The Head Wound

And indeed, some of the witness testimony points to a large wound on the "back" of Kennedy's head. But, in order to make this argument, conspiracy authors have had to engage in massive selectivity in the use of evidence. And they have had to ignore or declare to be faked the best evidence — movies from Dealey Plaza, and photos and x-rays from the Bethesda autopsy.

Just what do lone assassin theorists, and conspiracy theorists, say about the head wound?

The following are four versions of what the head wound looked like. They can be used as a benchmark as you look at the evidence. Two support the idea of a lone shooter in the School Book Depository, and two support the idea of a shooter from the Grassy Knoll.

Warren Commission The drawing at right, a Warren Commission Exhibit, was done by Naval Corpsman R.A. Rydberg, in colloboration with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell, the autopsists. None of the three had access to the autopsy photos and x-rays, so the drawing is based entirely on memory.

Early Conspiracy Version Josiah Thompson's 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas contained the drawing on the right, which was attributed to Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the doctors who treated Kennedy in the Parkland Emergency Room. In fact, McClelland neither drew nor approved the drawing. Rather it was done by a medical illustrator based on McClelland's verbal description.

Groden Version The image at right is taken from Robert Groden's The Killing of a President. It represents mainstream thinking among conspiracy theorists, who now mostly admit that the top of the head was damaged, but who continue to insist that the back of the head was blown out. You may click on the image to see a larger version. (Sculpture by Edward L Chiarini Jr.)

House Select Committee Medical illustrator Ida Dox, working for the House Select Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel in the late 1970s, produced the drawing at right. It faithfully reflects what the autopsy photos and x-rays show, although it is simplified a bit and the fragments aren't drawn to scale. You may click on the image to see a larger version.

What Does the Evidence Show?

Dealey Plaza Head Wound Witnesses

Dealey Plaza "Gore" Witnesses

Dealey Plaza Photographic Evidence

Other Views The traditional conspiracy view of the head wound -- that Kennedy was hit from the right front and occipital bone was blown out -- is contradicted by a massive amount of evidence. That's not to say, however, that there is no controversy among sensible researchers. Independent-minded researcher Paul Seaton believes that the back of Kennedy's head was indeed open at Parkland Hospital, and that the witnesses who describe an occipital wound are correct. Right or wrong, Seaton's web site has numerous resources worth checking out. Likewise, John Canal believes that Kennedy was hit in the back of the head, but not high in the cowlick area as the expert panels of forensic pathologists believe, but rather near the external occipital protuberance, as the original autopsy doctors asserted. He makes his case in three essays: One in the online journal Washington Decoded. In an essay on this site, Canal argues that analysts have misinterpreted the autopsy photos. Canal also argues, in this essay, that top forensic experts have misplaced the entrance wound in the back of Kennedy's head.

Parkland and Bethesda Eyewitnesses

• Marion Jenkins
• Charles Carrico
• David Osborne
• John Stover
• Robert Grossman
• Richard Lipsey
• William Midgett
• Philip Wehle
• Charles Baxter
• William Greer
• Doris Nelson
• Robert McClelland
• Malcolm Perry
• Chester Boyers
• Charles Crenshaw
• The Autopsists (Humes, Boswell, Finck)
• Paul Peters
• Gene Akin
• Jerrol Custer
• John Stringer
• Clint Hill

• Joe Durnavich has written a splendidly informative essay on the X-ray evidence about Kennedy's head wound.
• The House Select Committee had its medical and photographic experts evaluate the autopsy photos and x-rays for evidence of fakery.
• The House Select Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel evaluated all the medical evidence on the head wound.
• Randy Robertson MD, is a radiologist and conspiracy oriented researcher who recently got access to materials that have langished virtually unnoticed for decades: images on 120 film shot during the JFK autopsy. He finds these images consistent with the previously available images, strong evidence for the authenticity of the latter.

The Harper Fragment

Brain Matter Hit Bobby Hargis

Parkland Doctors Confront the Autopsy Photos and X-rays

• Impeach Photos and X-rays With Witness Testimony? Yes, that's what conspiracy theorists will try to do. Faced with autopsy photos and x-rays showing that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind, they will marshall witnesses whose accounts conflict with the autopsy photos and x-rays. They will then insist that the photos and x-rays must be faked. How reliable is witness testimony? On May 18, 1998, Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board spoke at Stanford University. As the chief staff person for the Board, he had an intimate familiarity with the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses, many of whom he had interviewed. His conclusion about witness testimony was as follows: The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony. I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable. First published on the web on the Fair Play web site, you might want to check out the entire speech. Likewise, the Final Report of the ARRB stressed the problems with witness testimony: Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of people's recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor's memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony. The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.