LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Michael T. Griffith]

The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.

Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.

I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.

But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.

I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.

Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.

So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.

Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.

Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?

Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible.

Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.

I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.

The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage".

Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.

Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).

That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.

It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.

Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".

"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.

Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.

You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."

Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.

I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.

LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!

You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.

Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.

You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.

Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.

BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?

And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos. 

The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.

This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:

---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)
---------------------------------------

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster).

I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.

More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:

---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------

So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"?  I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.

What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).

A little more about Dr. Hodges: He began his career as a professor of radiology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University. He served as president of the American Society of Neuroradiology for two years. He conducted numerous experiments to study the effects on animals and humans of penetrating wounds from high-velocity bullets. He was a highly respected reviewer for the American Journal of Neuroradiology and was a charter member of the Association of University Radiologists and of the American Society of Neuroradiology.

Regarding the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges said the following:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

These findings were unacceptable because the new official position was that the rear head entry wound was in the right parietal bone, not in the occiput, that it was visibly above and to the right of the lambda, a whopping 10 cm (4 inches) above the location identified by the autopsy doctors.

Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with optical density measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Further confirmation of this comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show no more than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing, as even Bugliosi and Baden freely acknowledged.

It is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos that he took.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).

No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.

[Michael T. Griffith]

No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.

No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.

[Jack Nessan]

No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.

In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items. I see many reputable sites say there are six lobes. Most sites will merely say there are four main lobes. I admit I was wrong, but allow for other people seeing things through different lenses. You lack that ability.

Wow, such dishonesty. Several replies ago, I said that we had both made statements about the cerebrum's lobes that were incorrect and was prepared to leave it at that, but you just couldn't let it go, and so you replied with your six-lobes argument. You are the one who "must have your way with even the most trivial items."

Dear Reader. Be my guest: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 . See where Griffith refers to "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum. Griffith is a Mormon apologist and that group has a long history of demeaning people and shutting them down. People on the Forum. What do you think?

They think you're a childish liar who repeatedly discredits himself by offering juvenile excuses and denials when you’re caught making embarrassing blunders.

I made the factual observation that the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe are virtually undamaged in the autopsy brain photos (my exact words were that they are "virtually pristine" in the brain photos). You claimed I was wrong because the "right cerebrum" is damaged in the brain drawing. Let's read what you said, again:

The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?

You clearly did not understand that the cerebellum is not part of the right cerebrum. You also clearly did not realize that the right-rear occipital lobe is only a small part of the right cerebrum.

When I pointed out your blunder, you came up with the childish lie that you said "right cerebrum" because you somehow thought that I believed that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as separate areas.

No less a researcher than Pat Speer treats this with caution:

    "Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying
     that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some
     distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when
     one views this photo under the assumption the bone in the foreground shows
     forehead the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been
     reflected at all!"

Holy cow, what brazen dishonesty.

Dear Reader, be advised that in the chapter from which Jerry Organ has cherry-picked this quote, Pat Speer argues against the idea that the scalp was not reflected. Speer spends considerable time arguing that Humes did in fact reflect the scalp and did in fact identify an entry wound in the skull near the EOP.

Earlier in the chapter from which Organ has quoted, Speer paraphrases and rejects Chad Zimmerman's argument that the alleged presence of forehead in the foreground in autopsy photo F8 proves that the cowlick was not reflected. To repeat, Speer rejects this argument. Speer also notes that both of Humes's and Boswell's medical assistants, autopsy photographer John Stringer, and x-ray tech Jerrol Custer supported Humes’s account of reflecting the scalp.

There are two other facts that Jerry Organ failed to mention: In Speer’s online book, the book from which Jerry Organ quotes, Speer ardently, adamantly argues (1) that the rear head entry wound was very near the EOP, and (2) that the cowlick entry site is pure bunk that was fraudulently concocted by the Clark Panel's Russell Fisher and then bogusly endorsed by the HSCA FPP.

Allow me to quote some relevant segments on the reflecting of the scalp and the location of the rear head entry wound from Speer's online book:

----------------------------------------
Dr. Chad Zimmerman, for example, is so convinced the photo shows forehead that he refuses to believe the doctors ever could have thought it was the back of the head. Accordingly, he has convinced himself that the doctors' 1966 description of a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" is not a description of the back of Kennedy's head at all, but a description of the front of his head, showing the interior aspect of the missile wound in the posterior skull, and the scalp reflected over the forehead. Never mind that it says "over entrance in posterior skull," implying that the photo is of tissue just above the skull. Never mind that "following reflection of scalp" modifies "posterior skull" and not "anterior skull" or "forehead." Never mind that the description of this photo fails to mention that, oh yeah, by the way, the entrance it depicts is inside the cranium.

It seems likely that the reflected scalp in the mystery photograph is the scalp at the back of the head, atypically, due to the extensive damage to the right side of the skull, reflected to the left.

This interpretation is confirmed, furthermore, by the statements of Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins, Dr. Humes' and Dr. Boswell's assistants during the autopsy.

The recollections of Jenkins and O'Connor are supported, furthermore, by those of the autopsy's photographer, John Stringer, and its radiology tech, Jerrol Custer.

The scalp was reflected to the left.

Now, there are those who insist doctors wouldn't do such a thing, and that they always reflect the scalp over the forehead, blah, blah, blah.

But this just isn't true. One of the most famous murders of the late 19th century was that of Lt. Cecil Hambrough, who was believed to have been murdered by Alfred Monson, while the two were out hunting with a third person, Edward Scott. This murder caught the public's attention, and led to some of the first forensic studies of gunshot wounds in which scientists fired a murder weapon in order to establish the range from which the fatal weapon had been fired. Dr. Joseph Bell,  the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, assisted in these studies and testified at the trial, immediately after a colleague, Dr. Patrick Watson. In any event, this murder was discussed far and wide, and made its way into Principles of Forensic Medicine, by Dr. William Guy, where the following images were provided.

The damage was restricted to the right, so the scalp was reflected to the left. It's rather elementary when you think of it. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto)

The HSCA's pathology panel claimed a bullet entered the cowlick area at the top of the back of Kennedy's head, and left a small red oval entrance in the cowlick area of the scalp. No such entrance was noted by anyone viewing the President's body. Those noting the entrance swore it was down by the hairline.

Since late 1993, of all the doctors to study the medical evidence deposited at the archives--Dr. Randy Robertson, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, Dr. Robert Kirschner, Dr. James Humes, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck, Dr. Chad Zimmerman, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Peter Cummings, and Dr. Michael Chesser--and all the doctors to present a major review of the medical evidence in a forensics journal (Dr.s Michael Levy and Robert Grossman in the June 2004 issue of Neurosurgery) only one has supported Fisher's finding the entrance wound was in the cowlick...just one--his fellow Forensic Pathologist Dr. Kirschner--the one most likely to be under the influence of Fisher's reputation. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter20conclusionsandconfusions)

[In the next quote, Speer is discussing the fact that Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA FPP, grossly misrepresented Dr. Pierre Finck's HSCA testimony--we should remember that Finck's HSCA testimony was not released until the 1990s.]

A transcript exists, of course, of Dr. Finck's testimony before the HSCA. He said nothing remotely similar to what Dr. Baden told the researchers Finck had told him. In fact, the transcript proves Baden to be mistaken on most every point. Not only had Finck told Baden he'd performed gunshot wound autopsies before, he'd told him he'd arrived at the autopsy after Kennedy's scalp and hair had been reflected from Kennedy's skull. So much, then, for Baden's claim he'd been confused by Kennedy's hair. Finck told Baden, moreover, that he then stepped up and inspected Kennedy's wounds and made sure certain photos were taken of the entrance wound low on Kennedy's skull. Well, this completely destroys Dr. Baden's claim Finck told him he'd "just watched" as well. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13battackoftheclones)

Gee, Jerry, why didn’t quote any of these statements? Why did you deliberately give the false impression that Speer is not certain that Humes’s reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the skull?

Humes famously told the HSCA that a piece of tissue (per FPP) near the hairline was an entry wound.

"Famously"? Actually, Humes's claim to the HSCA FPP that the white spot was an entry wound is not as bad as the claim that the red spot in the cowlick is an entry wound. Indeed, even Pat Speer argues that the entry wound was near the white spot. The white spot is certainly much closer to the mark than the cowlick site.

Funny. When Humes supposedly reflected the scalp to expose the cowlick wound area, and Finck wistfully claimed decades later they had taken a picture of a bared skull clean down to the EOP level, where's the picture? Not in the "Military Review" inventory signed by the three pathologists.

Oh, so Finck was lying?! Finck just fabricated his account of having standard autopsy pictures taken of the front and back sides of the entry wound?! Never mind that he made it a point to note to the ARRB that those photos were not in the official collection that he examined in late 1966? Never mind that Humes, Karnei, Stringer, Knudsen, and Spencer also said that there were autopsy photos that were not included in the official collection?

"Every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP." Really?

Uh, yes, really. Even Speer, to his credit, acknowledges this fact. He discusses this fact in his arguments against the cowlick site. Since you quote from Speer’s book, one must wonder why you are even asking this question, since, again, Speer acknowledges this fact.

Only Humes felt for the EOP and he got it wrong, according to the HSCA. No one else saw or felt for the EOP; they only saw the cowlick wound on the scalp and accepted Humes' EOP placement relative to it.

This dishonest tale again? You know this is false. For the sake of others, allow me to repeat what the autopsy doctors and several autopsy witnesses explained: the autopsy doctors first identified the rear head entry wound in the scalp, and then they reflected the scalp and found a small hole in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

Is this image not representative of where you contend the cowlick wound is in the Top-of-the-Head Photo? Be clear; what changes are needed? Better yet, post your own graphic showing the area you contend show the cowlick wound almost near the cortex seen in the photo ("the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photo"). The vertex (a must landmark)  must therefore be some distance from the cowlick wound.

Just shaking my head. A few days ago, you started making the baffling claim that I put the cowlick site "at the vertex area," even though I was citing Dr. Riley's research on the unsolvable problem posed for the cowlick site by the intact cerebral cortex at that location, and even though he put the site nowhere near the vertex. You said,

Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area.

I responded by asking you to explain how in the world you could reach such an absurd conclusion, and by noting that the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site.

In reply, you even claimed that Dr. Riley "was ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis." That's mighty bold garbage coming from a guy who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," and who thought that the small area of the right-rear occipital lobe could be described as "the right cerebrum."

You note that the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site, a fact that I’ve been noting for several days, and you childishly pretend that this observation somehow challenges my position.

You disingenuously ask for a graphic that shows where I put the cowlick site, as if I place it somewhere other than where it has always been posited. As I've already told you, I put the cowlick site where everybody else has always put it. If you want a graphic, see Dr. Riley's first graphic in his article "What Struck John" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).