From - Fri Oct 25 16:36:02 2002 From: john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Approved: jmcadams@shell.core.com Subject: Aguilar's "Back of the Head" Witnesses - 19 (Revised) Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:33:46 GMT Organization: Marquette University Message-ID: <3db89d11.2601282@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.207.73.149 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.207.73.149 X-Trace: 24 Oct 2002 20:43:02 -0500, 169.207.73.149 Lines: 343 Path: mcadams.posc.mu.edu!169.207.73.149 Xref: mcadams.posc.mu.edu alt.assassination.jfk:151430 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. Specifically, Aguilar claims 44 witnesses who saw a large defect that included the "back" of Kennedy's head, with "back" defined as occipital bone. 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." ----------------------------------------------------- 8) PAUL PETERS, MD, a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commisson's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (Emphasis added) (WC-V6:71) Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (Lifton D. Best Evidence. p317. Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk- Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances...(but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (Lifton D. Best Evidence. p.324) --------------------------------------------------- There is little doubt that Peters and several of the other doctors *believed* they saw cerebellum in the head wound. However, when he, like three other Parkland doctors were taken to the National Archives in 1988 to view the autopsy photos and x-rays for NOVA, he said: "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain. Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong." Other evidence, including the testimony of the autopsists and the photos of the brain make it clear that neither Peters nor any of the other doctors could have seen cerebellum. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cerebellum.htm It's important that NOVA showed the *entire* set of photos and x-rays to the Parkland doctors. Conspiracy authors make a specialty of showing carefully selected materials to medical witnesses to elicit testimony that the photos and x-rays differ from what they remember in the ER. Livingstone, particularly, shows witnesses the Back of the Head Photo (and/or the Dox drawing the photo), in which the autopsists are holding up a flap of scalp and the wound isn't visible at all. ----------------------------------------------------- Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed.. You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingston interview with Peters) When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie...The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in: Lifton, BE: 557) Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in the skull." (Transcript of Livingston interview with Peters. Peters ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) --------------------------------------------------- There is nothing here about Kennedy's head being lifted up, or otherwise manipulated to make the back of the head visible. Peters simply "stepped up" to look at the wound. He clarified the "stepping up" comment in an interview with the BOSTON GLOBE. When the GLOBE decided to run a feature article on the issue of JFK's head wound in 1981, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. (and Nils Bruzelius, apparently his research assistant) interviewed several of the Parkland Hospital witnesses. Tapes from these interviews can be found at the JFK Library in Boston (accession number MR-81-60). Peters was interviewed on 4 March 1981. Peters explained that he was located on Kennedy's right side at the abdomen. As the doctors were considering opening Kennedy's chest for open-heart massage, Jenkins suggested looking at the brain. A: "We stepped up and looked inside the skull." Q: "Was the wound readily visible even without moving the president's head?" A: "Oh, yes, that's right, that's right." Q: "Did someone at some point pick up the head in some fashion to try to get a closer look at it?" A: "I think we inspected it carefully but I don't think anyone actually just . . . after we started the resuscitative efforts . . . picked up and moved it around much . . . at all." Peters then added that somebody *else* might have done that at some other time without his noticing. This is yet another one of Aguilar's "back of the head" witnesses who, like Perry and McClelland, could not, BY THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, have seen the back of the head. ----------------------------------------------------- When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw...It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingston asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah."(Transcript of Livingston interview with Paul Peters ) --------------------------------------------------- As we discussed, any testimony of Peters in reponse to seeing the *entire* set of photos and x-rays is preferable to testimony elicited with just one -- carefully selected -- picture. ----------------------------------------------------- Author Gerald Posner claimed that on March 10, 1992, Peters told him, "The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear." (Posner G. "Case Closed", p310, paper version.) On April 2, 1992, Peters said, "...my observations were given earlier but they're still, I think, accurate after 25 years...The wound was occipital-parietal...I saw about a 7 centimeter hole in the occiput...". (Speech by Peters, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana. While Posner seemed to wish to cast doubt on the manner Lifton represented Peters' opinions, it seems that Lifton's account was far more consistent with Peters' other statements than Posner's. Lifton still has a recording of his interview with Peters and told the author the statements Lifton cited were taken from Peters verbatim and in context. In a speech to a gathering of Urologists in San Francisco in 1992, Peters demonstrated JFK's skull defect as he recalled it, on a human head for author Aguilar placing the wound at the top rear portion of the skull, which, if the skull were a cube, involved the right rear corner--a location that has no defect in current autopsy photographs. Peters apparently reported to author Gerald Posner on March 10 1992 that Robert McClelland, MD, who has steadfastly maintained the view that there was a rear skull wound of exit, was in error. "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound..." (Posner G. "Case Closed", p 313) Robert McClelland, MD had diagrammed a skull and indicated JFK's skull wound in the low rear portion of JFK's skull to author Thompson. Peters indicated on that same diagram complete agreement with the McClelland's low placement on 8-7-79 in a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ letter to author Livingstone. A copy of Peters' letter and diagram was produced in Groden and Livingstone's "High Treason". Peters' letter to author Livingston reads in full: --------------------------------------------------- Aguilar has two problems here. In the first place, Peters does not indicate "complete agreement." He says the McClelland drawing is closer than the Dox drawing. But in fact, Aguilar knows about an unpublished portion of the Livingstone interview with Peters that he posted on the Internet: Gary Aguilar wrote: : In <35239785.921325@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu : (John McAdams) writes: : > : And in the transcript of Ben Bradley's interview with Paul Peters, when : shown the Ida Dox drawing, Peters said, on p. 6: "The wound of exit, if : I may call it that, is not as I remember it." and, (REACTING TO THE IDA : DOX DRAWING SHOWING THE SCALP BEING HELD):"if this were brain here, and : it's just blacked out for purposes of making it less undesirable to : look at, it would be close to being accurate. If that is meant to be : hair, then I would say that is NOT ACCURATE .. This black area beneath ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : the thumb of the hand shown elevating the scalp there. This area right ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : in here. If that were depicted as brain tissue, then it would be close ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : to being very accurate." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In fact, the thumb that Peters refers to is approximately in the cowlick area. There was indeed a wound there, although the scalp is being held up in a way that inadvertently conceals it. But in the second place, AGUILAR BELIEVES THE MCCLELLAND DRAWING IS GROSSLY INACCURATE. People can see a picture of it at: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif Aguilar believes that the wound extended far anterior to what this drawing shows -- including the top of the head as far forward as the coronal suture. In a real sense, the McClelland drawing is more "accurate" than the Dox drawing, since it at least shows a defect. It's just in the wrong place. Nobody making a responsible effort to get witness testimony in this case would show witnesses the Dox drawing, and none of the other photos and x-rays from the autopsy. ----------------------------------------------------- "Dear Mr. Livingston, "I have marked an "X" on the picture which more accurately depicts the wound, although neither is quite accurate in my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ opinion. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. Sincerely, Paul C. Peters, MD" Peters believed that the "X" marked the point of exit for the wound in the head. In an interview with author Livingston, Peters referred to the "X" in the aforementioned diagram and said, "...the "X" is about where the wound was. The "X" does not imply that that wound is exactly correct. The "X" applies about where I thought the wound of exit was." (transcript of interview with Peters) (emphasis added) The "X" is marked squarely on the right rear portion of the skull parallel with a point just below the top of the ear. (See group of photographs following page 27 in Groden and Livingston, "High Treason", for a copy of the diagram and Peters' letter.) So Peters has done a complete about face after having discussed the case with Lattimer who convinced Peters that he did not see what he had repeatedly said he saw. Moreover, Peters felt confident enough in Latimer's opinion of what Peters had seen that he was willing to reproach McClelland for his refusal to alter his recollection to agree with Lattimer as Peters himself had done. Apparently suggestion from non-witness, Lattimer, has done wonders for Peters' memory of what he saw. It may not, however, have helped his credibility. --------------------------------------------------- If Peters were so sure that "cerebellum" was showing, and if he was so sure that occipital bone was blown out, he could have simply rejected what Lattimer was telling him. Aguilar here seems to imply that Lattimer had some kind of sinister influence over Peters -- perhaps Lattimer is part of some sort of Satanic cult that knows how to bewitch otherwise staunch "conspiracy" witnesses. So it seems that one of Aguilar's "back of the head" witnesses is a fellow who, by his own testimony, could not have seen the back of the head! And when shown the photo and x-ray record at the National Archives, he pronounced it genuine. Yet Aguilar wants to use his testimony to impeach that record. .John The Kennedy Assassination Home Page http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm