Here's Someone Everyone Should Listen To: Dr. James Carrico

[Brian Doyle]

  As are you, Brian.  President Kennedy was already leaning "noticeably to his left" just before the fatal shot. 

No, that doesn't fly...In the photo I referenced, of the limousine back seat at Parkland, you can see the out-shoot, blood splatter on the top of the seat cushion is rearward at an angle that fits the Occipital would perfectly...If Carrico's lie that the side of the head was avulsed were true then the out-shoot would be roughly to the right side of the limo towards the Knoll...But we don't see that in the photo I referenced...Instead we see the gore from the plug of brain, skull, and scalp from the ejected Occipital material landing right where it would have in the back seat as well as the blood splatter at an angle that forensically indicates a shot from the front...

 

[Steve Barber]

No, that doesn't fly...In the photo I referenced, of the limousine back seat at Parkland, you can see the out-shoot, blood splatter on the top of the seat cushion is rearward at an angle that fits the Occipital would perfectly...If Carrico's lie that the side of the head was avulsed were true then the out-shoot would be roughly to the right side of the limo towards the Knoll...But we don't see that in the photo I referenced...Instead we see the gore from the plug of brain, skull, and scalp from the ejected Occipital material landing right where it would have in the back seat as well as the blood splatter at an angle that forensically indicates a shot from the front...

 It does fly.  A)  Look at the Zapruder film.  B) Look at the autopsy photos (or are these "fake" as your party says) C.  Use common sense.  Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that any blood or brain tissue that would landed on the back rest of the back seat would have been immediately severely disturbed when Mrs. Kennedy raised out of the seat and attempted to climb from seat onto the trunk. LOOK AT Mrs. Kennedy's POSITION AGAINST THE BACK SEAT Brian. Are going to deny that Mrs. Kennedy's hips and lower body are right up against the seat in the very location your "blood splatter" is on the seat?  Come on! Your entire theory is ludicrous and ridiculous.   

[Brian Doyle]

It does fly.  A)  Look at the Zapruder film.  B) Look at the autopsy photos (or are these "fake" as your party says) C.  Use common sense.  Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that any blood or brain tissue that would landed on the back rest of the back seat would have been immediately severely disturbed when Mrs. Kennedy raised out of the seat and attempted to climb from seat onto the trunk. LOOK AT Mrs. Kennedy's POSITION AGAINST THE BACK SEAT Brian. Are going to deny that Mrs. Kennedy's hips and lower body are right up against the seat in the very location your "blood splatter" is on the seat?  Come on! Your entire theory is ludicrous and ridiculous.

You're not answering what was written...

The Blood Splatter is exactly where it would be if there was a shot from the front and Occipital exit wound...

There is zero where Carrico's wound needs it to be...

That's why they do blood splatter analysis because it is forensically accurate...

Pitzer proved there was a covert pre-autopsy to alter the wounds...

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is where your ignorance is put on full display. The occipitoparietal area Carrico spoke of. It is at the juncture of the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain, aka parieto-occipital sulcus, which is at the upper rear of the cranial vault. I'm not pretending to be any sort of medical expert but this is something that can be determined through a google search. If I really were a medical expert, I wouldn't have had to look it up. Perhaps MTG should have done the same before he posted.

Carrico's placement of the defect in the skull is consistent with the autopsy report which indicated the defect in the skull was chiefly parietal but extending into the occipital and temporal regions.
This is where MTG ventures into Fantasyland. There was no forgery of the x-rays. How does one forge an x-ray?
MTG loves to cite doctors outside their area of expertise. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. He's treats cancer patients.
Yes, the defect did extend into the occipital bone as well as the temporal bone but was chiefly parietal. That means it extended all long the upper right side of JFK's head. The Z-film shows a flap of skull hanging down from the upper right side of JFK's head after the head shot. MTG likes to ignore the references to the parietal and temporal regions and pretend the defect was entirely in the occipital region. The reality, only the rear tip of the defect was in the occipital area.
Thank you for that opinion Dr. Griffith. Give your vast knowledge of forensic medicine, it is a wonder you were not invited to join the FPP.
Call me crazy, but I'll go with the unanimous conclusion of the FPP over yours. They got to see all the photos and x-rays from the autopsy and they had a wee bit more experience than you do in the field of forensic medicine.
Maybe it's you who has been influenced by reading so much nonsense over the years. I take that back. There is no maybe about that.

Yeah, uh-huh. This is just another display of your pitiful knowledge of the evidence, and of your penchant for distortion, evasion, and omission. It is also another display of your embarrassing inability to correctly format your replies. I guess the simple push-button formatting commands are just too complicated for you to figure out.

Your entire answer for the historic hard scientific evidence of the OD measurements is to note that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, as if that somehow proves the OD measurements are invalid, when in fact it makes them all the more compelling because a big part of his job is making and correctly analyzing OD measurements. Plus, as I know you know, two other medical experts, Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Gary Aguilar, did their own OD measurements, which confirmed Mantik's OD measurements.

I should add that all three of those medical experts have done a great deal of reading in forensic science literature, which is why their writings, especially Dr. Mantik's, contain many references to forensic sources. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read their research.

I notice you ignored the fact that Dr. Artwohl, a staunch WC defender, admitted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick site, just as Dr. Riley observed, and just as Dr. Mantik confirmed. Do you somehow not grasp that this debunks the cowlick site?

In response to the fact that Dr. Ebersole said a large late-arriving skull fragment was occipital bone, and to the fact that Dr. Boswell said part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments, you say "the defect did extend into the occipital bone," but then a few paragraphs later you once again dishonestly appeal to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP," even though the FPP denied that the wound extended into the occiput!

I've pointed out the contradictory, dishonest nature of your use of the FPP's findings on several occasions, but you continue to peddle your distortions. 

Furthermore, you obviously do not understand that the occipital fragment that Dr. Boswell said contained part of the rear head entry wound would have had to come from the middle part of the occiput, since the wound was only 1 cm above the EOP. Humes and xxxx never, ever said the large head wound extended that far into the occiput, much less that a large amount of occipital bone was missing.

Boswell, however, to his great credit, did admit via his wound diagram for the ARRB that a sizable piece of occipital bone was missing, confirming Dr. Ebersole's disclosure to the HSCA that a large late-arriving fragment from Dallas was occipital bone.

Moreover, you keep refusing to face the fact that you cannot accept the EOP entry site, much less believe that the large head wound extended even slightly into the occiput, without repudiating the autopsy brain photos as utterly fraudulent. Do you just not have the education necessary to understand the implication of the fact that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the right and left occipital lobes?

It is specious and dishonest of you to keep selectively appealing to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP" when the FPP themselves pointed out that the brain photos categorically make it impossible to accept the EOP entry site -- assuming, of course, that the brain photos are authentic.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no bullet could have entered the EOP site without tearing through the right occipital lobe, just as the FPP correctly noted?

However, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos as bogus and embrace the cowlick site. But, uh-oh, the autopsy photos refute the cowlick site because they show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the cowlick site's location.

Additionally, if the large head wound extended even slightly into the occipital bone from the right parietal bone, how in the world could the right occipital lobe have remained undamaged? Here, again, the FPP's conclusions wreak havoc with your position, since the FPP correctly noted that the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe (indeed, they cited this as another objection to the EOP site).

Are you really incapable of understanding the self-evident fact that if a bullet blasted even a tiny amount of skull from the top part of the occiput, this would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (and probably would have caused some damage to the left lobe as well), since the occipital lobe lies directly behind the top half of the occiput? 

I see that you also punted on the fact that the only way anyone could have seen damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid dripping from the cerebellum, would have been if occipital bone was missing in the area of the cerebellum, which is the lower half of the occiput.

You keep hiding behind the phony argument that no one who is not a doctor is qualified to make this point, yet you ignore the fact that many medical doctors have also made this point.

You don't have to hold medical agree to look at diagrams of the skull and of the brain and see where the cerebellum is located inside the skull. You can look in hundreds of online medical sources on anatomy and see that the cerebellum is located only at the lower half of the occipital bone and nowhere else.

If you just do a Google search, you'll learn the following:

The cerebellum sits directly beneath the occipital lobe at the lower back of the brain, and both structures are protected by the occipital bone of the skull (the occiput).

For your education, here are some medical diagrams of the occiput, the cerebellum, and the occipital lobe:

OCCIPUT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral2.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_-_animation_02.gif

CEREBELLUM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://www.flintrehab.com/cerebellum-brain-damage/

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23418-cerebellum

OCCIPITAL LOBE

https://www.flintrehab.com/occipital-lobe-stroke/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain

And, just FYI (but more for the benefit of other readers), I've read many, many sources on forensic science and wound ballistics, as well as on anatomy and physiology. In contrast, it is obvious you know next to nothing about these subjects.

[John Corbett]

Yeah, uh-huh. This is just another display of your pitiful knowledge of the evidence, and of your penchant for distortion, evasion, and omission. It is also another display of your embarrassing inability to correctly format your replies. I guess the simple push-button formatting commands are just too complicated for you to figure out.

Stick it up your a**. You make your share of formatting errors and other typos, but I'm not anal enough to make an issue out of them. One thing I've learned over the years is that the people who try to score points over such trivialities do so because the substance of their arguments is so weak. That's certainly the case with you.

Your entire answer for the historic hard scientific evidence of the OD measurements is to note that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, as if that somehow proves the OD measurements are invalid, when in fact it makes them all the more compelling because a big part of his job is making and correctly analyzing OD measurements. Plus, as I know you know, two other medical experts, Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Gary Aguilar, did their own OD measurements, which confirmed Mantik's OD measurements.

So now you cite an ophthalmologist and a neurologist to analyze the medical evidence. Why is it you can never cite competent forensic medical examiners to support your beliefs? Oh, that's right. They don't. The FPP was comprised of some of the leading medical examiners in the country and who were assisted by radiologist John Ebersole. The made completely different judgements about the medical evidence than the guys you cite, none of whom had ever performed a medico-legal autopsy.

Here's a clue for you, free of charge, because you obviously need one. Oncologists, neurologists, and ophthalmologists are not trained or experienced in forensic pathology. Why would you accept their judgements over those of the men who did have that training and experience?

I should add that all three of those medical experts have done a great deal of reading in forensic science literature, which is why their writings, especially Dr. Mantik's, contain many references to forensic sources. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read their research.

Fair enough. Tell us Mantik's qualifications in the area of forensic pathology. Tell us how many times he has testified as medical examiner in a murder trial. Would that number be > 0?

I notice you ignored the fact that Dr. Artwohl, a staunch WC defender, admitted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick site, just as Dr. Riley observed, and just as Dr. Mantik confirmed. Do you somehow not grasp that this debunks the cowlick site?

Do you think the FPP did not see that?

In response to the fact that Dr. Ebersole said a large late-arriving skull fragment was occipital bone, and to the fact that Dr. Boswell said part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments, you say "the defect did extend into the occipital bone," but then a few paragraphs later you once again dishonestly appeal to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP," even though the FPP denied that the wound extended into the occiput!

My two observations are not mutually exclusive.

I've pointed out the contradictory, dishonest nature of your use of the FPP's findings on several occasions, but you continue to peddle your distortions. 

I guess I have more faith in the leading forensic medical examiners of their day than your collection of oncologists, ophthalmologists, and neurologists.

Furthermore, you obviously do not understand that the occipital fragment that Dr. Boswell said contained part of the rear head entry wound would have had to come from the middle part of the occiput, since the wound was only 1 cm above the EOP. Humes and xxxx never, ever said the large head wound extended that far into the occiput, much less that a large amount of occipital bone was missing.

Now you are inserting your own amateurish opinions. That's even less convincing than your oncologists, ophthalmologists, and neurologists.

Boswell, however, to his great credit, did admit via his wound diagram for the ARRB that a sizable piece of occipital bone was missing, confirming Dr. Ebersole's disclosure to the HSCA that a large late-arriving fragment from Dallas was occipital bone.

So? Nobody has ever disputed the defect in JFK's skull included part of the occipital bone. That was mentioned in the original autopsy.

Moreover, you keep refusing to face the fact that you cannot accept the EOP entry site, much less believe that the large head wound extended even slightly into the occiput, without repudiating the autopsy brain photos as utterly fraudulent. Do you just not have the education necessary to understand the implication of the fact that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the right and left occipital lobes?

I have never seen the autopsy photos and even if I had, like you, I am completely unqualified to analyze what they tell us. That's why, unlike you, I choose to defer to competent people to make those judgements.

It is specious and dishonest of you to keep selectively appealing to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP" when the FPP themselves pointed out that the brain photos categorically make it impossible to accept the EOP entry site -- assuming, of course, that the brain photos are authentic.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no bullet could have entered the EOP site without tearing through the right occipital lobe, just as the FPP correctly noted?

There was a difference of opinion between Bethesda team and the FPP as to precisely where the bullet struck JFK. They both agreed he was shot in the back of the head which is what matters. That is consistent with what the body of evidence as a whole tells us which is that Oswald fired that shot from the sniper's nest. That conclusion works no matter which group correctly placed the entrance point in the back of the head.

However, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos as bogus and embrace the cowlick site. But, uh-oh, the autopsy photos refute the cowlick site because they show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the cowlick site's location.

You don't get to tell me what I must or must not conclude. I just told you what I believe and it isn't based on my expertise in the field of forensic pathology because, like you, I have none.

Additionally, if the large head wound extended even slightly into the occipital bone from the right parietal bone, how in the world could the right occipital lobe have remained undamaged? Here, again, the FPP's conclusions wreak havoc with your position, since the FPP correctly noted that the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe (indeed, they cited this as another objection to the EOP site).

It doesn't matter to me whether the Bethesda team or the FPP correctly placed the entrance wound. What matters to me is who fired that shot, and only one of those groups has to be correct for Oswald to be the shooter. If the FPP got it wrong, that doesn't exonerate Oswald. He was the assassin.

Are you really incapable of understanding the self-evident fact that if a bullet blasted even a tiny amount of skull from the top part of the occiput, this would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (and probably would have caused some damage to the left lobe as well), since the occipital lobe lies directly behind the top half of the occiput? 

So? Explain to us how that would exonerate Oswald.

I see that you also punted on the fact that the only way anyone could have seen damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid dripping from the cerebellum, would have been if occipital bone was missing in the area of the cerebellum, which is the lower half of the occiput. 

I have never disputed that part of the occipital bone was blown out. What matter is that it was blown out by Oswald.

You keep hiding behind the phony argument that no one who is not a doctor is qualified to make this point, yet you ignore the fact that many medical doctors have also made this point.

Goody. Now tell us how any of that exonerates Oswald.

You don't have to hold medical agree to look at diagrams of the skull and of the brain and see where the cerebellum is located inside the skull. You can look in hundreds of online medical sources on anatomy and see that the cerebellum is located only at the lower half of the occipital bone and nowhere else.

No you don't and you don't need to be a doctor to figure out it was Oswald who fire the shot that killed JFK. Why has that obvious fact slipped past you?

If you just do a Google search, you'll learn the following:

The cerebellum sits directly beneath the occipital lobe at the lower back of the brain, and both structures are protected by the occipital bone of the skull (the occiput).

For your education, here are some medical diagrams of the occiput, the cerebellum, and the occipital lobe:

OCCIPUT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral2.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_-_animation_02.gif

CEREBELLUM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://www.flintrehab.com/cerebellum-brain-damage/

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23418-cerebellum

OCCIPITAL LOBE

https://www.flintrehab.com/occipital-lobe-stroke/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain

And, just FYI (but more for the benefit of other readers), I've read many, many sources on forensic science and wound ballistics, as well as on anatomy and physiology. In contrast, it is obvious you know next to nothing about these subjects.

Fascinating. Now tell us why any of that matters to the question of who shot JFK.

[Steve Barber]

You're not answering what was written...

The Blood Splatter is exactly where it would be if there was a shot from the front and Occipital exit wound...

There is zero where Carrico's wound needs it to be...

That's why they do blood splatter analysis because it is forensically accurate...

Pitzer proved the was a covert pre-autopsy to alter the wounds...

 I did address what you wrote with further proof of the total absurdity of your claim that the blood on the backrest of the back seat is "proof" of a frontal shot! That blood on the backseat had to have gotten onto that area while JFK was being removed from the car, due to what I pointed out to you regarding Mrs. Kennedy's lower body pressing against that portion of the seat, as seen in the Zapruder film. 

 You just don't like what I pointed out to you.

And as for the photo of the car's backset, it wasn't taken at Parkland.  There are zero photos of the back seat of the car while at Parkland
 
The photos of the back seat were taken in Washington D.C. at the White House garage after the car was returned to Washington and before FBI agent Robert Frazier and a 2nd person sifted through and examined the entire limousine for evidence. It's all available in the testimony of Robert Frazier.

 And as for your calling Dr. Carrico a liar for saying "the side of the head was avulsed", Carrico was correct!

What do you think that mass is above and to the front of JFK's ear, covering the temple and extending forward is?  That is a portion of the side and top-side of JFK's head attached to scalp and hanging inside-out/upside down, which Mrs. Kennedy put back into place on the way to Parkland. Did you even read what I posted yesterday, that she told Theodore White?  And upon her putting that huge piece of skull back up and into place, she distorted the view of the head wound, inadvertently.  What Dr. Carrico saw is what the top of the head photos show after the skull had been put back into plaza by Mrs. Kennedy when they arrived at the hospital. Most people can see the avulsed area on the right top of the head wound, where the skull bone is clearly visible.   

 

[Brian Doyle]

I stand corrected on the location of the limousine in the blood splatter photo...

You try to get away with ignoring Hargis who witnessed the strong gunshot splatter in the same rearward, Occipital direction evidenced by the splatter in the aforementioned photo...

Clint Hill also looked in to the tunnel-like wound that he said was in the back of the head until he adjusted his story just like Carrico did...Hill saw a plug of brain, skull, and flesh in the back seat, that had obviously dropped out of that gaping wound and fallen in the back seat...That plug of gore matched the rear-exiting blood splatter pattern...

The Bell Film caught some rear-exiting flesh...