Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 22, 2019 20:16:15 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
s.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_dr_robert_mcclelland_1960s_thg_131011_16x9_608.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself shooting from the southeastern sixth floor window which was located behind the presidential limousine. They also said the bullet entered JFK’s head on the right rear side with all the damage being to JFK’s right side (temporal, parietal, occipital).
If this is so, why is there evidence showing a bullet wound on the left side of JFK’s head then? Also, since the left side would line up better with the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) located in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), why did the WC make no issue of this evidence?
This post will look into this issue.
**********************************
One of the doctors who worked on JFK, Robert McClelland, wrote the following in his report of what he saw on November 22, 1963.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0275b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0276a.jpg
The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the LEFT TEMPLE. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 392, pp. 526-527) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0276a.htm
Quote off
The LEFT TEMPLE would match up with what he saw in the back of the head as he said this in his WC testimony on March 15, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.
If we match up the LEFT TEMPLE wound with the “right posterior portion of the skull” being “extremely blasted” we see a shot came from the LEFT front of the limousine! Why else would the WC ignore this testimony? It would have been impossible for LHO to have fired from the alleged SN and hit JFK in the right rear of the head and then have ALL the damage on the RIGHT side of JFK’s head due to the angles. LHO would NOT have had a straight on shot at JFK’s head, but rather it would have been at an angle so why was the LEFT front side of JFK’s head and face not damaged then?
Dr. McClelland would confirm that everything written in CE 392 was accurate and correct in his WC testimony so the excuse of a “mistake” by him seems illogical.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, I show you now a statement or a report which…has been identified in a previous Commission hearing as Commission Exhibit No. 392…and I would ask you first of all if this is your signature which appears at the bottom of Page 2, and next, whether in fact you did make this report and submit it to the authorities at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And are all the facts set forth true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Dr. McCLELLAND - To the best of my knowledge, yes.
WC lawyer Arlen Specter opted not to mention that the autopsy report said the gunshot entered the back of the head and did damage ONLY to the right side of the head for some reason. Why did Specter NOT try and find out why Dr. McClelland’s observation was different from the official conclusion? Does this seem like he was searching for the truth to you?
Specter would try and see if another doctor had seen this wound and he broached the subject with Dr. Kemp Clark when he came before the WC on March 21, 1964 almost a week after Dr. McClelland.
Dr. CLARK - I was asked about this at the CBS conference and I stated that I personally saw no such wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And who asked you about it at that time, if you recall?
Dr. CLARK - The man who was conducting the conference. This was brought up by one of the physicians, I think Dr.
McClelland, that there was some discussion of such a wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Did Dr. McClelland say that he had seen such a wound?
Dr. CLARK - No.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the origin, if you know, as to the inquiry on the wound, that is, who suggested that there might have been a wound on the left side?
Dr. CLARK - I don't recall--I don't recall.
So based on Clark’s testimony McClelland never said he saw a wound in the left temple, but why did McClelland tell Specter just six days before that everything written in CE 392 was accurate to the “best of his knowledge?” And this included a wound to the left temple of JFK.
What is odd is McClelland would be called back on March 24, 1964 and still Specter did NOT ask McClelland about this issue and tried to clarify what was actually seen. Why NOT?
We have covered previously in this series that Father Oscar Huber was one of the priests called in to give last rites to JFK and that he was quoted in the press as saying that he had seen “a terrible wound over the President’s left eye.” (Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24, 1963.) Why would he say this IF there was NO wound? Why did the FBI not interview him or the other priest that was in the room with him?
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/huber.jpg
On March 25, 1964, Dr. Marion Jenkins was called before the WC and during his testimony he brought up the location of the head wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described?
Dr. JENKINS - On the right side?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.
Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.
Specter’s comment makes it seem as though the autopsy report is correct beyond all doubt, when that was NEVER the case. Why is Specter correcting him with the autopsy report when that has never been shown to be a truly accurate picture of the wounds to JFK’s body? This doctor was up close to the wounds and he said he thought the wound he saw was on the “LEFT temporal area” just as McClelland had said.
Another doctor would be called on March 25, 1964, Adoph Giesecke, and he would say this about what he saw on JFK’s head.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the cranial wound?
Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head?
Dr. GIESECKE - I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it.
He thought the entire left-hand side of the head was missing. Since Arlen Specter brought up the autopsy report let’s look at it.
CE 397: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0036a.jpg
If we go to the face sheet on page 45 we will see a small dot on the left eye with the notation “0.4 cm.” None of the autopsy doctors were questioned about this mark and notation by Arlen Specter. Neither were they asked about it by any of the Commission members who were present during their testimonies. Why NOT? What was this damage to the left eye of JFK and what was it caused by?
Another interesting thing is seen on this face sheet when we look at the back view of the diagram. Notice the wound depicted on the back of the head in the diagram. There are several questions that jump out when one views this. First of all, why does the notation have the word “ragged” on it when this was supposed to be a wound of ENTRY? Secondly, why does the arrow above the wound show it going forward and to the LEFT instead of forward and to the right as claimed by the WC?
If you go to next page we will see further evidence of damage to the LEFT eye as that eye is depicted by a large rectangle (with ragged lateral edges) marked “3 cm” while the right eye looks normal in shape. Again, none of the autopsy doctors were questioned about these notations so Specter’s comment about the “autopsy report not disclosing such a wound” is irrelevant since he did NOT explore why a wound to the left temporal area was depicted on the face sheet and head diagram.
Once again we see evidence in the twenty-six volumes that shows the official conclusion is NOT correct, thus it is sunk. It also shows the lack of interest the WC had in finding out the truth so they are sunk too.
s.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_dr_robert_mcclelland_1960s_thg_131011_16x9_608.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself shooting from the southeastern sixth floor window which was located behind the presidential limousine. They also said the bullet entered JFK’s head on the right rear side with all the damage being to JFK’s right side (temporal, parietal, occipital).
If this is so, why is there evidence showing a bullet wound on the left side of JFK’s head then? Also, since the left side would line up better with the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) located in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), why did the WC make no issue of this evidence?
This post will look into this issue.
**********************************
One of the doctors who worked on JFK, Robert McClelland, wrote the following in his report of what he saw on November 22, 1963.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0275b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0276a.jpg
The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the LEFT TEMPLE. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 392, pp. 526-527) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0276a.htm
Quote off
The LEFT TEMPLE would match up with what he saw in the back of the head as he said this in his WC testimony on March 15, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.
If we match up the LEFT TEMPLE wound with the “right posterior portion of the skull” being “extremely blasted” we see a shot came from the LEFT front of the limousine! Why else would the WC ignore this testimony? It would have been impossible for LHO to have fired from the alleged SN and hit JFK in the right rear of the head and then have ALL the damage on the RIGHT side of JFK’s head due to the angles. LHO would NOT have had a straight on shot at JFK’s head, but rather it would have been at an angle so why was the LEFT front side of JFK’s head and face not damaged then?
Dr. McClelland would confirm that everything written in CE 392 was accurate and correct in his WC testimony so the excuse of a “mistake” by him seems illogical.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, I show you now a statement or a report which…has been identified in a previous Commission hearing as Commission Exhibit No. 392…and I would ask you first of all if this is your signature which appears at the bottom of Page 2, and next, whether in fact you did make this report and submit it to the authorities at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And are all the facts set forth true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Dr. McCLELLAND - To the best of my knowledge, yes.
WC lawyer Arlen Specter opted not to mention that the autopsy report said the gunshot entered the back of the head and did damage ONLY to the right side of the head for some reason. Why did Specter NOT try and find out why Dr. McClelland’s observation was different from the official conclusion? Does this seem like he was searching for the truth to you?
Specter would try and see if another doctor had seen this wound and he broached the subject with Dr. Kemp Clark when he came before the WC on March 21, 1964 almost a week after Dr. McClelland.
Dr. CLARK - I was asked about this at the CBS conference and I stated that I personally saw no such wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And who asked you about it at that time, if you recall?
Dr. CLARK - The man who was conducting the conference. This was brought up by one of the physicians, I think Dr.
McClelland, that there was some discussion of such a wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Did Dr. McClelland say that he had seen such a wound?
Dr. CLARK - No.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the origin, if you know, as to the inquiry on the wound, that is, who suggested that there might have been a wound on the left side?
Dr. CLARK - I don't recall--I don't recall.
So based on Clark’s testimony McClelland never said he saw a wound in the left temple, but why did McClelland tell Specter just six days before that everything written in CE 392 was accurate to the “best of his knowledge?” And this included a wound to the left temple of JFK.
What is odd is McClelland would be called back on March 24, 1964 and still Specter did NOT ask McClelland about this issue and tried to clarify what was actually seen. Why NOT?
We have covered previously in this series that Father Oscar Huber was one of the priests called in to give last rites to JFK and that he was quoted in the press as saying that he had seen “a terrible wound over the President’s left eye.” (Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24, 1963.) Why would he say this IF there was NO wound? Why did the FBI not interview him or the other priest that was in the room with him?
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/huber.jpg
On March 25, 1964, Dr. Marion Jenkins was called before the WC and during his testimony he brought up the location of the head wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described?
Dr. JENKINS - On the right side?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.
Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.
Specter’s comment makes it seem as though the autopsy report is correct beyond all doubt, when that was NEVER the case. Why is Specter correcting him with the autopsy report when that has never been shown to be a truly accurate picture of the wounds to JFK’s body? This doctor was up close to the wounds and he said he thought the wound he saw was on the “LEFT temporal area” just as McClelland had said.
Another doctor would be called on March 25, 1964, Adoph Giesecke, and he would say this about what he saw on JFK’s head.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the cranial wound?
Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head?
Dr. GIESECKE - I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it.
He thought the entire left-hand side of the head was missing. Since Arlen Specter brought up the autopsy report let’s look at it.
CE 397: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0036a.jpg
If we go to the face sheet on page 45 we will see a small dot on the left eye with the notation “0.4 cm.” None of the autopsy doctors were questioned about this mark and notation by Arlen Specter. Neither were they asked about it by any of the Commission members who were present during their testimonies. Why NOT? What was this damage to the left eye of JFK and what was it caused by?
Another interesting thing is seen on this face sheet when we look at the back view of the diagram. Notice the wound depicted on the back of the head in the diagram. There are several questions that jump out when one views this. First of all, why does the notation have the word “ragged” on it when this was supposed to be a wound of ENTRY? Secondly, why does the arrow above the wound show it going forward and to the LEFT instead of forward and to the right as claimed by the WC?
If you go to next page we will see further evidence of damage to the LEFT eye as that eye is depicted by a large rectangle (with ragged lateral edges) marked “3 cm” while the right eye looks normal in shape. Again, none of the autopsy doctors were questioned about these notations so Specter’s comment about the “autopsy report not disclosing such a wound” is irrelevant since he did NOT explore why a wound to the left temporal area was depicted on the face sheet and head diagram.
Once again we see evidence in the twenty-six volumes that shows the official conclusion is NOT correct, thus it is sunk. It also shows the lack of interest the WC had in finding out the truth so they are sunk too.