JFK What the doctors saw.....Parkland hospital

[John Mytton]

Thanks for clarification.  So the original quote in your first post was (paraphrased from 1964) in the 1998 inquiry and testimony and was  "inferenced" as a BS argument from McClelland's statements.  Nothing of that quote in the image posted  even remotely matches his 1964 testimony.   Clearly misleading terms and meant as misinformation and rabbit hole material to diffuse and deflect his original testimony and add confusion with the statement he made 34 years later.




What I quoted from was the original Warren Commission report where McClelland is clearly assisting with the tracheostomy and using a retractor instrument with that neck wound.  That was released within 11 months and should be considered fresh firsthand expert testimony from a surgeon.   In 1998 statement, he added "with the knowledge gained after viewing of the Zapruder film" , it DID NOT change his opinion of the size of the wound being an exit and not an entrance hole and that it is still consistent as an exit wound.   Head, body goes back, arms go up in a defensive posture and explodes with the frontal assault.  Brain matter goes back onto trunk. Skull blows out, not in.   There is no reason to dispute his original observations made even before he saw the Zapruder film.  He makes a very good observation initially of the outward thrust of the skull bone in his description without ever seeing the Zapruder film.  Mere observation.  I assume he was not allowed to see the film in 1964.  That was government confidential secret material. 

Why would someone want to discredit McClelland's observations, cherry pick and or enter in false statements like done with the image posted?   Is that not a normal reaction when you want to obfuscate evidence?  Let the facts speak for themselves I say.

Someone is clearly trying to apply  "retraction" to assume that he was somehow involved with the large gaping head wound at the right exterior of the skull.  His discussion was of the neck wound.

During 1998 inquiry, there was also launched an argument that there was a spinal cord/brainstem injury which caused the presidents head to fly back and arch and even included the neck wound several seconds earlier as the reason.  It was involuntary and similar to what happens when you "pith a frog or any animal" at the base of the head. They avoid discussing of the arms going up in a defensive stance - all involuntary (opisthotonos).  Again, information introduced in order to justify what was seen in the Zapruder film and only has one conclusion - a single gunman acting alone and no head thrust back!   Keep it simple stupid - don't question the argument of multiple gunmen.  "We have already built the case to make the evidence fit a lone nut and so it goes. There was only one, acted alone, a nutcase and  we have compiled all evidence to say that and only that.  Shut up and accept that as fact.  We have  if you question our authority."

Why was this necessary?  Anything besides that argument would point fingers at the non-elected institutions being somehow responsible in a framing operation.  In essence this is protecting themselves from exposition.  Not possible!  Questioning is an existential threat to democracy and how the people perceive government operations occur in a Republic.  In a real democracy, the people make decisions to go to war, who they vote for and how their tax dollars get spent.    Thankfully this is how it works.  (I hope you sense my intended sarcasm!)

What the heck are you babbling about, I didn't paraphrase, cherry pick or falsely state a single word, I simply quoted McClelland verbatim, the fact that your eyewitness in your opinion is inconsistent and unreliable is your problem.

JohnM

[Allan Fritzke]

Sorry John.  I did not intend to burst your bubble or "babble" about you!  I was making an objective observation on the graphics within the composite image that was embedded in your post.  How often images can be put together, a choice quote and the word "BS" all combined with a randomly assorted set of images to form an opinion.  This then can be used to mislead or sway public opinion.  It contains just one chosen picture of JFK's head?  The rest are added for flavor.  Whoever put it together certainly would not have used an initial statement Surgeon McClelland offered in 1964 in the WC report if the goal wasn't to discredit him and call him a fraud.  He doesn't have a lot of skin in the game or does he!  But then again, who does? To me, he presented an honest, nonpolitical statement and tried to voice it.

I apologize as I did not to intend to evoke negative feelings or criticism against you.   As one can see, one picture is like a thousand words.  In my opinion, McClelland's original observation made within the WC report has more weight than words, pictures and diagrams added or introduced 20 or even 50 years later.    If we look at how many witnesses changed statements over the course of years or altered their opinions, it is disheartening and yet it is reality as memories fade.    A good example is interviews of Nellie Connally who eventually in interviews saved her husband by closing off the sucking wound in her husband's chest so he could breathe.     Moorman and Hill were certainly good for rabbit holes and trails as well and no more reliable witnesses as time passed. 

McClelland's observations in the original WC report published within a year were prima facie and about as reliable and expert as you could get at the time without further evidence.   His observations were made of the POTUS and was done in a matter of 30 minutes and was from the point of view of trying to do everything he could to save this man's life.   Doctors are trained quickly to observe, assess and certainly do everything they can quickly to achieve that.  He never changed his opinion and this first impression lasted for his entire life more than 50 years later!  He did admit that the neck entrance hole was incorrectly assumed to lead to the blowout hole in the skull.  He admitted that he and his team of doctors did not know about the hole between the shoulder blade and neck region at the back.  To me that is honesty and comes from a man of integrity who can admit when he is wrong.  He never suggested any hypothesis or misleading evidence during his questioning at that time either.

In contrast, someone like Jacqueline Kennedy was never interviewed or even asked what her opinion was for the WC report. It likely would not have fit their narrative either.  She certainly could have told you where the shot came from.   McClelland certainly felt the pressure from his interrogator and you could sense that in his responses during the questioning in the WC report.  Read it and see for yourself.  Are you investigating and seeking answers or are you making sure questions lead to the answers you want and required for closure?  Look at his testimony from page 30 and on and you can feel the sense of where the questioning is leading in his statements!  The man questioning was a lawyer, McClelland was an expert and surgeon and was being coerced - not a mere family physician either!   I sense that tone and I am sure you can too, when you read it!

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_McClelland.pdf

The lawyers were not questioning to seek information but rather questioning to make sure their shot from behind narrative was being supported.   You can even see how they discredited his testimony to ask if he turned the body over to look for other wounds as if he was doing an autopsy first and not trying to save his life.  Certainly tried to minimize him.  The brain was blown out he said and he could see that from the top side!  All in the hairline or back!  Where did the bullet end up or fragments go to? 

"...the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half." It didn't seem you had to flip a body over to see that wound!  McClelland gave a very descriptive picture of what he saw at the time.  It was very fresh in his memory and his opinion of exit or entrance never changed 50 years later.  Large wounds are exit wounds, small wounds are entrance wounds.  That was his professional educated opinion and he stuck with it.  If you watch the documentary movie, you will also see that someone from within the autopsy group in the room at Bethseda had suggested that there was another entrance hole coinciding to the large hole at the back that was overlooked and went unreported.  Of course once the brain disappeared and the autopsy done and released by military doctors, the fix was pretty well in.   Forensic pathologists and experts these military doctors in charge were not.  They didn't even trace the bullet from the back shoulder area to the throat.  They took x-rays and found no bullet and so assumed the path leading to the throat went straight out and through Connally's  chest, wrist and thigh.    Were they perplexed when they couldn't push a rod through to the throat from his back?  Forensic experts they were! 

I suggest watching the movie and, if you didn't watch it yet, maybe it isn't necessary as your opinion has already been formed and won't be changed anyway!    One thing I did learn was that Jacqueline climbed onto the back to pick up a large piece of brain material and then retreated back to the car.  I always thought she was fleeing the scene to protect herself.   A bullet from behind would have pushed all that brain matter onto Connally and the front seat in a forward manner.   Instead, it went back and some even onto the motorcycle policeman at the rear driver's side......Jacqueline had brain matter on her dress as well!  She gave the retrieved part to one of the doctors.   Which way was the wind blowing?!

Oh well! We all have our opinions of shot origin and whether it involved one lone nut or multiple shooters (front, back or both) which is the big question to answer!
   
 

[John Mytton]

Sorry John.  I did not intend to burst your bubble or "babble" about you!  I was making an objective observation on the graphics within the composite image that was embedded in your post.  How often images can be put together, a choice quote and the word "BS" all combined with a randomly assorted set of images to form an opinion.  This then can be used to mislead or sway public opinion.  It contains just one chosen picture of JFK's head?  The rest are added for flavor.  Whoever put it together certainly would not have used an initial statement Surgeon McClelland offered in 1964 in the WC report if the goal wasn't to discredit him and call him a fraud.  He doesn't have a lot of skin in the game or does he!  But then again, who does? To me, he presented an honest, nonpolitical statement and tried to voice it.

I apologize as I did not to intend to evoke negative feelings or criticism against you.   As one can see, one picture is like a thousand words.  In my opinion, McClelland's original observation made within the WC report has more weight than words, pictures and diagrams added or introduced 20 or even 50 years later.    If we look at how many witnesses changed statements over the course of years or altered their opinions, it is disheartening and yet it is reality as memories fade.    A good example is interviews of Nellie Connally who eventually in interviews saved her husband by closing off the sucking wound in her husband's chest so he could breathe.     Moorman and Hill were certainly good for rabbit holes and trails as well and no more reliable witnesses as time passed. 

McClelland's observations in the original WC report published within a year were prima facie and about as reliable and expert as you could get at the time without further evidence.   His observations were made of the POTUS and was done in a matter of 30 minutes and was from the point of view of trying to do everything he could to save this man's life.   Doctors are trained quickly to observe, assess and certainly do everything they can quickly to achieve that.  He never changed his opinion and this first impression lasted for his entire life more than 50 years later!  He did admit that the neck entrance hole was incorrectly assumed to lead to the blowout hole in the skull.  He admitted that he and his team of doctors did not know about the hole between the shoulder blade and neck region at the back.  To me that is honesty and comes from a man of integrity who can admit when he is wrong.  He never suggested any hypothesis or misleading evidence during his questioning at that time either.

In contrast, someone like Jacqueline Kennedy was never interviewed or even asked what her opinion was for the WC report. It likely would not have fit their narrative either.  She certainly could have told you where the shot came from.   McClelland certainly felt the pressure from his interrogator and you could sense that in his responses during the questioning in the WC report.  Read it and see for yourself.  Are you investigating and seeking answers or are you making sure questions lead to the answers you want and required for closure?  Look at his testimony from page 30 and on and you can feel the sense of where the questioning is leading in his statements!  The man questioning was a lawyer, McClelland was an expert and surgeon and was being coerced - not a mere family physician either!   I sense that tone and I am sure you can too, when you read it!

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_McClelland.pdf

The lawyers were not questioning to seek information but rather questioning to make sure their shot from behind narrative was being supported.   You can even see how they discredited his testimony to ask if he turned the body over to look for other wounds as if he was doing an autopsy first and not trying to save his life.  Certainly tried to minimize him.  The brain was blown out he said and he could see that from the top side!  All in the hairline or back!  Where did the bullet end up or fragments go to? 

"...the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half." It didn't seem you had to flip a body over to see that wound!  McClelland gave a very descriptive picture of what he saw at the time.  It was very fresh in his memory and his opinion of exit or entrance never changed 50 years later.  Large wounds are exit wounds, small wounds are entrance wounds.  That was his professional educated opinion and he stuck with it.  If you watch the documentary movie, you will also see that someone from within the autopsy group in the room at Bethseda had suggested that there was another entrance hole coinciding to the large hole at the back that was overlooked and went unreported.  Of course once the brain disappeared and the autopsy done and released by military doctors, the fix was pretty well in.   Forensic pathologists and experts these military doctors in charge were not.  They didn't even trace the bullet from the back shoulder area to the throat.  They took x-rays and found no bullet and so assumed the path leading to the throat went straight out and through Connally's  chest, wrist and thigh.    Were they perplexed when they couldn't push a rod through to the throat from his back?  Forensic experts they were! 

I suggest watching the movie and, if you didn't watch it yet, maybe it isn't necessary as your opinion has already been formed and won't be changed anyway!    One thing I did learn was that Jacqueline climbed onto the back to pick up a large piece of brain material and then retreated back to the car.  I always thought she was fleeing the scene to protect herself.   A bullet from behind would have pushed all that brain matter onto Connally and the front seat in a forward manner.   Instead, it went back and some even onto the motorcycle policeman at the rear driver's side......Jacqueline had brain matter on her dress as well!  She gave the retrieved part to one of the doctors.   Which way was the wind blowing?!

Oh well! We all have our opinions of shot origin and whether it involved one lone nut or multiple shooters (front, back or both) which is the big question to answer!

Hi Allan, I believe the head wound only happened 1 way, no eyewitnesses on either side said there was more than 1 exit wound and the evidence of film and photographs prove that the initial Autopsy Report was a fairly accurate representation of what happened. The Autopsy was conducted with a cleaned up body and took hours whereas the Parkland Doctors were working with a messy blood soaked body for mere minutes.

You said "As one can see, one picture is like a thousand words.", so let's see where that takes us.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy was struck in the head from behind which accounts for an entrance wound on the back and an exit wound over the ear.



The first ordinary unbiased civilians from Dealey Plaza to be interviewed within an hour or two, just reported what they saw and they all perfectly describe what's seen in the Zapruder Film.



Some of the more important Autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and these stereoscopic photos can now be recombined with the power of computers using technology only dreamt of at the time and thus ensures that these photos are genuine.



Another consideration that is vital, is after a close examination of the back of head eyewitnesses, how many describe the same neat hole next to the ear as seen in McClelland's drawing? And be honest, because even McClelland himself, as seen in my BS collage above, has trouble pointing to the same spot. This was an event that these people will remember till the day they die, so why the inconsistency?



You mentioned Jackie reaching back onto the trunk, but a close examination reveals nothing on the trunk and Jackie doesn't grab anything.



So in closing, are the above photos and film footage worth a thousand words, or will you stick to only some of the eyewitnesses who can't even seem to recall a precise consistent location.

JohnM

[Tom Scully]

Hi Allan, I believe the head wound only happened 1 way, no eyewitnesses on either side said there was more than 1 exit wound and the evidence of film and photographs prove that the initial Autopsy Report was a fairly accurate representation of what happened. The Autopsy was conducted with a cleaned up body and took hours whereas the Parkland Doctors were working with a messy blood soaked body for mere minutes.

You said "As one can see, one picture is like a thousand words.", so let's see where that takes us.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy was struck in the head from behind which accounts for an entrance wound on the back and an exit wound over the ear.



The first ordinary unbiased civilians from Dealey Plaza to be interviewed within an hour or two, just reported what they saw and they all perfectly describe what's seen in the Zapruder Film.



Some of the more important Autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and these stereoscopic photos can now be recombined with the power of computers using technology only dreamt of at the time and thus ensures that these photos are genuine.



Another consideration that is vital, is after a close examination of the back of head eyewitnesses, how many describe the same neat hole next to the ear as seen in McClelland's drawing? And be honest, because even McClelland himself, as seen in my BS collage above, has trouble pointing to the same spot. This was an event that these people will remember till the day they die, so why the inconsistency?



You mentioned Jackie reaching back onto the trunk, but a close examination reveals nothing on the trunk and Jackie doesn't grab anything.



So in closing, are the above photos and film footage worth a thousand words, or will you stick to only some of the eyewitnesses who can't even seem to recall a precise consistent location.

JohnM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/
 By Scott Pelley
Updated on: October 26, 2017

"...SCOTT PELLEY: What did you see?

CLINT HILL:

Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound … Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her. … I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face-- his head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. I turned and gave a thumbs-down to the follow-up car crew. Wanted to make sure they knew. And then I screamed at the driver to get us to a hospital.

SCOTT PELLEY: Thumbs down meant what?

CLINT HILL:

That it was-- very grave situation. I assumed it was fatal and that's what I really meant.

SCOTT PELLEY: Did you attempt to speak to the president?

CLINT HILL: No, I didn't try to talk to him at all. And Mrs. Kennedy-- she only said a couple things when I was there. She said, "Oh, I have his brains in my hand." And, "Oh Jack, oh Jack, what have they done? I love you, Jack." That's all I heard her say. There was nothing else said in the car at all..."

[John Mytton]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/
 By Scott Pelley
Updated on: October 26, 2017

"...SCOTT PELLEY: What did you see?

CLINT HILL:

Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound … Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her. … I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face-- his head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. I turned and gave a thumbs-down to the follow-up car crew. Wanted to make sure they knew. And then I screamed at the driver to get us to a hospital.

SCOTT PELLEY: Thumbs down meant what?

CLINT HILL:

That it was-- very grave situation. I assumed it was fatal and that's what I really meant.

SCOTT PELLEY: Did you attempt to speak to the president?

CLINT HILL: No, I didn't try to talk to him at all. And Mrs. Kennedy-- she only said a couple things when I was there. She said, "Oh, I have his brains in my hand." And, "Oh Jack, oh Jack, what have they done? I love you, Jack." That's all I heard her say. There was nothing else said in the car at all..."

Thanks Tom, I have no doubt that there the resulting spray deposited a fine coating on to the trunk of the Limo but there wasn't anything of any any size that can be seen in Zapruder and I also have no doubt that bits of brain were falling out of Kennedy all the way to Parkland and later this continued falling of matter from an open wound is what the Parkland doctors saw underneath Kennedy in Emergency and this is what Jackie held in her hand as she says she was trying to hold the top of Jack's head down.

The inside of Kennedy's Limo was covered with bits of Brain.



JohnM

[Allan Fritzke]

I'll defer to the experts - even the internet variety - but I don't see how McClelland could see any cerebellum from the head wound he sketched out below. The wound is far too high to damage/expose cerebellum. I think this is also mostly true to various degrees with the other doctors on this issue, i.e., wound they described was too high to expose cerebellum.

McClelland also testified - as did Dr. Perry - that he saw the neck/throat wound AFTER an incision had been performed on it. He couldn't have seen the small entry wound he also sketched out below. It had been altered by Perry's tracheotomy surgery. McClelland came across as a honest man but I think his accounts about the wounds were/are basically worthless (and I won't even start to mention what he said earlier about the locations of the head wound).

I was looking at McClleland's diagram (2016) and I certainly could see where he was in good company with the analysis by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who attended the 50th anniversary conference of the Warren Commission in 2014.  He became interested and actually went and looked at the x-rays and had an interesting story to tell.  He may have conferred or McClleland saw his work?   He said there were artifacts on the x-rays which may have included a procedure called "double exposure" in order to obscure the wound at the back of the head which appears lighter.  An interesting discussion to read.

https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/





Certainly if you watch the testimony of the Parkland Hospital Doctors which has now been released in this 2023 documentary, you can see the neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser's investigative work supporting their argument.  The Parkland doctors discussed what they saw at length in 2013.  In those interviews, all of them said there was a hole in the back of the head without a doubt.  Obviously they also made a comment that someone was holding the scalp in place as is evident in the autopsy pictures by John.  You don't find any picture without the fingers present.  They said the scalp was tore away and left a gaping wound through the parietal bone.  Their opinion was that the autopsy was at odds to what they saw and it looked like a cover up to prove an LNer was responsible for the entire event.   They felt the cover up was obvious in their opinions.  They also mentioned that no one ever solicited any of their opinions on the autopsy report at the Warren Commission hearings. 

[Allan Fritzke]

Thanks Tom, I have no doubt that there the resulting spray deposited a fine coating on to the trunk of the Limo but there wasn't anything of any any size that can be seen in Zapruder and I also have no doubt that bits of brain were falling out of Kennedy all the way to Parkland and later this continued falling of matter from an open wound is what the Parkland doctors saw underneath Kennedy in Emergency and this is what Jackie held in her hand as she says she was trying to hold the top of Jack's head down.

The inside of Kennedy's Limo was covered with bits of Brain.



JohnM

One thing that may be noted is the direction of the bullet path and the fine mist spray as pointed out with your gel block analogous recreation.  The mist comes out of the entrance hole - not the exit hole with a small calibre round (.25ish).  That you could see.  I speculate that with blood pressure and skull cap surrounding, that it would be greatly enhanced before breaking apart.  Or was that a shaped type charge picture?  I see an explosion luminescence in the picture at the center of the gel mass!  you can clearly see the bullet "tumbling" out!

The Parkland Dr. McClleland that Mrs. Kennedy gave him a large portion of the cerebrum  He then commented a couple of minutes later in the film that another portion of the brain he called the cerebellum fell out on the table.  Certainly in the Zapruder film with Kennedy's head dropped forward, liquified brain matter was dropping to the front on some of the frames.  Watching that tells me the brain was totally a disintegrated gel block and was no longer held intact.   There mustn't have been much left on the right side. 

The doctors also noted that there was no damage to the face and yet on x-rays it appears to be a gaping hole in the orbital region.  There assessment was that all damage was at the back (hairline and beyond) with no major trauma to the nose and frontal occipital/eye regions visually.   Again, autopsy x-rays didn't match their visual observations!  It appears in the x-ray that even the nose bone was broken! 

[Jim Hawthorn]

We can add to this the embalmer's notes (I haven't research the LNer's counter-argument to this here).