Electronic Assassinations 

Issue #1 "Case Closed or Posner Exposed?"

The Wandering Wounds

by Millicent Cranor

[(c) 1994, All rights reserved; published in the Fourth Decade, Vol.1, #3, March, 1994, revised November 1996].

They should just move the Texas Book Depository Building to someplace in front of where Kennedy was assassinated. This would be easier than moving the wounds around to fit the story of a gunman from behind - and having Gerald Posner explain it.

Chapter 13 of Posner's book, Case Closed, is a squirming mass of contradictions that seems to have been put together by Beavis and Butthead, with the help of Slick Wiley. Before assuming they are the result of honest error, you should take a good look at some comments made by a key player, Dr. Marion ("Pepper") Jenkins, a former lieutenant commander in the Navy, and then Chairman of the Southwestern University Medical Schools' Department of Anaesthesiology. Posner:

"In his original report, [Robert] McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X-ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound."

"I'll tell you how that happened, "Dr Jenkins explained to the author [Posner]. "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." [1]

What Posner doesn't tell you is that on two separate occasions, Dr. Jenkins himself asked about a left temple wound while testifying before the Warren Commission:

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. [2] I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area ... the left temporal could have been a point of entrance and [the] exit [would have been] here (indicating) ... [3]

Here is another fascinating example of deception from Case Closed :

Although no one at Parkland saw JFK's back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President's head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen. [4]

Why didn't Jenkins report this to the Warren Commission, to whom he swore to tell the whole truth?

The Dilemma

The head presents a more complicated problem for Posner who explains, "some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head ... If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front ... [and] raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK's brain, which showed no such damage." [5]

Their solution to the problem belongs in the Journal of lrreproducible Results. They say no one saw the back of the head -- then they "confirm" that wound was there.

No One Saw It
We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds Jenkins) [6]; We never had the opportunity to review his wounds (Carrico) [7]; I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound (Perry) [8]; The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue (Midgett) [9]; the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted ... (Perry) [10]; He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was wound versus dried blood (Baxter) [11]; He had a big shock of hair ... (Jenkins) [12].
They Didn't See It - But They Know It Wasn't There

Now that he has rendered the Parkland doctors unqualified to comment on the back of the head, Posner announces their confirmation of the autopsy, ... The Parkland physicians in their discussions with the author [Posner] were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) ... not the rear. (occipital) [13]

I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back. (Baxter) [14] 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. (Jenkins) [15]

The photo shows wet-looking, clean hair neatly combed over a head that seems normal in the back and side all the way to slightly in front of the right ear. And he did say "occipital."

They Admit Kemp Clark Saw it

Dr. William Kemp Clark, the Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery, must have pulled aside the curtain of hair and gore, for he donned gloves [16] to examine the wound in order to make a decision to stop resuscitation. He found;

... a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone ... [17] (T)he loss of cerebrellar(sic) tissue would probably been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. [18]
What No One Else Saw
The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area ... about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue ... macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues ... (Carrico) [19]; ... 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. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in this area... we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound... (Peters) [20]; ... the right side of his head had been blown off ... cerebellum was present ... (Baxter) [21]; There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect ... (Jenkins) [22]; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound, ... part of brain tissue on the drapes of the cart ...(Jenkins) [23]; I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue ... (Perry) [24]

What Robert McClelland Didn't See

Robert McClelland, an Assistant Professor of Surgery, is the revisionists' greatest obstacle: he refuses to alter his observations. His credentials are impeccable and he has no commercial investment in his opinion:

As I took the position at the head of the table that l 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 ... 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 half, 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 ... [25]

McClelland will not move the wound. Solution? Move McClelland, and give his reputation a nick: From Case Closed:

[McClelland] wasn't in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that (Peters) [26]; I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right (Jenkins) [27]. I am astonished that Bob would say that. It shows such poor judgment ... (Perry) [28] As for the head wound, they couldn't look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants. (Jenkins) [29]

While trying to save the President's life during 20 minutes of absolute pandemonium, they found the time to monitor McClelland's every move?

They Saw It, But They Didn't Know Where

Films and testimony indicate the wound included the right temple, the right side, and the right side of the back. But Posner et al want us to believe the wound was strictly on the side and front, and not the back at all. The Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery doesn't know the terms and anatomy of his specialty? Experienced physicians don't know the back of the head from the front side?

It Was in the Back and Side
The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference (Perry) [30] ... the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other. (Giesecke) [31]

Please notice they don't tell you where parietal and occipital bone meet: at the back of the head. And a wound in parietal bone alone could be considered in the back if it lies between the ear and the occiput. An "avulsed" wound in the back and side still does not work with the official version.

More inportant, Perry and Giesecke seem to be forgetting that even the Navy pathologists say the wound included the occiput.

Dr. Clark nailed down the location of the defect he saw when Arlen Specter asked if a wound 2.5cm and slightly above the EOP could have been present, but missed by Dr.Clark:

Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it ... such a wound could be present. [32]

If the large defect included an area lateral to the small hole, the defect had to be fairly low in the back. Where is slightly above the EOP? Humes drew the small hole on a plastic skull. The hole appears to be no more than a centimeter above the EOP.

One of the most misleading statements of all appears on page 312 of Case Closed:

The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw.

NOTE: There is not one fresh quote from William Kemp Clark, not in Case Closed, and not in the Journal of the AMA which featured the changed stories of some of the other doctors. As a neurosurgeon, as the one Parkland physician who examined the head wound carefully, Clark was the most qualified of all. Where does he say he no longer believes his own report?

The Bullet Emerged from where?

Obviously, the Parkland doctors are not confirming the findings of Bethesda, they are deferring to Bethesda. But deference can be intellectually dangerous. What if Bethesda had said the bullet exited from Kennedy's face?

As nearly everyone knows, Kennedy's face was intact. No bullet came anywhere out of Kennedy's face. But critics who did not appreciate the extent to which Kennedy's head was turned to the left had said a bullet from behind should come out of the face. Had there been a short-lived plan to claim the bullet did come out of his face? Why did Dr. Alfred Olivier, who superivsed experiments to recreate the assassination with gelatin filled skulls, make this statement:

... We were aiming, as described in the autopsy report ... the point 2 centimeters to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it. We placed a mark on the skull at that point, according to the autopsy the bullet emerged through the superorbital (sic) process, so we drew a line to give us the line of flight ... (emphasis added) [33]

Curiously, Olivier's experimental skull, with the right side of the face blown out, superficially resembles the X-ray of Kennedy taken from the "modified Waters view: that gives the impression the upper right side of his face is missing.

If Bethesda had ever presented this version, would the Parkland doctors have deferred to their judgement, agreeing to move the large wound from back to front?


1.  Gerald L. Posner, Case Closed, Chapter 13, Random House, New 
York, page 313.

2.  Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 48. [Jenkins]

3.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 51. [Jenkins]

4.  Case Closed, p. n305 - 6.

5.  Case Closed, p. 308 [Posner]

6.  Case Closed, p. 309 [Jenkins]

7.  Case Closed, p. 309 [Carrico]

8.  Case Closed, p. 309 [Perry]

9.  Case Closed, p. 310 [Midgett]

10.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Perry]

11.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Baxter]

12.  Case Closed, p. 289 [Jenkins]

13.  Case Closed, p. 310 [Posner]

14.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Baxter]

15.  Case Closed, p. 311 [Jenkins]

16.  Case Closed, p. 291 [re Clark]

17.  Hearings, Vol. XVII, p. 10 [Clark]

18.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 26 [Clark]

19.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 6 [Carrico]

20.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 71 [Peters]

21.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 41 [Baxter]

22.  Hearings, Vol. XVII, p. 15 [Jenkins]

23.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 48 [Jenkins]

24.  Hearings, Vol. III, p. 372 [Perry]

25.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 33 [McClelland]

26.  Case Closed, p. 313 [Peters]

27.  Case Closed, p. 313 [Jenkins]

28.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Perry]

29.  Case Closed, p. 309 [Jenkins]

30.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Perry]

31.  Case Closed, p. 312 [Giesecke]

32.  Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 25 [Clark]

33.  Hearings, Vol. V, p. 89 [Olivier]

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home Page