ER doctor talks about JFK’s wounds

From Deb Galentine, a video interview with one of the doctors who saw JFK’s body shortly after the shooting.


  1. Photon says:

    Noise. Crenshaw admitted that he was not directly involved -he was only a resident in a room filled with attending physicians. He published claims about the neck wound when it is well documented that he didn’t even get to the ER before the tracheostomy was started and therefore it was impossible for him to have seen the unaltered wound.
    Again, I refer to well documented published studies about the accuracy of ER physicians interpretations of wounds.

    • Bill Pierce says:

      According to WC fundamentalists, surgeons aren’t qualified to describe anatomy.

      Apparently the fundies believe that multiple doctors (and nurses and everyone else) looked at a tiny, clean wound as depicted by Ida Dox’s official drawing, and then described it as a large avulsive wound – as large as a fist – in the occipito-parietal region. According to Crenshaw and McClelland, bone, scalp, and hair were missing in the region, and brain tissue, including much of the cerebellum, was hanging from the opening. Were the doctors insane or merely incompetent?

      • Steve says:

        Bill, your points may be valid, but using terms like “WC fundamentalists” and “fundies” detracts from the merits of your position and weakens the debate.

  2. Gary Shaw says:

    Dr. Crenshaw was a good man who told the truth.
    I’m sorry, Photon, I don’t know who you are. But you DO — and, more importantly, you know WHAT you are.
    Dr. Crenshaw has more than adequately addressed his detractors and exposed the true “fabricators” in this case for all the world to see.
    We’ll do it again in a few weeks. That pesky record will again stand for all to see.

  3. JSA says:

    I don’t think Dr. Crenshaw’s 1991 interview clip is “noise”. It’s a fact that he saw JFK in Trauma Room 1, and that he assisted with putting the President into the casket prior to that casket being taken from Parkland to Air Force One. Incidentally, Dr. McClelland also backs up what Dr. Crenshaw said, and Dr. Perry pointed to his right temple in the press conference that day to indicate where one of the bullets struck Kennedy.

    Where Photon and McAdams differ is that they rely on the testimony of Dr. Jenkins. Despite Photon’s claims in this blog that Drs. Crenshaw and McClelland cannot be relied upon to give accurate accounts of the head wound, because they were either distracted, not present to see, or had poor vantage points (or that they made up what they saw!), Photon DOES rely on Dr. Jenkins’ memory and ER witness testimony. He then backs up the ‘shot from behind’ with the Warren Report and the autopsy, which were politically guided to cover up what the Parkland doctors initially saw and reported upon.

    You have to ask yourself: WHY would Dr. Crenshaw have come forward to say all of this? Was he just out for “JFK assassination gold” i.e. selling books? It sounds like a rather flimsy smear attack. I think his conscience bothered him over the years, and what he said about Dr. Baxter telling everyone to not say a word or their careers would be destroyed holds true. After all, if by stating what you really saw (telling the truth) could either get you bumped off or your career ruined, or your family threatened, as many other witnesses had happen to them, it makes sense that someone in a powerful position (CIA and/or others like LBJ and Hoover) could follow through with their threats to keep quiet. Today just about everyone is dead, so it seems to me that its only the CIA that still cares about keeping the lid on this “AssassinationGate” of 1963. People have tried to tell the truth over the years. Crenshaw’s testimony, late in his career, when he no longer had to worry about that medical career, lines up. If in the process of telling his story in print, working with another writer, that writer tried to elaborate and stray into fiction, that could also be true. In this charge, I believe Photo and McAdams are correct; there are some fabrications added to Crenshaw’s story in his book, I think added by the other co-writer. But his testimony (in the clip above) rings true for me. People just don’t make up things like this —- it makes no sense to do that. Crenshaw was telling the truth.

    • Photon says:

      And what was done with JFK’s head before it was placed in the casket?
      Before Dr. Crenshaw’s ability to closely” look into the skull” as the body was placed in the casket? Which would have made it impossible for Dr. Crenshaw to see what he claimed to have seen?

      • JSA says:

        Here’s what Dr. Crenshaw said about Kennedy’s head wound:
        “I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater–an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.” ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

        Incidentally, Dr. Malcolm Perry, his superior, said after watching the televised interview with Dr. Crenshaw:
        “”I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate… He is a pitiful sight.”

        But if you look at the film clips of Dr. Perry on the day of the assassination, and at what he said prior to Secret Service agents visiting him, he said that Kennedy had an entrance wound in his neck and an entrance wound in the front at his right temple. Perry later testified the opposite to the Warren Commission, in which he denied under oath his earlier statements made on Nov. 22. He either perjured himself or had a very bad case of amnesia. I think he adjusted his professional recollections to suit lawyer Arlen Specter, whose client was McCloy and the new Lyndon Johnson government.

        Another interesting point which you might not appreciate but any of the open-minded out there reading this reply might. Whereas Dr. Crenshaw was not interviewed by Arlen Specter or by the Warren Commission, Dr. Kenneth Sayler, an intern was. He mentioned Dr. Crenshaw to Arlen Specter, who brought up his name. The conversation went as follows:
        Specter to Salyer:”To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?”
        Salyer answers: “Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood.” Specter: “Is the–is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?”
        Salyer: “yes, he is a third-year resident. That’s the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that.”
        (Warren Commission, V6:81)

        I have records of what the Doctors who attended to the President saw and said on November 22, and can contrast those statements with how they responded months later to the Warren Commission, and under cross-examination pressure from lawyer Arlen Specter. It’s not a pretty picture. Many of them, such as Dr. Malcolm Perry, caved under government pressure, and changed their recollections and opinions of what happened while under severe scrutiny by legal professionals, what the right wing today likes to call “trial lawyers.” And just as lawyers skilled in getting facts twisted and warped got OJ Simpson free in the murder trial of his wife, I think people like Arlen Specter worked quite skillfully to bend the facts out of these doctors to change the story to fit the lone assassin version.

        • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

          In reality, this subject of debate really isn’t even necessary.
          Viewing the best copy of the Zapruder film, which is also slowed down somewhat. Two things are very noticeable.

          JFK disappears behind the street sign on the grassy knoll.
          Then, the instant he reappears, his hands and arms are already in motion, the arms are being raised up. If you watch closely, approximately 2 seconds later, JFK lurches forward, his head bounces back and then forward again. Now, why would these too motions occur?
          Slap anyone on the back firmly and unexpectedly and you will see almost an identical reaction in body and head movement as to JFK’s lurch forward. Something hit, or pushed him from behind, (please don’t try to claim it was the vehicle breaking. I can tell you exactly when the breaking took place, and it was after the head shot).
          Again, this movement occurred after JFK’s arms came up. So what cause his arms to come up before he was hit from behind? The answer is fairly obvious. Also, when his arms came up, his body didn’t lurch forward, it just sort of hunched and stiffened. Of course his back was pressed to the back of the seat, so a frontal throat shot wouldn’t have pushed him back without resistance.

          • JSA says:

            Unconvincing argument. He had a back brace on, which held his body somewhat rigid, and was the reason why his body didn’t snap back quite as far with a neck hit from the front. His head, not held by a back brace, DID snap backward, which the film clearly shows.

            This has NOTHING to do with what the doctors at Parkland, including Dr. Crenshaw, reported: JFK had a massive EXIT wound in the rear of his head. He also came in with a small entrance wound in his throat which Dr. Perry opened just a tiny bit more to insert a trach device to pump oxygen into Kennedy’s lungs. Oh, and JFK also had an entrance wound in his back, which means he was hit from both the back and the front.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            JSA, read again my previous statement, you seem to have misunderstood.
            What I was implying is this…..the hands came up first, because of the frontal shot to the throat.
            JFK’s body is then suddenly pushed forward, which causes his head to snap backwards and forwards, from the shot to his back, (the body moved forward from impact from shot to the back which the neck muscles were not ready for. The head had to move forward to catch up to the body, with a slightly delayed action).
            I wasn’t referring to the head shot, as I said, the head shot had not yet been taken.
            You mentioned the throat wound in your previous statement and Photon had made previous posts in attempts to argue against a frontal throat wound.
            Also, JFK’s head snapped backwards from the back shot, BUT….his body lurched forward at the same time.
            I wasn’t arguing your point, I was clarifying it.
            JFK was hit twice from in front (head and throat), and at least once from behind (back).
            But let me suggest it has a good deal to do with the head shot, at least the difference in motions does. In the head shot, it was the head that was hit and not the body, so it was the head which snapped back which the much heavier body resisted, causing the head to snap forward again. The entire motion losing force slightly through it’s progression. Action and reaction, cause and effect.
            So you are correct, JFK was shot from front and back.

    • leslie sharp says:

      JSA: I’ve researched Dr. Baxter to some extent. Can you elaborate on this?

      “I think his conscience bothered him over the years, and what he said about Dr. Baxter telling everyone to not say a word or their careers would be destroyed holds true.”


      • JSA says:


        I think Dr. Baxter saw the same thing that Drs. Crenshaw, Perry, Carrico, and the others saw on November 22: an entrance wound from a bullet in Kennedy’s right temple, blasted out brain and skull in the back of the head, and an entrance wound in Kennedy’s neck, just above where his necktie knot had been. I also think there was a bullet wound left unprobed in the back, which didn’t exit the body, and which military officials told the forensics staff NOT to probe during the autopsy. My guess is that this shot came from behind, most likely from a shooter in the Dal-Tex building, due to the low trajectory angle of that entrance. The Parkland doctors didn’t get a chance to examine the back entrance wound it should be noted.

        Here’s what Gary Aguilar has to say about Dr. Baxter, who I think changed his testimony (as did Dr. Perry) to fit the political pressure exerted on them by the Secret Service, and indirectly by Allen Dulles, Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission:

        CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, “…the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table…” (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads “…the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)…”. (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter’s original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present….” (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been “temporo-occipital” than “temporo-parietal”, because he also recalled, “cerebellum was present”. (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, “…the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table….” (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as “…a large gaping wound in the occipital area.” Livingstone also reported that “(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact).”(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

        Baxter’s reliability has also been called into question for a comment attributed to him by Dennis Breo, staff writer for JAMA, and Gerald Posner. Baxter apparently supported Breo’s suggestion that Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the recent book, “Conspiracy of Silence”, (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet) was not in JFK’s trauma room. JAMA wrote, “Most of those who know the facts express disgust at Crenshaw’s actions and question if he was involved in the care of the President at all… None of the four (interviewed by Breo) recalls ever seeing him at the scene.” (Breo, D. L., JAMA, 267:2804-2805). This claim was used by JAMA to support the Warren Commission’s reconstruction of the event, and call into question Crenshaw’s recollections of JFK’s wounds published in his book–recollections that flatly contradicted the Commission’s findings. In an interview with author Gerald Posner in 1992, Baxter said, “I don’t either (remember that Crenshaw was present in JFK’s trauma room).” (Posner, G. Case Closed, p. 312, paper version). Embarrassingly, before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter, however, Baxter, under oath, listed the physicians present with him in the emergency room with JFK. The first physician he named was Charles Crenshaw. (WC- V6:40)


        As if Baxter’s credibility had not suffered enough, he reported to author Posner on March 12, 1992, “I never even saw the back of (JFK’s) head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.” (Posner, Case Closed, p. 312) Baxter would do well to read his own hand-written note, prepared on the day of the assassination, and reproduced legibly in the Warren Report, and read the transcripts of interviews he’s given authors before allowing further interviews.

        • leslie sharp says:

          JSA, thank you very much for that thoughtful elaboration.

          The months and (to a limited degree) years following the assassination reveal almost as much as those preceding. Following the axiom “who benefited?” it’s interesting to identify specific and direct advancement in careers. (I noted on another recent thread that John Tilton’s son Glen(n) – John being George Joannides’ supervisor according to Jeff Morley – was hired directly out of university by Texaco when Arleigh Burke sat on the board, and ended up CEO several decades later). Several years after the assassination, Dr. Baxter received a major award from (ironically) Baxter Travenol that most assuredly positioned him in great favor among peers and commercial/medical communities. Was there a direct correlation? This may seem trivial, but understood in a broader context I think it’s worth mentioning. What pressures were applied to those in close proximity to the aftermath of the assassination, and who applied them? Was the pressure subtle or overt? Would everyone have been as successful regardless of their cooperation in the cover up? Does it matter?

  4. Eric Saunders says:

    This is very interesting. If I recall correctly, 16 out of 16 Parkland staff interviewed by the ARRB confirmed that the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out. There is so much confirmation of this head wound that to assert otherwise is to spread disinformation which is something that some people do, of course.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      Well Eric, let me assist you with a citation or two, to help dispel some of the disinformation.

      (Robert B. Livingston depostion [testimony] in Crenshaw vs. Sutherland)

      “Mr. Kizzia (to R.Livingston):

      —Q. Dr. Livingston, I’ll ask you questions and give you an opportunity to fully explain that. You were describing your experience with gunshot wounds. Was the information in the reports that you listened to and received about the throat wound descriptive of an entrance wound?
      —A. Yes, and in fact several Doctors were quoted, including Dr. Perry, Dr. Crenshaw and Dr. Clark, as indicating it was a wound of entry in their opinion, and they had a lot of experience at Parkland Hospital with gunshot wounds.
      —Q. Based upon your knowledge and experience, do you still to this day think that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
      —A. Yes.
      —Q. Dr. Crenshaw has said in his book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, that the wound in President Kennedy’s throat that he saw at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, appeared to be a wound of entrance, Do you think that Dr. Crenshaw was right?
      —A. Yes.

      Testimony of Dr. McClelland—

      “Mr. SPECTER – And what action, if any, did you take following that notification?
      Dr. McCLELLAND – Immediately upon hearing that, I accompanied the Resident, Dr. Crenshaw, who brought this news to me, to the emergency room, and down to the trauma room 1 where President Kennedy had been taken immediately upon arrival.

      Dr. McCLELLAND – Yes; as I say, all I did was simply assist Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter in doing the tracheotomy. All three of us worked together in making an incision in the neck, tracting the neck muscles out of the way, and making a small opening into the trachea near the spot where the trachea had already been blasted or torn open by the fragment of the bullet, and inserting a large metal tracheotomy tube into this hole, and after this the breathing apparatus was attached to this instead of the previous tube which had been placed here.”

      I think it would be wiser choice to think that experienced Doctors might know a tad more about wounds and hospital procedures than disinformationists.

      • Photon says:

        A few problems with this testimony.
        At the time that Livingstone claimed to talk to Hughes nobody even knew who Crenshaw was, let alone what his perception of the wound was. He wasn’t at the Press conference and his views were made public much later. Of course the fact that he arrived after the tracheostomy incision was made makes his claim of seeing an entrance wound impossible. So much for Livingstone’s perception of Crenshaw’s credibility.
        He also claimed that Clark said that the throat wound was an entry wound. Is there any evidence that Clark made such a statement during the press conference? The fact that Clark arrived long after the tracheostomy was done makes such a statement invalid- even if he made I such a statement. He was the neurosurgeon.
        If Livingstone’s belief that the throat wound was an entrance wound was based on Crenshaw’s book one has to wonder about his diagnostic skills. At the time of the press conference the throat wound description was very limited- and that was the only information available to Livingstone. How could he even know what the throat wound represented when at that time nobody in the world( except possibly Oswald) even knew that JFK had a back wound?

        • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

          Photon, the problem with your post.

          1).”Hughs” has nothing to do with the previous post, this is called “misdirection”.

          2) A straight line incision doesn’t obliterate an oval puncture wound of a far greater thickness, and that is on the surface of the skin / wound. You could skin the entire body and the bullet puncture wound would still be clearly visible, especially so when do a trach since they were inserting the tube very close to the same location.
          3) Livingstons depostion was made after a lengthy examination of all available evidence, including the notes and comments of the various staff involved, as you try to pretend your not aware of.
          Once again as you attempt to spread deliberate misinformation and deception, which you do quite intentionally, let’s not pretend otherwise.
          I will still take their skill sets, observations and experience over yours, sorry.

          • Photon says:

            1. Livingstone claimed to talk to Cmdr. Hughes prior to the autopsy.He based his decision to talk to him on the basis of reports in the media from Crenshaw,Perry and Clark that the neck wound was an entrance wound. As only one of those individuals claimed it to be an entrance wound and one individual was never even mentioned in the reports on Nov. 22 Dr. Livingstone’s claim would seem to be in error. As you use him as a source that is an issue with his credibility.
            2. A straight surgical incision across any wound most certainly does obliterate that wound,particularly if the incision is bigger than the original wound. Dr. McClelland arrived in time to hold a retractor during the procedure, implying that the incision was deep enough to accommodate a centimeter wide instrument. That incision was obviously deep enough to disrupt the surrounding tissues-as was evident in the autopsy photos.
            It would appear that you have never seen a tracheostomy, let alone assisted in the procedure.

          • Photon says:

            Humes,not Hughes. I stand corrected.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            Photon, you would be wise to think before you open mouth and insert foot.

            “It would appear that you have never seen a tracheostomy, let alone assisted in the procedure.”

            As a former firefighter and emergency service provider for many, many years I have seen and participated in a good deal more than you could begin to imagine. Not to mention logging quite a lot of time in Hospital ER’s. Which is why I don’t buy into your disinformation prospects. I have participated in treating a lot more medical emergencies than I ever cared to.

    • Frank Booth says:

      I’m sorry. You do not recall correctly.

  5. Photon says:

    Didn’t NOVA on PBS put out a program that showed that the principle Parkland physicians were given copies of the autopsy photos and every one confirmed that the photos accurately reflected what they saw?

  6. Photon says:

    The ARRB only interviewed 5 physicians from Parkland. Where did you get the 16 number? Better list them or your claim cannot be verified.

  7. Philip T. says:

    Such a coincidence that the neck wound was never fully examined at Bethesda. Such a coincidence that the autopsy release from the Kennedy family never specified any prohibitions on what the doctors could examine. Such a coincidence that the alleged gunman sat around on a low floor when the motorcase was scheduled to go by in minutes (it was late). Such a coincidence that witnesses see people with guns on high floors at this time. Such a coincidence that the Parkland docs think it’s an entrance wound when sure enough witnesses report seeing smoke from in front of the president during the ambush. Such a coincidence that the Warren Commission came to different conclusions from the Secret Service and FBI regarding the sequence of bullet wounds.

    This is a fraction of coincidences as recounted from the memory of a novice student to this case. 50 years now. Will somebody seriously investigate this thing finally? Please? (insert favorite expletive here)

  8. Thomas says:

    You’re right, Dr. Crenshaw wasn’t the only doctor who spoke up. Some people live in a nice and tidy black and white world and they’re entitled to it if that’s what they wish.

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Great to see this out in at least some form of the main stream media. It’s been a whle since I read Trauma Room One. If I remember correctly he entered the room with Dr. Robert McClelland (who later authored the ER drawing of the backside blowout)as Dr. Malcom Perry was starting the tracheostomy. Dr. Perry stated 3 times that afternoon in press conferences the throat wound was an entry wound. This I have personally verified with Dr. McClelland. First reaction of experienced trauma doctors in one of the top 10 busiest ER’s in the country. Statement made before anyone quetioned or influenced their word. They would have taken the tube out befor putting JFK in the casket, Crenshaw would have seen the hole in the throat then. He did at least get some vindication by winning his defamation suit agains the AMA.

  10. Photon says:

    How could McClelland and Crenshaw identify an entrance wound in the throat when that wound had already been surgically altered before they had even entered the Trauma Room?

  11. Phil Gurholt says:

    Dr. McClelland also reported that he was standing next to the JFK’s head in trauma room one. He stated that he had very little responsibility during the approximate fifteen minute period he was there. He said he spent much of that time looking at and analyzing the head wound of Kennedy which he describes in the occipital-parietal area. This of course is consistent with a shot from in front of the President.

    • Photon says:

      Except that the back of the head was never examined. JFK was supine on his stretcher, his head was resting on the external occipital protuberance in a pool of blood. The head was never moved from that position until two nurses wrapped it up in 4 sheets. That position was the same as that seen in the “stare of death” autopsy photo.
      That position obscures the posterior part of the head. None of the principle doctors present have stated that the head was ever moved from the supine position, or even moved at all.

      • JSA says:


        Dr. Carrico was the first Doctor on the scene, in Trauma Room 1. Here’s what he said under oath:
        “I saw a large gaping wound located in the right occipitoparietal area.” He told HSCA there was a “fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area…That wound be above and posterior to the ear.”

        I have more doctor’s assertions about the head wound if you would care to have me post them : D.

        • Photon says:

          Post any comment that the head was moved by any physician. It would have been impossible to see the posterior part of the head to see the wound as described by the drawing purporting to represent McCleeland’s view.
          For the record Carrico stated thay the published autopsy photos corresponded to what he saw in the ER.

          • JSA says:

            You keep focusing on how Kennedy’s head was in a supine position as if no medical personnel could have seen the back of his head blasted out when it wasn’t necessary to lift the President’s head. The entrance wound in the right temple was visible, as was the blood and brains coming out the back, lying down or not.

            Dr. Crenshaw challenged JAMA and won for defamation. Here’s an excerpt of what he stated for the record about JFK’s head wound in a typed response to JAMA:

            These are the statements, nearly all of them official, of the four Dallas doctors, formerly colleagues, who ridiculed me and my claims in JAMA. Let’s total the scorecard:
            I saw a wound in the back of the head—occipital and parietal. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter and Perry. Some say occipital and parietal, others say occipital and temporal. The occipital bone in the rear of the head is mentioned by all of us. The size and nature of the wound is very similar in all our descriptions.
            I saw cerebellar tissue hanging out of the large head wound. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter and Perry. I saw a small entrance wound in the front of the throat. Perry called it an entrance wound; Carrico called it a “penetrating wound.’ Baxter still says it could have been an entrance wound.

            Many other Parkland doctors were present in Trauma Room 1 and they, too, wrote CE 392′s and
            testified before the Warren Commission. Their statements further bolster my claims:
            HEAD WOUND
            Dr. Kemp Clark •CE 392–”two external wounds…the other in the occipital area of the skull…a large wound of the occipitoparietal area.”
            WC testimony–”l examined the wound in the back of the President’s head.”
            Noted…”presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region.”65 Dr. Paul Peters
            WC testimony ‘l noted that there was a large defect in the occiput.”66 Dr. Ronald Jones
            WC testimony–”There was a large defect in the back of the head.”67 Dr. Gene Akin
            • WC testimony–”…in the back of the right occipitoparietal part of the skull was shattered.”68 Dr. Robert McClelland •WC testimony–”1 noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted…some of the occipital bone was fractured in its lateral half.”
            Dr. Kemp Clark CE 392–”Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.”
            • WC testimony—’…cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.”71…”theloss of cerebellar tissue…”

            Crenshaw continues:
            Evidence has surfaced to indicate that since the publication of the JAMA article, some of the Parkland doctors apparently have tried to stake out a kind of compromise position which would allow them to stand by their previous statements about the head wound and still endorse the autopsy photographs as being legitimate. Within weeks of the publication of the JAMA article, a forum about the assassination was held in Dallas. Dr. John K. Lattimer was the principal speaker. Also in attendance, and forming a panel, were several Parkland doctors, including Carrico, Baxter, and Jenkins. I asked to be allowed equal time to speak, but this was denied. So was my second request, to be permitted just 10 minutes in which to show a videotape presenting my view on the medical evidence. At this forum, several of the Dallas doctors said they would reconsider their sworn testimony about cerebellar tissue being damaged and visible in Dallas. This in spite of the fact that some of them had sworn to its presence as late as 14 years after the fact.84 It was in trying to explain the obvious discrepancies between autopsy photographs of the back of Kennedy’s head (where no damage is seen at all), and their Warren Commission and HSCA descriptions of a large wound and missing bone, scalp and hair, that Drs. Carrico and Jenkins came up with a new “reconciliation*: they apparently believe that the head wound they saw is really there in the photographs after all — it is simply under the hair. In their current explanation, the scalp has been reflected by the pathologists and is being held in place. Thus, underneath the hair, shielded from the camera’s lens, is actually the occipitoparietal wound we all saw!
            In my opinion, this is a completely untenable theory. The reasons for such an opinion are several:
            1.The photographs which depict the back of the head are said to have been taken before dissection began. No incisions are visible on the head, no flaps are seen anywhere, and no Y-incision is seen.
            2. A second set of photographs showing the back of the head intact, have no hands holding the head, so that it would be an impossibility that reflected flaps of scalp are being held in place.
            3. X-rays, said to show the skull, show no massive wound in the back of the head underneath the scalp and hair.
            4. The photographs show a large defect with a flap of scalp hanging from the skull in front of the right ear. I did not see this, and by their own admission, the other doctors did not see it.

  12. Photon says:

    And absolutely no mention of the head being moved from the supine position- because it wasn’t. Just as the back wound was never noted, the head was never completely examined.

    • Photon says:

      Crenshaw never ” won for defamation” from the AMA- the case never even went to trial.

      • JSA says:

        I stand corrected Photon. Actually, Crenshaw defended himself against JAMA in a letter, but I think you’re correct—he didn’t get a chance to take his case to court.

        • Gary Shaw says:

          JSA – you’re wasting your time with the likes of Photon. However, just for the record, Crenshaw received approx. 225K from JAMA in a court ordered mediation. You can see the true “fabricators” exposed in the update of Crenshaw’s book in about 2 weeks. Their own words, while under oath, completely destroys the credibility of Crenshaw’s critics.

          • JSA says:

            Thank you, Gary. I knew that Crenshaw redeemed himself with JAMA, but I didn’t realize he received compensatory payment. It would have been nice if Crenshaw had lived longer (he died in 2002) and could have posted on this blog. His testimony was like dynamite to the Warren Commission believers. People like McAdams had to scramble to try to first discredit him, then smear his record, even try to deny that he was even in Trauma Room 1! Incredible.

            The bottom line is, I find Crenshaw’s testimony to be on the mark, accurate and honest. I find McAdams’ attempt to smear Crenshaw to be unconvincing — just as his attempts to deny global warming have been.

    • JSA says:

      I never said that Kennedy’s head was “completely” examined in Dallas. But those medical professionals and assistants who handled him almost to a person noted that he had the back of his head blown out, and Dr. Perry and others said he had an entrance wound in the right front temple. Unlike the autopsy team, they didn’t have the military telling them what they could and couldn’t probe. The Dallas doctors had the Secret Service and Warren Commission telling them to change their original notes and statements to only reflect shots from behind. Some did so willingly, others reluctantly.

      • Jeff Pascal says:

        The best single witness to a blow out type wound in the rear of JFK’s head was Mortician Tom Robinson. Because as an embalmer this was his job. He was there at the Autopsy, and afterward for several hours. He said he put a rubber patch with plaster of paris to cover this wound as reported in High Treason 2 Livingstone, & Doug Horne’s Inside The ARRB series. How anybody could think their opinion is better than Robinson’s is beyond me.

        • Photon says:

          So the embalmer who was presented a body after a multiple hour autopsy including incision and retraction of the scalp, the mechanical disruption of the skull making the circular skull saw cut unnecessary, after the brain had been removed- would be the best witness of what the wound looked like 3 or 4 hours previously? That defies logic.

          • Jeff Pascal says:

            Photon-in the HSCA medical Drawings released by the ARRB of the back of the head skull wound, and in the newer drawings by Crenshaw and Nurse Bell, they corroborate Robinson, as do both FBI Agents. This wound in the back of the head is not visible in the 2 extant photos available. In the most important murder of their lifetimes all these witnesses were somehow wrong? That does defy logic.

        • Photon says:

          Wait a minute. The ARRB interview specifically states that Robinson was NOT involved in reconstruction of the head.

    • Bill Pierce says:

      ARRB(MD 185), 03/21/1997. Jeremy Gunn, Doug Horne interviewing Dr. Robert Grossman.

      “He said he (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”

      Even without the citation, it isn’t remotely conceivable that Parkland’s highly qualified trauma personnel would have regarded Kennedy’s head as some kind of sacrosanct object that couldn’t be touched, lifted, tilted, turned or moved. Nor is it conceivable that the doctors would have purposely ignored the source of profuse bleeding.

      • JSA says:

        Thank you Bill for that notation. What Photon is doing is recycling almost verbatim what John McAdams has on his site, where JM tries to refute Crenshaw and McClelland, among others, who said they noticed JFK’s head blasted out in the rear, and an entrance bullet wound in his right temple, meaning a shot hit him from the front of the motorcade. To read what McAdams says, which I think can be refuted with contrary facts of what we now know, for what it’s worth, go here:
        When you read this page, note how closely Photon follows McAdams’ wording and arguments.

      • Photon says:

        Exactly who puts Robert Grossman in the Parkland ER i on Nov 22? Nobody but Grossman!
        There is no record of him being there, let alone touching the body . Kemp Clark never mentioned him in any testimony, despite his claim of assisting him. Even David Lifton called him out as never being in the ER in the first place.
        Second hand testimony about claims of a person who wasn’t even in the ER is bogus.
        Give us some real testimony from any of the principal attending physicians that the head was moved in any way. The fact that you had to come up with such a statement reportedly from someone who wasn’t even there should convince you that there isn’t any.

  13. Photon says:

    When exactly did Perry say he had an entrance wound to the right temple?
    He certainly never said that in the Nov. 22 press conference ; he actually did state that he did not closely examine the head wound. Clark in the same conference specifically stated that the path of the bullet that caused the head wound could NOT be determined in the ER. No physician at Parkland ever probed or even moved the head.
    Exactly what statements were changed by the Parkland MDs? Perry himself stated that the neck wound could have been an entrance or exit wound and had no idea JFK had a back wound until told by the autopsy MDs. Without having even turned JFK over he knew that his rushed, initial perception that the neck wound was an entrance wound could have been mistaken.
    Why don’t you review Clark’s comments about coming to conclusions about the head bullet’s trajectory during the Nov. 22 conference. He specifically stated that his statements were only general and should not imply that he knew the full nature of the wound. It is unfortunate that people with limited knowledge of ER medicine and forensic pathology continue to mistake an 18 minute incomplete physical exam on a DOA patient with a full 4 hour formal autopsy. There is a reason that autopsies are the final, formal and complete source for establishing the cause of death.

    • Frank Booth says:

      Yeah, especially an autopsy by two physicians who had never done an autopsy in their lives, who took instructions from nameless ‘authorities’ in the room as to what to examine and what to leave alone. Some autopsy. Oh, while I’m at it, who slashed JFK’s throat? The throat wound looks like it was done by Jack the Ripper. It is not a tracheostomy incision. Just ask Dr. Perry who wondered what had happened to his work.

  14. Jens Hansen says:

    Sadly, I have never heard so much hot air come from the lungs of the JFK tailgaters who are desperately attempting an exegesis of the indelible words of Dr. Crenshaw. To those attempting to pass on your unstained brilliance on these back pages without having published on the subject, your words are a testament to your mediocrity, also called cheap rhetoric and heresy. But such rancor toward Dr. Crenshaw is understandable from weak voices coming from the cheap seats. You should all go get a real life and leave the medicine evidence to the doctors who were Parkland surgeons in 1963. Or better yet, publish a book and educate us with your sagacity and brilliance on this subject, adding of course thereto, your professional medical observations when you were in Trauma Room 1 conducting a surgical procedure on President Kennedy. Short of that, save it for the lesser educated.

    • Photon says:

      Surgeons like Clark,Perry,Baxter,Jenkins , and everybody else in the ER except McClelland and the 3rd year resident Crenshaw? They all agreed with the Warren Commision’s conclusions.

      • Rambo says:

        Everyone here is making this a lot more complicated then it has to be, I don’t care what examinations they made after the fact, I don’t need them. All you have to do is watch the Zapruder film, if you don’t know by the end that the coup de grace shot came from the front,then it doesn’t really matter, no amount of voodoo physics can change a directly observable fact.

  15. Tony says:

    all i know is their is way more too this case then Oswald an one shooter…too much has been hidden away facts locked up until 2035 common people POSNER is a joke paid big money to write what the government wants you too believe…hobos found in rail cars that look just like known CIA operatives an the most famous man on the face of planet earth at that minute just strolled out front of the public to be shot…yeah thats not strange…yeah Oswald acted alone…what a scam an many of you knot heads have fallen for it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more