget the Dox dwg...it is a big lie. Heck, they didn't even have Dox
draw the large triangular piece that arrived late from Dallas as frontal
bone...and Dr. Angel told them it was frontal and not parietal, and they
ignored him even though he was the forensic anthropologist...go figure.
>The question then was there an avulsive hole visible
>in the occiput or a tear? If a tear, then it might be possible a
>flap of skin attached to a skull fragment opened and closed.
Yes, Paul Seaton and I have been saying pretty much the same thing for
alomost a decade--that pieces of rear skull were loose and moved out of
position but they were still adhered to the scalp. I believe that when he
was transferred from the limo to the gurney those loose pieces moved even
further out of position...and since he was on his back on the gurney, in
ER1, and on AF1, the loose brain tissue and blood gravitated towards that
opening.
>The photograph of the BOH does not show a hole or a tear,
The entry hole in the scalp is centered in the photo (which is titled
entry wound in the occiput--or something close to that)...the HSCA used
stereoscopic visualization to see an abrasion collar along the lower
margin. Look at the defect that extends towards JFK's front right from the
entry...IMO, that was the tear that was open in DP. The photo was taken
much later in the evening after the scalp had been stretched and that tear
sutured closed. They even said the scalp was "undermined" which means the
the top layer (of the five total scalp layers) was seperated from the
lower four layers to increase its "stretchability". That's why the
autopsist is holding a lot of scalp in an area that supposedly was blown
out...IOW, most of the scalp he's holding over the posterior parietal in
the picture was originally from the occiput were it was not macerated or
blown out...just torn.
Note the white blob down near the hairline. I've been told by more than
one mortician that the undermining process is extremely delicate---and I
believe when they undermined the scalp from just above the hairline to
near the EOP they breeched the outer scalp layer allowing tissue under
that top layer to seep through....otherwise they did a great job,
considering the level of diffculty of the undermining process and the
little time they had to do it in.
>nor does the
>Z-film.
During the frames after the head shot, IMO, there was no brain matter
exuding from the rear opening that would make the BOH wound readily
visible. I don't believe there was any significant amount, if any, of
brain tissue exuding out that opening until he was laid on his back.
>The film does show what appears to be a bulge in the BOH.
Are you using an alias for MIMUS?
>Could this be a tear in the scalp or simply hair reacting to the
>impact of the bullet wound?
It could be...IMO, the rear skull was fragmented--with one or two pieces
out of position--and the scalp certainly was torn at that point. Again,
it's just that no brain tissue was exuding yet. And again, the scalp
laceration was probably caused by a sharp edge of one of the skull pieces
that was dislodged and it [the laceration]extended from the entry near the
EOP towards JFK's front right. Boswell testified there was a major
laceration that extended from the occiput to the front...but he said it
began in the left occipital...I think he misremembered...it extended from
the right side of the occiput at the entry site.
>> And how about telling us where Burkley stated unequivocally there was ###
>> NO ### BOH wound? Remember, Humes testified they saw, when the body was
>> first received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated--IOW,
>> he was agreeing with the ER docs that the wound extended deep into the
>> BOH.
>
>Dr. Burkley does not mention it in his official statement in the death
>certificate, so I must assume there was no avulsive wound in the back of
>the skull.
There were no photo taken of the BOH when the body was first received nor
none of the BOH (from behind) after the scalp was reflected. Also Humes
didn't leak it out that they saw cerebellum until four months later...I
believe it was a conscious effort on the part of Burkley to make sure the
autopsists didn't document (in the report or with photographs) any BOH
wound...for fear that such a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence
there had been a frontal shooter. Thus, the photos of the BOH taken late
in the evening with the tear sutured closed....and his not mentioning any
BOH wound in the death certificate.
>If there was a tear incidental to the skull fracture but not a
>result of a bullet passing through he might not mention it.
Possibly.
>> And, BTW, in the other thread you state that the entry was smaller than
>> 6.5 mm...don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use the Warren
>> Report for your information when clearly Humes' testimony is the primary
>> source for that same information? Here's Humes: "...the smallest diameter
>> of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm,...." 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>The answer is no I do not think it disingenuous to quote from the official
>autopsy report by the lead prosector and signed off by the rest of the
>pathology team.
But it doesn't state in the autopsy report that the entry in the skull was
less than 6.5 mm...if it does please tell me where. The only instance I
know of where any of the autopsists provided the diameter of the entry
hole in the skull was when Humes testified to the WC and he said the
diameter was 6-7 mm. So to use any other source to arrive at a "less than
6.5 mm diameter" measurement is disingenuous....or at best sloppy
research.
>The language was detailed and later referenced by Dr.
>Finck in official correspondence.
If finck said in later correspondence that the diameter of the entry IN
THE SKULL was smaller than 6.5 mm, I sure as heck missed it. Would you
kindly give me that citation? But een if he did, Humes' WC testmony would
trump that in evidentiary priority, IMO.
>It is true Dr. Humes waffled on this
>issue in testimony before the WC, which is puzzling since it was a very
>precise measurement during the autopsy, as it should be.
Don't assume that it was easy to measure that entry. The fracture split
the entry in half.....when they reflected the scalp the piece of rear
skull with the top half of the entry came out (that's the piece Boswell
drew on his schematic diagram)....IOW there never was a complete neat
little hole for them to hold a ruler up to....at some point they
undoubtedly held the bone piece with the top half of the entry back into
place, but I wonder if while one autopsist was holding the bone piece in
place another was measuring the diameter...my guess is that they
didn't...and neither did Finck....IOW, Humes guessed when he testified the
diameter was 6-7 mm. But he couldn't very well admit they didn't take that
measurement wthout looking sloppy, could they?
>To expand the
>wound later in testimony to indicate a less precise measurement is indeed
>curious.
See my explanation above...it fits, IMO.
>The report was never amended by Dr. Humes for the record. Wonder
>why?
What other names do you go by Mike?
John Canal
>
>The above is a response to this message:
>
>John Canal Nov. 9, 3:37 pm
>
>Either I'm not being clear or you're not reading carefully--there was
>really only one large wound--several ER docs testfied or reported that the
>wound was occipital-parietal! That's consistent with what F8 shows, the
>autopsy report, Humes' testimony, and the later testimony and drawings of
>Boswell.
>
>And how about telling us where Burkley stated unequivocally there was ###
>NO ### BOH wound? Remember, Humes testified they saw, when the body was
>first received, that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated--IOW,
>he was agreeing with the ER docs that the wound extended deep into the
>BOH.
>
>And, BTW, in the other thread you state that the entry was smaller than
>6.5 mm...don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use the Warren
>Report for your information when clearly Humes' testimony is the primary
>source for that same information? Here's Humes: "...the smallest diameter
>of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm,...." 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, it is hard to understand, because it defies common sense and logic.
They didn't have to measure the wound to see that it was in the right rear
portion of his skull, and that the back of his head was "blown out." A
three year old could determine such a wound. The nurse who packed bandages
in the area of his wound to stop the flow of bleeding has the intelligence
to observe that she was placing the bandages in the BACK OF HIS HEAD< NOT
THE TOP OR THE SIDE BUT THE BACK. ALL THE DOCTORS AND NURSES AGREE THAT
THE WOUND WAS IN THE SAME PLACE. But, no they were all delusional or
suffering mass hallucinations in your view. Seriously, you want to throw
out common sense?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you serious? More than one rifle from the same direction, ie two
gunmen in the TSBD 6th floor snipers nest? Whatever he thought he had
reason to believe that more than one person took a shot at JFK (from
whatever direction) Unfortunatley, we will never know for sure because
the WC and the HSCA had no interest in interviewing him which is an
ABSOLUTE DISGRACE.
claviger
>
> > How do you know that is what he thought? He may have thought the
> > President was shot by two different rifles from the same direction?
> > Why would he think that? Perhaps he was concerned by the entrance
> > wound measurement in the back of the skull which was smaller than 6.5
> > mm. Even so, Burkley's limited statement was correct. Two wounds
> > caused all the damage, both from behind the President. One wound in
> > the upper back and one in the head which damaged almost the entire
> > right hemisphere. No mention of a large wound in the back of the
> > skull. The Zapruder film proves the ER team got it wrong and confirms
> > Burkley's statement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you serious? More than one rifle from the same direction, ie two
> gunmen in the TSBD 6th floor snipers nest? Whatever he thought he had
> reason to believe that more than one person took a shot at JFK (from
> whatever direction) Unfortunatley, we will never know for sure because
> the WC and the HSCA had no interest in interviewing him which is an
> ABSOLUTE DISGRACE.
Obviously you are unaware that some CTs believe a shot was fired from
the DALTEX Building. One criminal has even confessed that he and an
accomplice murdered the President. The accomplice fired a bullet from
a closet inside the DalTex Bldg using a rifle with a silencer. An
alternative theory is while Oswald was shooting from the TSBD a back
up sniper fired a shot from the DalTex bldg. Then there are the
multiple snipers theories which include a shot from the DalTex bldg.
If Dr. Burkley was concerned how a 6.5 mm bullet could squeeze through
a 6 mm hole in the skull then he might suspect more than one sniper.
If the Donahue theory is correct then Dr. Burkley would be under
orders from the Kennedy family to keep quiet about what he knew.
JFK MURDER SOLVED - Reward
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
claviger
> Yes, it is hard to understand, because it defies common sense and logic.
> They didn't have to measure the wound to see that it was in the right rear
> portion of his skull, and that the back of his head was "blown out." A
> three year old could determine such a wound. The nurse who packed bandages
> in the area of his wound to stop the flow of bleeding has the intelligence
> to observe that she was placing the bandages in the BACK OF HIS HEAD< NOT
> THE TOP OR THE SIDE BUT THE BACK. ALL THE DOCTORS AND NURSES AGREE THAT
> THE WOUND WAS IN THE SAME PLACE. But, no they were all delusional or
> suffering mass hallucinations in your view. Seriously, you want to throw
> out common sense?
Common sense says if there was a mistake made it would be in the most
stressful conditions with the least favorable circumstances, the ER
situation.
Common sense says that a pathology team would do a better job of
examining the body using clinical and methodical procedures.
Common sense says there was only one large avulsive wound in the head
which both the Z-film and autopsy confirm was on the top right side of
the skull.
Common sense is the key to resolving this conflict.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burkley did not need to go into the directions of bullets, where
entrance/exit wounds were etc, the cause of death statement never has
such details. That is the job of the autopsy team. However, like the
Parkland doctors, Burkley saw the wounds when they were fresh and
before they could be manipulated/covered-up. The Dr's at Parkland knew
that Kennedy had been shot in the temple, they saw the large gaping
wound in the rear of his head, nurses had bandaged it up (something
you never hear Lone Nutters explain - how on earth could the nurses
be wrong about where they put his bandages - the old "he had his head
down in emergency and no-one had the time not inclination to examine
his head wound" silliness doesn't apply) - they saw the small entrance
wound in Kennedy's throat - and this information was relayed to the
media soon after the President's death.
Anthony Marsh
Burkley signed off on the autopsy report and said that he saw a wound at
the level of T-3.
> Parkland doctors, Burkley saw the wounds when they were fresh and
> before they could be manipulated/covered-up. The Dr's at Parkland knew
I don't think that Burkley ever hinted at any manipulation of the wounds
ala Lifton.
> that Kennedy had been shot in the temple, they saw the large gaping
> wound in the rear of his head, nurses had bandaged it up (something
> you never hear Lone Nutters explain - how on earth could the nurses
They put the gauze squares into the top and front of the head, none in
the rear of the head.
Anthony Marsh
> Thalia,
>
>> Yes, it is hard to understand, because it defies common sense and logic.
>> They didn't have to measure the wound to see that it was in the right rear
>> portion of his skull, and that the back of his head was "blown out." A
>> three year old could determine such a wound. The nurse who packed bandages
>> in the area of his wound to stop the flow of bleeding has the intelligence
>> to observe that she was placing the bandages in the BACK OF HIS HEAD< NOT
>> THE TOP OR THE SIDE BUT THE BACK. ALL THE DOCTORS AND NURSES AGREE THAT
>> THE WOUND WAS IN THE SAME PLACE. But, no they were all delusional or
>> suffering mass hallucinations in your view. Seriously, you want to throw
>> out common sense?
> Common sense says if there was a mistake made it would be in the most
> stressful conditions with the least favorable circumstances, the ER
> situation.
>
Bethesda was also stressful. You had incompetence doctors fudging the
exam and military brass giving the orders under threat of court martial.
> Common sense says that a pathology team would do a better job of
> examining the body using clinical and methodical procedures.
>
Msybe if they were actually forensic pathologists as was SUPPOSED to
happen, and not under control of the authorities telling them to cover
it up.
> Common sense says there was only one large avulsive wound in the head
> which both the Z-film and autopsy confirm was on the top right side of
> the skull.
>
Yeah, but it's a large wound which extends back into the occipital area.
If the middle is covered up by scalp and blood it might appear to be two
separate wounds to untrained eyes.
> Common sense is the key to resolving this conflict.
>
WC defenders? Common sense? LOL.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
And who said it measured exactly 6.0 mm? That's your problem right
there. The measurement and the measurer. Simple incompetence.
> If the Donahue theory is correct then Dr. Burkley would be under
> orders from the Kennedy family to keep quiet about what he knew.
>
Ridiculous. You've never seen what an AR-15 can do to a head.
Anthony Marsh
Hey, let's make up a wacky theory that no one else ever thought of
before. Here goes:
The TSBD shooter was using an over-under rifle. The top barrel was a
Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm and the bottom barrel was a .223. Do you think
we can stir up some investors to promote this? Sell stock?
Anthony Marsh
No one packed bandages into the head during the attempts to save his
life. That was done after he was dead to prepare the body for shipping.
> to observe that she was placing the bandages in the BACK OF HIS HEAD< NOT
The autopsy photos show the gauze squares only in the top and front of
the head, none in the back.
> THE TOP OR THE SIDE BUT THE BACK. ALL THE DOCTORS AND NURSES AGREE THAT
> THE WOUND WAS IN THE SAME PLACE. But, no they were all delusional or
> suffering mass hallucinations in your view. Seriously, you want to throw
> out common sense?
>
How about if they had all been at an LSD party? How about if they were
focused ONLY on saving the President's life, not doing a forensic exam?
tomnln
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8af807e4-6a41-4263...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
claviger
> Burkley did not need to go into the directions of bullets, where
> entrance/exit wounds were etc, the cause of death statement never has
> such details. That is the job of the autopsy team.
Yes, no need to put that information in a death certificate. However,
as ranking officer in the CoC during the autopsy he would be informed
of findings by the pathology team. If he had questions at the time he
could go down and look at the body himself. He did in fact visit the
operating room more than once during the autopsy.
> However, like the Parkland doctors, Burkley saw the wounds when
> they were fresh and before they could be manipulated/covered-up.
Yes he did see the wounds at Parkland Hospital before the endotracheal
tube was placed in the throat wound. Your contention is the wounds
were manipulated and covered up. When and where did this take place?
Why didn’t Dr. Burkley notice? He was loyal to the Kennedy family all
his life and never divulged any secrets about President Kennedy. You
are accusing him of duplicity in a massive cover up. What evidence do
you have to support the accusation of treason?
> The Dr's at Parkland knew that Kennedy had been shot in the temple,
Where did this bullet come from? What type of bullet was it? Using
frame Z-212 can you explain the trajectory and how the bullet did a
90º left turn inside the brain to exit the back of the skull?
> they saw the large gaping wound in the rear of his head, nurses had
> bandaged it up (something you never hear Lone Nutters explain - how
> on earth could the nurses be wrong about where they put his bandages
> - the old "he had his head down in emergency and no-one had the time
> not inclination to examine his head wound" silliness doesn't apply)
Nurse Pat Hutton: “Pressure bandage was no use ...because of the
massive opening on the back of the head.”
> - they saw the small entrance wound in Kennedy's throat - and this
> information was relayed to the media soon after the President's death.
How do you know the hole in the throat is an entrance wound? Where did
that bullet come from and at what trajectory? Did this bullet exit the
back or remain inside the body?
claviger
Here are six descriptions by the main team of ER doctors who worked on
the President in TR-1. These observations "before the official story
was set in stone". (I wonder if that means Oliver Stone?!)
"Three Patients At Parkland"
From State Journal of Medicine, dated January, 1964.
It was written in late November/early December, 1963 before the
'OFFICIAL' story was set in stone.
provided by Michael Parks.
http://www.jfklancer.com/3Patients.html
Charles J Carrico :
The other wound had caused avulsion of the occipitoparietal calvarium
and shredded brain tissue was present with profuse oozing.
Malcolm 0. Perry :
A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing
severely lacerated brain.
Charles R. Baxter :
On first observation of the other wounds, portions of the right
temporal and occipital bones were missing and some of the brain was
lying on the table. The rest of the brain was extensively macerated
and contused.
Robert N. McClelland :
The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head
and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head.
William Kemp Clark :
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. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so that Dr. Clark could
evaluate the head wound.
There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into
the parietal region. Much of the right posterior skull, at brief
examination, appeared gone. The previously described extruding brain
was present. Profuse bleeding had occurred and 1500 cc. of blood was
estimated to be on the drapes and floor of the emergency operating
room. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the
wound.
M. T. Jenkins :
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 part of the right cerebellum had protruded from the
wound.
claviger
Here is a comparison of how the top six doctors in ER described the
head wound:
1. Carrico - occipitoparietal.
2. Clark - right occiput extending into the parietal region
3. Baxter - right temporal and occipital
4. Jenkins - right side of the head (temporal and occipital)
5. McClelland - right side of the head
6. Perry - right posterior cranium
Very interesting. The one thing they all agree on is the wound was on the
right side of the head. Two claim occipital-parietal, two claim
temporal-occipital, and two use less specific language. There's obviously
a difference of opinion within the ER group. No such disagreement with the
pathology team who observed the same massive wound in the same place we
can see in the Zapruder film.
claviger
> On Nov 4, 5:14 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > didn't match up with the autopsy photos? You're leaving me hanging, no
> > offense. What else did Dr. Zedlitz say?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> odds? My first trip to Dallas, I am totally psyched about seeing all the
> sites- but I never pass up flea markets- love to scrounge for old
> stuff--Just wanted a decent reference copy of the Warren report volume,
> and the guy who sells me this was there? So, I'm not an interviewer, no
> notebook, just shooting the breeze- but the MOMENT I made the statement
> and asked the question about it not matching up, he just starts
> sobbing---so there I am feeling bad for this older guy, thinking maybe I
> offended him by insinuating he was lying or something. But his hand was
> placed on the REAR portion of his head, and he said he din't know why the
> discrepancy. I think at that point I just began talking about the fact
> that I wished all the surviving key medical witnesses could be put in one
> room and have some moderators ask the key questions.
>
> I wish I could go back and ask some more probing questions like a real
> researcher would have. sigh...
parousia,
I wish you could too. I searched the net for any information on Dr.
Zedlitz. Found confirmation he did work at Parkland Hospital in 1963,
but no evidence he was in TR1 while the ER team worked on President
Kennedy.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Trauma1.html
TRAUMA ROOM ONE: REVISITED
By Russell Kent, The Assassination Chronicles Vol. 1, Issue 4; Dec '95
A companion piece to: What What Did the Parkland Doctors Really Say?
Dr. Gene Akin
Dr. Fouad Bashour
Dr. Charles Baxter
Dr. James Carrico
Dr. Kemp Clark
Dr. Charles Crenshaw
Dr. Delaney (mentioned by Jenkins)
Dr. A. H. Giesecke, Jr.
Dr. Robert Grossman
Dr. Jackie H. Hunt
Dr. M. T. Jenkins
Dr. Ronald Jones
Dr. Robert McClelland
Dr. Malcolm Perry
Dr. Paul Peters
Dr. Kenneth Salyer
claviger
> > The Dr's at Parkland knew that Kennedy had been shot in the temple,
>
> Where did this bullet come from? What type of bullet was it? Using
> frame Z-212 can you explain the trajectory and how the bullet did a
> 90º left turn inside the brain to exit the back of the skull?
Correction: Zapruder frame Z-312.
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50ae46f7-2abb-4d06...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
claviger says...
Disinformation. In the first place, the Autopsy Report stated the wound extended
somewhat into the occipital.....do you see any indication that the large wound
extended into the occipital in the Z-film? Of course you don't.
Secondly, Humes testified that, when the body was first received, they saw that
part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated....please tell us in your own
words how in the heck they could have seen cerebellum unless there was some kind
of opening low in the BOH?
If you could understand F8 you'd realize that the skull edge down near the EOP
was extremely jagged (remember what Boswell wrote, "Ragged and slanting"?...he
was referring to that skull edge). What I'm trying to get across to you is that
that edge obviously wasn't created with a saw...which, in turn, is consistent
with what the autopsists said about loose skull pieces coming out when they
reflected the scalp.
Cripes, even the FBI agents in the morgue testifed there was a BOH wound...and
there were several others.
In summary, the BOH skull was severely fragmented by the rear entering
bullet....and one or two of those skull pieces moved out of position creating
gap/s between them. Then, once he was on his back the blood and loose brain
matter gravitated towards those gaps in his BOH. Moreover, the gaps must have
been wide enough to expose the cerebellum because there were no less than 11
eyewitnesses who said they saw that part of the brain. I might add that the gaps
between the BOH skull fragments probably increased in size when he was
transferred (undoubtedly in a rushed manner with someone holding the back of his
head up) from the limo to the gurney.
One more thing, the sharp edges on an out-of-position rear skull piece could
have easily caused a scalp laceration there.
And would you quit saying, for the sake of the integrity of this group, that the
entry was smaller than 6.5 mm? I gave you the primary citation for the diameter
of the skull entry which you evidently insist on ignoring. One last time: Humes
testified the skull entry was "approximately 6-7 mm" in diameter.
2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Thalia
> Thalia,
>
> > Burkley did not need to go into the directions of bullets, where
> > entrance/exit wounds were etc, the cause of death statement never has
> > such details. That is the job of the autopsy team.
>
> Yes, no need to put that information in a death certificate. However,
> as ranking officer in the CoC during the autopsy he would be informed
> of findings by the pathology team. If he had questions at the time he
> could go down and look at the body himself. He did in fact visit the
> operating room more than once during the autopsy.
>
> > However, like the Parkland doctors, Burkley saw the wounds when
> > they were fresh and before they could be manipulated/covered-up.
>
> Yes he did see the wounds at Parkland Hospital before the endotracheal
> tube was placed in the throat wound. Your contention is the wounds
> were manipulated and covered up. When and where did this take place?
> Why didn’t Dr. Burkley notice? He was loyal to the Kennedy family all
> his life and never divulged any secrets about President Kennedy. You
> are accusing him of duplicity in a massive cover up. What evidence do
> you have to support the accusation of treason?
I do not know when and where they were covered up, I was not there,
and this burden of proof is unreasonable. All I know is that there are
massive inconsistancies between the wounds described at Parkland and
the autopsy materials, which I believe show evidence of tampering, ie
his X-rays have a mysterious section that is much, much whiter and
denser than the rest of his skull, just in the posoition where the
Parkland medical personnel placed a gaping hole. Also, the photos do
not show any damage to the BOH, which I find unreasonable in light of
the testimony of Parkland medical personnel. For the X-ray patching,
see:
http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/JFKchapter27.pdf
Burkley tried to do the right thing, ie his lawyer contacting the
HSCA. However, the authorities were not interested. This is a fact.
>
> > The Dr's at Parkland knew that Kennedy had been shot in the temple,
>
> Where did this bullet come from? What type of bullet was it? Using
> frame Z-212 can you explain the trajectory and how the bullet did a
> 90º left turn inside the brain to exit the back of the skull?
It was a dum dum bullet, I am guessing you know how they work.
>
> > they saw the large gaping wound in the rear of his head, nurses had
> > bandaged it up (something you never hear Lone Nutters explain - how
> > on earth could the nurses be wrong about where they put his bandages
> > - the old "he had his head down in emergency and no-one had the time
> > not inclination to examine his head wound" silliness doesn't apply)
>
> Nurse Pat Hutton: “Pressure bandage was no use ...because of the
> massive opening on the back of the head.”
Regardless of what treatment they ended up giving him, they saw the
massive opening on the BACK of his head, not the top.
> > - they saw the small entrance wound in Kennedy's throat - and this
> > information was relayed to the media soon after the President's death.
>
> How do you know the hole in the throat is an entrance wound? Where did
> that bullet come from and at what trajectory? Did this bullet exit the
> back or remain inside the body?
How do I know it was an entrance wound? Because of it's description.
It was very small, and was made a small calibre weapon of some kind.
This is how it was described in media reports the day after the
assassination - and the media got their information from Kilduff,
JFK's press secretary, who also said the Kennedy was shot right
through the head, while pointing at his right temple. Life magazine
was in a conundrum about Kennedy's frontal throat wound, and wrote
lies in a newpaper article claiming the Z-film shows Kennedy turning
around in his limo to wave to the crowd exposing his throat to the
snipers nest. The bullet hole in Kennedy's back was too low to exit
out of Kennedy's throat, and we know where the bullet entered his back
because of the holes in his jacket and business shirt (and no I do not
accept the old clother riding up his back silliness) and the
trajectory from the snipers nest was downwards, so how the bullet
changed his trajectory without smashing into bones is Kennedy's back
is a giant mystery, just one more in this case. Where did the bullet
go? Well, it could be the pristine CE399, but I doubt it.
Unfortunately the autopsy and collection of evidence was so sloppy
(and covered up) the bullet could be anywhere. The pathology team did
not inspect Kennedy's clothes for example, which is a standard
procedure in a shooting death. Also, the Dr probing Kennedy's back
wound could feel the end with his finger. What do you make of that?
Thalia
The wound was in in the right-rear. It can be both.
claviger
> In article <50ae46f7-2abb-4d06-95e1-0cee65e27...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
John,
Cmd Humes said 6 mm in the Official Autopsy Report and never amended that
report, so it is still the official source document on the pathology
examination of President Kennedy. Col Finck concurred and it sounds like
he measured it himself in official correspondence. Humes changed his story
during testimony before the WC to sidestep a good question from the panel
about the size of the entrance hole on the skull. Legally the pathology
team signed off on 6 mm, not 6-7 mm.
Here are some topics you can search at the top of the screen to refresh
your memory on previous discussions about this issue:
• Question for the group
• a few CTs are optimists
• A look at the JFK headshot
• An afterthought-Re: A look at the JFK headshot
• The Attorney General "didn't" influence an autopsy??
• Fragments behind the right eye worse than flies in the ointment
• Did a bullet or fragment hit JFK's head before explosive head shot
• Lurkers please check this out, and for DVP another simple yes or no
question
• Are there any "fence sitters" re. whether the entry to the BOH was
near the EOP or in the cowlick?
claviger
> I do not know when and where they were covered up, I was not there,
> and this burden of proof is unreasonable.
Why is it unreasonable? Are you saying CTs have no obligation to
burden of proof?
> All I know is that there are
> massive inconsistancies between the wounds described at Parkland and
> the autopsy materials, which I believe show evidence of tampering, ie
> his X-rays have a mysterious section that is much, much whiter and
> denser than the rest of his skull, just in the posoition where the
> Parkland medical personnel placed a gaping hole.
Not all of them.
> Also, the photos do not show any damage to the BOH, which I find
> unreasonable in light of the testimony of Parkland medical personnel.
Depends on which personnel you believe, since not all of them saw it
the same way.
> Burkley tried to do the right thing, ie his lawyer contacting the
> HSCA. However, the authorities were not interested. This is a fact.
Burkley had other options to present his theory of what happened.
> > > The Dr's at Parkland knew that Kennedy had been shot in the temple,
> > Where did this bullet come from? What type of bullet was it? Using
> > frame Z-212 can you explain the trajectory and how the bullet did a
> > 90º left turn inside the brain to exit the back of the skull?
> It was a dum dum bullet, I am guessing you know how they work.
I do, but where did it come from?
> Regardless of what treatment they ended up giving him, they saw the
> massive opening on the BACK of his head, not the top.
Who are "they"? Not all ER doctors saw it the same way.
> How do I know it was an entrance wound? Because of it's description.
> It was very small, and was made a small calibre weapon of some kind.
> This is how it was described in media reports the day after the
> assassination - and the media got their information from Kilduff,
> JFK's press secretary, who also said the Kennedy was shot right
> through the head, while pointing at his right temple.
I think he later explained that gesture in a different way.
> Life magazine
> was in a conundrum about Kennedy's frontal throat wound, and wrote
> lies in a newpaper article claiming the Z-film shows Kennedy turning
> around in his limo to wave to the crowd exposing his throat to the
> snipers nest.
His head was turned but not his torso, which is why the bullet entered
his back and punctured his throat before smashing into Gov Connally.
> The bullet hole in Kennedy's back was too low to exit
> out of Kennedy's throat, and we know where the bullet entered his back
> because of the holes in his jacket and business shirt (and no I do not
> accept the old clother riding up his back silliness) and the
> trajectory from the snipers nest was downwards, so how the bullet
> changed his trajectory without smashing into bones is Kennedy's back
> is a giant mystery, just one more in this case.
Actually the entrance wound on the back lines up perfectly with the
exit wound in the throat and both line up on a trajectory straight
back to the 6th floor window. This has been explained many times on
this message board.
> Where did the bullet go? Well, it could be the pristine CE399, but I doubt it.
So you are suggesting the bullet that entered the throat then exited
the body, but stayed in the Limousine?
> Unfortunately the autopsy and collection of evidence was so sloppy
> (and covered up) the bullet could be anywhere. The pathology team did
> not inspect Kennedy's clothes for example, which is a standard
> procedure in a shooting death.
It wasn't that sloppy and it wasn't covered up. The FBI had observers
and both Gen McHugh and Adm Burkley were considered Kennedy loyalists.
Other people checked the clothes and found no bullet.
> Also, the Dr probing Kennedy's back
> wound could feel the end with his finger. What do you make of that?
The end of what?
tomnln
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95df0ea3-2ad1-4af8...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 10:37 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thalia,
>
> > Burkley did not need to go into the directions of bullets, where
> > entrance/exit wounds were etc, the cause of death statement never has
> > such details. That is the job of the autopsy team.
>
> Yes, no need to put that information in a death certificate. However,
> as ranking officer in the CoC during the autopsy he would be informed
> of findings by the pathology team. If he had questions at the time he
> could go down and look at the body himself. He did in fact visit the
> operating room more than once during the autopsy.
>
> > However, like the Parkland doctors, Burkley saw the wounds when
> > they were fresh and before they could be manipulated/covered-up.
>
> Yes he did see the wounds at Parkland Hospital before the endotracheal
> tube was placed in the throat wound. Your contention is the wounds
> were manipulated and covered up. When and where did this take place?
> Why didn�t Dr. Burkley notice? He was loyal to the Kennedy family all
> his life and never divulged any secrets about President Kennedy. You
> are accusing him of duplicity in a massive cover up. What evidence do
> you have to support the accusation of treason?
I do not know when and where they were covered up, I was not there,
and this burden of proof is unreasonable. All I know is that there are
massive inconsistancies between the wounds described at Parkland and
the autopsy materials, which I believe show evidence of tampering, ie
his X-rays have a mysterious section that is much, much whiter and
denser than the rest of his skull, just in the posoition where the
Parkland medical personnel placed a gaping hole. Also, the photos do
not show any damage to the BOH, which I find unreasonable in light of
the testimony of Parkland medical personnel. For the X-ray patching,
see:
http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/JFKchapter27.pdf
Burkley tried to do the right thing, ie his lawyer contacting the
HSCA. However, the authorities were not interested. This is a fact.
>
> > The Dr's at Parkland knew that Kennedy had been shot in the temple,
>
> Where did this bullet come from? What type of bullet was it? Using
> frame Z-212 can you explain the trajectory and how the bullet did a
> 90� left turn inside the brain to exit the back of the skull?
It was a dum dum bullet, I am guessing you know how they work.
>
> > they saw the large gaping wound in the rear of his head, nurses had
> > bandaged it up (something you never hear Lone Nutters explain - how
> > on earth could the nurses be wrong about where they put his bandages
> > - the old "he had his head down in emergency and no-one had the time
> > not inclination to examine his head wound" silliness doesn't apply)
>
> Nurse Pat Hutton: �Pressure bandage was no use ...because of the
> massive opening on the back of the head.�
John Canal
>John,
>
>Cmd Humes said 6 mm in the Official Autopsy Report and never amended that
>report, so it is still the official source document on the pathology
>examination of President Kennedy.
Here's what it says in the autopsy report...I put it in caps so you'll have a
better chance of comprehending what it says:
"SITUATED IN THE POSTERIOR #### SCALP #### APPROXIMATELY 2.5 CM LATERALLY TO THE
RIGHT AND SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE EOP IS A LACERATED WOUND MEASURING 15 X 6 MM...."
It goes on to say there's a corresponding wound in the underlying skull but
you're interpreting the word "corresponding" precisely the way you need to in
order to keep the foolish theory that SSA Hickey shot JFK intact. Humes didn't
say that "corresponding" meant the same exact size....but he was 100% perfectly
clear in his WC testimony when he said the diameter was 6-7 mm....obviously
knowing the missile that hit JFK was a 6.5 mm round.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> In article<50ae46f7-2abb-4d06...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>>
>> Thalia,
>>
>> Here is a comparison of how the top six doctors in ER described the
>> head wound:
>>
>> 1. Carrico - occipitoparietal.
>>
>> 2. Clark - right occiput extending into the parietal region
>>
>>
>> 3. Baxter - right temporal and occipital
>>
>> 4. Jenkins - right side of the head (temporal and occipital)
>>
>>
>> 5. McClelland - right side of the head
>>
>> 6. Perry - right posterior cranium
>>
>>
>> Very interesting. The one thing they all agree on is the wound was on the
>> right side of the head. Two claim occipital-parietal, two claim
>> temporal-occipital, and two use less specific language. There's obviously
>> a difference of opinion within the ER group. No such disagreement with the
>> pathology team who observed the same massive wound in the same place we
>> can see in the Zapruder film.
>
> Disinformation. In the first place, the Autopsy Report stated the wound extended
> somewhat into the occipital.....do you see any indication that the large wound
> extended into the occipital in the Z-film? Of course you don't.
>
You can't see under the scalp unless you have X-ray eyes.
> Secondly, Humes testified that, when the body was first received, they saw that
> part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated....please tell us in your own
> words how in the heck they could have seen cerebellum unless there was some kind
> of opening low in the BOH?
>
Incompetence.
> If you could understand F8 you'd realize that the skull edge down near the EOP
> was extremely jagged (remember what Boswell wrote, "Ragged and slanting"?...he
> was referring to that skull edge). What I'm trying to get across to you is that
> that edge obviously wasn't created with a saw...which, in turn, is consistent
> with what the autopsists said about loose skull pieces coming out when they
> reflected the scalp.
>
I don't think anyone was arguing that a saw was used in Dealey Plaza.
> Cripes, even the FBI agents in the morgue testifed there was a BOH wound...and
> there were several others.
>
Look at the ARRB drawings.
> In summary, the BOH skull was severely fragmented by the rear entering
> bullet....and one or two of those skull pieces moved out of position creating
> gap/s between them. Then, once he was on his back the blood and loose brain
> matter gravitated towards those gaps in his BOH. Moreover, the gaps must have
Gravitated? Are you a forensic pathologist?
> been wide enough to expose the cerebellum because there were no less than 11
> eyewitnesses who said they saw that part of the brain. I might add that the gaps
No less than 11 eyewitnesses who also said the throat wound was an
entrance, so you have to believe that as well, right?
Never rely on eyewitnesses.
> between the BOH skull fragments probably increased in size when he was
> transferred (undoubtedly in a rushed manner with someone holding the back of his
> head up) from the limo to the gurney.
>
> One more thing, the sharp edges on an out-of-position rear skull piece could
> have easily caused a scalp laceration there.
>
> And would you quit saying, for the sake of the integrity of this group, that the
> entry was smaller than 6.5 mm? I gave you the primary citation for the diameter
> of the skull entry which you evidently insist on ignoring. One last time: Humes
> testified the skull entry was "approximately 6-7 mm" in diameter.
> 2WCH359!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
6-7 mm? Wow, that sounds like a very precise measurement from a forensic
pathologist. Weight of patient: approximately 100-200 pounds.
>
Anthony Marsh
No. McClelland said LEFT.
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9f8b81d-38e9-4e2f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
John,
� Question for the group
� a few CTs are optimists
� A look at the JFK headshot
� An afterthought-Re: A look at the JFK headshot
� The Attorney General "didn't" influence an autopsy??
� Fragments behind the right eye worse than flies in the ointment
� Did a bullet or fragment hit JFK's head before explosive head shot
� Lurkers please check this out, and for DVP another simple yes or no
question
� Are there any "fence sitters" re. whether the entry to the BOH was
Thalia
>
> No less than 11 eyewitnesses who also said the throat wound was an
> entrance, so you have to believe that as well, right?
> Never rely on eyewitnesses.
Courts of law do. Police line-up results are official evidence.
Doesn't make it perfect, but eyewitnesses can tell us some things.
Thalia
> Thalia,
>
> > I do not know when and where they were covered up, I was not there,
> > and this burden of proof is unreasonable.
>
> Why is it unreasonable? Are you saying CTs have no obligation to
> burden of proof?
Yes, the burden of proof must be reasonable. In a court of law, people can
be convicted of a crime despite there being no witnesses or video of them
committing the crime. The court can make a deduction based on the
preponderence of evidence in the case. A person may be convicted despite
several pieces of evidence being missing or unknown - the weapon, or even
the bod for example. I know that there has been a cover-up of Kennedy's
wounds because of certain peices of evidence that makes it so. However,
this "evidence" does not allow me to deduce with any certainty who
committed the actual crime of altering the medical evidence - however,
that does not change the fact that the medical evidence has been
manipulated.
Thalia
>
> > Burkley tried to do the right thing, ie his lawyer contacting the
> > HSCA. However, the authorities were not interested. This is a fact.
>
> Burkley had other options to present his theory of what happened.
>
He did, but he knew the authorities were not interested. That would
play on most people's minds.
claviger
John,
From a legal standpoint the Autopsy Report is the key document. It was
signed by all three pathologists. Humes' comments to the WC were not,
therefore the official report carries more weight. A defense attorney
could use this document to cast doubt that LHO was the real sniper based
on a medical opinion from expert witnesses that rifle bullets have a known
reaming effect on skull wounds. There is also the experience by senior
pathologists that the skin wound is usually identical to the underlying
wound on the outer table, which may be why Humes didn't bother to refract
the head wound. If the defense attorney could verify this wound was only 6
mm wide, he could argue to a jury it would be impossible for a 6.5 missile
to have caused this wound.
The 6 mm measurement turns up in two places on the autopsy report. The
back wound also measured 6 mm. However, given that it was in a part of the
anatomy with more flesh elasticity would allow the missile to pass through
without the reaming effect. So in this case the smaller measurement has a
rational explanation. Not so with the skull wound.
If we accept Humes' explanation then every other measurement during the
autopsy is now suspect. His comment raises more questions than it settles.
claviger
Thalia,
Can you give us specific examples of alteration of medical evidence?
All circumstantial evidence points to the President being wounded from
shots fired behind the Limousine. No evidence of any wounds caused by
shots coming from in front of the Limousine. The so-called "acoustic
evidence" has been debunked. The Lee Bowers testimony eliminates the
possibility of anyone firing shots from behind the fence on the GK. No
witness on the RR viaduct reports seeing anyone with a rifle within view
of that elevated position. They converged on the parking area immediately
and found nothing. So where did the dum-dum bullet come from? If from a
weapon with a silencer would there even be an acoustic imprint on the
Dictabelt?
From a scientific standpoint there needs to be corroborating evidence the
weapon was within range for a dum-dum bullet. Typically dum-dum bullets
are used in a short range situation. So the assassin would need to be
close to the target. The trajectory also presents a problem. The source of
the bullet would need be at a steeper angle to clear the windshield. It
would also need to be straight ahead of the target to make a rounded
puncture wound. Those two factors may cancel each other out.
A dum-dum shot to the side of the forehead also presents a problem. How
could it enter the right side of the forehead and exit the back of the
head? Even moreso, the back-right side of the head?!! In that case you are
suggesting the bullet entered the right side of the head and exited the
right side of the head. How did it manage to do a u-turn inside the skull?
All these questions must be answered for your theory to be considered
plausible.
claviger
Thalia,
If not the authorities, the public would certainly find his theory
most interesting.