11/22/63 Parkland Medical Reports, the Throat Wound, and the Large Head Wound

[Chris Bristow]

McClelland initially points to where his scalp meets his hairline and because I look at this point on myself virtually everyday, I have no trouble locating this position and there is no way that I'd miss this location by two inches, try it yourself. If you have no hair, close your eyes and point to the top of your ear, do you miss the top of your ear by even an inch?
Within context of when the GIF is taken, it's after McClelland is shown the official autopsy photos and he has no choice but to point to where the wounds front most extremity actually was, where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.

Look at the level of McClelland's ear in the GIF as compared to the level of the ear in his infamous drawing, which bears little resemblance to where he's actually pointing.





"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly"
Dr Robert McClelland from the NOVA JFK documentary.

JohnM

I find it easy to locate the top of the ear but with the skull I land an inch from where I intended. 
     

[Michael T. Griffith]

Are you claiming that McClelland's hand has entered the 4th dimension and is actually doing something else?
In the following still, McClelland is indicating the front edge of the wound which just happens to coincide with the autopsy photo below, Geez Louise, what are the chances!

My "preferred location" is reinforced by the actual autopsy photo's and the HSCA's medical panel's analysis.

JohnM

"Geez Louise" is right: Do you think no one notices that McClelland's hand ends up in the back of his head? Or did you simply not notice this? This is just silly. You constantly pull this nonsense. You post silly GIFs that are either irrelevant or that refute your argument.

Do you just not care that McClelland told the WC, the ARRB, and anyone else who asked him, that the large wound was in the right occipital-parietal area, i.e., the right-rear part of the head?

In numerous interviews, McClelland made it clear that he believed the bullet entered from the front and exited the back of the head. Here are two of them that were video-taped:

(large head wound discussion starts at 33:13)

(large head wound discussion starts at 33:50)

"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." Dr Robert McClelland from the NOVA JFK documentary.

Why do WC apologists always omit the fact that McClelland also said that one of the autopsy photos he saw at the National Archives showed a visible amount of bone missing from the occipital region? Funny how you guys leave out this key information.

Plus, we don't what autopsy photos McClelland was shown. Several Bethesda witnesses said they saw autopsy photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head. McClelland might have been shown some of those photos. Or, he might have been referring to F8, which shows a sizable amount of bone missing from the occiput.

There is also the fact, which you guys also never mention, that the Parkland doctors who viewed the autopsy photos at the National Archives in 1988 for the Nova documentary complained that Nova either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments:

For the 25th observance of the assassination (1988), four Parkland physicians (Robert McClelland, Richard Delaney, Paul Peters, and Marion Jenkins) traveled to the National Archives to view the autopsy materials. On leaving, they were asked by Nova if their recollections disagreed with the photographs. This time many investigators expected that they would disagree, but now another kind of surprise these physicians seemed to imply that they had seen no discrepancies. Nonetheless, on subsequent careful questioning, they later complained that the Nova program had either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments. (https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)

[Ray Mitcham]

Plus, we don't what autopsy photos McClelland was shown.

We have only seen the "official" photos.

There is also the fact, which you guys also never mention, that the Parkland doctors who viewed the autopsy photos at the National Archives in 1988 for the Nova documentary complained that Nova either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments:[/size]

The people who took the "official" photos denied that they were the photos they took.

[Ray Mitcham]

How incompetent were the Parkland doctors not to see the this top of the head wound as in the "official" photos,
https://i.postimg.cc/bvxx153B/Jfkautopsyrotateright.jpg

[Louis Earl]

This has always reminded me of the story of the blind men describing an elephant. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

How incompetent were the Parkland doctors not to see the this top of the head wound as in the "official" photos,
https://i.postimg.cc/bvxx153B/Jfkautopsyrotateright.jpg

Indeed, and one of the Parkland doctors was a neurosurgeon (Kemp Clark). Dr. Clark specified in his 11/22/63 report that two wound were noted: "two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . ."

The Parkland doctors would have had to be blind not to notice this wound.  Not only did the Parkland doctors not see that wound, but neither did the nurse who held a pressure bandage on the head wound and the nurse who packed the head wound with gauze squares to prepare the body for the casket--both of those nurses said the large head wound was in the "back of the head." In addition, most of the Bethesda witnesses said the large wound was in the back of the head, just as did the Parkland doctors

The mortician and a few others explained that Humes did the damage to the top of the head when he sawed the top of the head. Humes created the top-right "flap" when he sawed JFK's skull.

When the ARRB showed the mortician, Tom Robinson, the top-of-head photos, such as the one you linked, he explained that Humes and Boswell did that damage, that when the body arrived the top of the head did not look like that.

Going back to Dealey Plaza, Clint Hill saw the large head wound for several minutes up-close on the way to the hospital, and he saw the wound again at the Bethesda morgue. Hill consistently said the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head:

"a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head.”

"“The right rear portion of his head was missing."

"There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound…except for the one… in the right rear portion of the head.”

"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone."

What is so compelling about Hill's account is that he was called to the Bethesda morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's body again and that he saw the body after the autopsy while the morticians were preparing the body for placement in the casket. He once again saw the same right-rear head wound:

"At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket." (https://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html)

This is crucial because two of the morticians and others explained that the right-rear head wound was still visible even after the skull had been reconstructed. Notice that Hill mentioned no wound on the top of the skull.

[John Iacoletti]

where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.

Says "Mytton" the mindreader.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: John Mytton on August 15, 2020, 08:49:01 AM
where he ends up is a subconscious attempt to save face and/or just a muscle memory trace of his usual deceptive location.

You must be joking. Have you ever actually watched the NOVA documentary from which the GIF was taken? Here is what Dr. McClelland says in the documentary as he starts to draw a diagram of the large head wound's location, before he views the autopsy photos:

Let me show you to my best recollection what the wound looked like to me that day in Trauma Room 1.  [Starts drawing a diagram of the wound]  I could see the president's head wound quite well.  I was probably looking into a wound [holds hand on the right-rear side of his head] that was probably on the lateral or the side part of the head and the back part of the head [still holding hand on the right-rear part of his head]. . . .

And here is what Dr. McClelland says, and demonstrates, right after he has viewed the autopsy photos for NOVA:

I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they are shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly. There was a very large wound that I saw on the back of the head and the side of the head [holds hand on the right-rear part of his head] that I described earlier.

You guys always quote the first part of his statement but omit the second part, the part where he says that the autopsy photos that he saw showed the same large head wound that he had described earlier.

Here is a screencap that shows Dr. McClelland demonstrating the wound's location while he is giving the above-quoted description:



And here is the diagram (on the right) that Dr. McClellan approved for NOVA as a representation of the wound that he saw:



You really need to do some homework and get a handle on the facts of the case, and stop just blindly defending the lone-gunman nonsense.