Subject: Aguilar's "Back of the Head" Witnesses - 1 (Revised)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 01:00:26 GMT
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Organization: Marquette University
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk

Gary Aguilar claims to have examined the testimony of 46 witnesses to
Kennedy's head wound, at both Parkland and Bethesda, and found that 44
of the 46 described the head wound as contradicting the photos and
x-rays of the autopsy as they exist in the National Archives.

So does Gary have 44 "back of the head" witnesses?

Let's take one example:

The following quotes from Aguilar are taken from:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Let me warn the reader that Aguilar includes a lot of extraneous
material, but I'm including it all so as not to be accused of
"selectivity."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD--In a contemporaneous note dated
11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration
on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing
a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation
and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that
the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit
#392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said,
""Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the
cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..."
(WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and
occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded
area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I
would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Note that Jenkin's earliest account included a couple of elements that
can be used to imply a back of the head wound: the mention of
cerebellum and of occipital bone.  But he also says that the wound was
"temporal" and on the "right side of the head."

Saying that he is describing the back of the head blown out requires
that the "temporal" and "right side of the head" statements be
ignored.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jenkins described a wound in JFK's left temple to Specter:
Jenkins:"...I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area,
right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." Specter:
"The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins."
Jenkins: "Well, I was feeling for--I was palpating here for a pulse to
see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and
this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so
I thought there was a wound there also." A few moments later Jenkins
again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left
temple: "...I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the
left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline,
because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a
wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: "Indicating the left
temporal area?" Jenkins: "Yes; the left temporal, which could have
been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably
pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony--the
right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that 'the
autopsy report discloses no such development')." (WC-V6:51)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Jenkins recollection of a left temporal wound does put a lot of this
testimony into context.  He's flat, dead wrong, but certainly honestly
wrong.  In fact, the medical testimony is peppered with such
inaccurate statements.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins
was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins)
"...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the
closest views of the head wound...believes he was '...the only one who
knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...Regarding the head wound,
Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a
segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the
cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the
right--rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an
interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins
said, "...(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his
cerebellum was hanging out.". (emphasis added)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's
not sure which.  So of course Aguilar simply assumes he meant
"occipital," in spite of Jenkins' own uncertainty.

At this point in the historical narrative, Aguilar leaves two very
important pieces of evidence out.

Where several of the other Parkland doctors are concerned, Aguilar
extensively quotes interviews done in 1979 by Harry Livingstone and
Ben Bradlee, Jr., the latter of the BOSTON GLOBE.  The problem is that
the GLOBE, after interviewing Jenkins, classified him as a witness who
SUPPORTED the authenticity of the autopsy photos.  Livingstone admits
this in HIGH TREASON (p. 42).  He assures us that the BOSTON GLOBE was
mistaken.

Aguilar also doesn't tell his readers that Jenkins went to the
National Archives in 1988 under the auspices of NOVA and examined the
autopsy photos and x-rays.  Presumably, if he is really a "back of the
head" witness, he'll condemn then as fakes.  But instead he says that:

"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from
what happened that day."

In regard to his statement about "cerebellum," Jenkins said "I knew
very well that the wound was anterior to that . . . " but goes on to
say that he did see structures in the brain that looked like
cerebellum.

Perhaps in response to this, Aguilar turns to attacking Jenkins:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992,
Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of
the cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report
over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo,
with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal
region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Posner,
G. "Case Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his
own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination,
Jenkins said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head
(temporal and occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that
Jenkins said "occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.

When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, "I saw a
piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." Jenkins responded,
"Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to
say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right...". (Posner G.
Case Closed. p.313). Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself
had claimed that 'cerebellum was hanging out' (as had Ronald Coy
Jones, MD--see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins'
and Jones' favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was
'hanging out' but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney
despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its
surface?]

Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To
Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which
McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK's left
temple. "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When
Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his
wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my
right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and
I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left
temple as the wound." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p.313) Ignoring the
absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to
reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,
who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself
who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in
the left temple, as Jenkins' Commission testimony cited above proves.

As we will see, Dr. Jenkins' faulty, and possibly self-serving memory
seems to have frequently plagued him. It is a testament to JAMA's and
Posner's laxity in fact-checking that Jenkins' recollections are so
unquestioningly reported. Both Breo and Posner quickly attempted to
discredit those who, like McClelland, did not share their biases, and
ignored many stupendous inconsistencies of 'allies', such as Jenkins'.
(see next chapter). Nonetheless, Jenkins' earliest, 'unenhanced'
recollections must be given greatest weight and considered the most
likely to be reliable, as in any police investigation. Fortunately,
they also agree with the earliest recollections of other Parkland
witnesses, an important corroborative factor.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So Aguilar is attacking Jenkins' "faulty and possibly self-serving
memory."  Yet the only real evidence Aguilar has that his memory is
"faulty" is the fact that Jenkins testimony is inconvenient.

Aguilar touts Jenkins "earliest recollections," yet his "earliest
recollections" were mixed and equivocal, as we have seen.

And Jenkins, faced with the autopsy materials, unequivocally said that
they corresponded to what he remembered.

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm