JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 20, 2025, 01:38:14 PM
-
I will admit, the technical debate over JFK's wounds mostly just makes my eyes glaze over. Things like Mantik's books end up being a waste of money for me. However, the debate over the rear entrance wound has once again reared its ugly head (pun?) on the Ed Forum. I was inspired last night to read Pat Speer's extensive Chapter 13 on this subject (and I do mean extensive) and remain perplexed. I think I know the technical arguments, but just at the 30,000-foot level aren't others kind of astonished that:
1. There could still be debate as to where the rather large Harper fragment "fits."
2. The autopsy doctors, charged with actually examining the head-shot entrance, could have made a 4" mistake. Four inches?
I have a hard time believing a transmission mechanic could make a 4" mistake, and Speer's documentation of the Church Committee's and HSCA's "shift" is quite convincing. The "enhancement" of the red smudge by Ida Dox is beyond suspicious. I have a hard time believing the red smudge in the cowlick is an entrance wound in the very center of a skull. And, yes, I have a hard time believing the EOP hole posited by Speer and others, if fired from the TSBD, could have caused the massive flap wound over the ear.
Just intuitively, I think I could easier believe the massive head wound was purely tangential - front or rear, as you like - and neither the red smudge nor the EOP is actually a bullet hole.
I see that DVP thinks the placement of the ruler is conclusive that it's pointing out the red smudge as the entrance wound, while others, at least at the Ed Forum, strongly disagree. Could it not be pointing out the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the large wound itself, rather than the red smudge? If it were pointing out the entrance wound, why did the autopsy doctors then place it 4" lower?
-
I see that DVP [HERE (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31381-dr-charles-baxter-1988-jfk-had-no-brains-jfk-assassination/?do=findComment&comment=567914) and HERE (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31381-dr-charles-baxter-1988-jfk-had-no-brains-jfk-assassination/?do=findComment&comment=568042)] thinks the placement of the ruler is conclusive that it's pointing out the red smudge as the entrance wound, while others, at least at the Ed Forum, strongly disagree. Could it not be pointing out the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the large wound itself, rather than the red smudge?
Huh? What do you mean? There is no "large wound" visible in this autopsy photo below at all....so how could the ruler in the picture be "pointing out" any of the dimensions of the large wound (which, of course, was located on the right/front/top part of JFK's head, not in the rear of the head?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg)
If it [the ruler] were pointing out the entrance wound, why did the autopsy doctors then place it 4" lower?
That's one of the questions we'll probably never be able to completely answer, along with this related question:
Why on Earth didn't any of the three autopsy surgeons (Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck) make note of the precise "north/south" measurement of where the bullet entry wound was located on JFK's head? Just saying the wound was "slightly above" (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283a.htm) the EOP is not nearly precise enough and has caused only further confusion and controversy concerning the President's wounds.
It seems particularly odd to me that the vertical (north/south) measurement for that head entrance wound was not fully documented, since the lateral (east/west) measurement was specifically measured from a body landmark and noted in the autopsy report ("approximately 2.5 centimeters"). And 10 centimeters (or 100 millimeters, which is four inches) is 4 times as great a distance when compared to just 2.5 centimeters.
It makes no sense to me that the much larger north/south measurement was not noted or documented by the autopsy team, but the much smaller lateral distance was noted in the autopsy report. And we must remember that the Clark Panel in 1968, after viewing the original autopsy photographs and X-rays, confirmed that the entry wound in JFK's head was in fact located 4 inches above the EOP (see the Clark Panel excerpt below). Many CTers, of course, think the four-man Clark Panel was full of nothing but feces (and deliberate lies) when they wrote the following words:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html
-
This seems like a good time to replay the following exchange I had with Pat Speer from ten years ago, in June of 2015:
PAT SPEER SAID:
There is a red oval in the back of the head photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was quite clearly not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy. You seem to think it is...
DVP SAID:
Pat,
Okay, I'll stop you right there. You readily acknowledge the fact that the "red oval" in the autopsy photograph "resembles a gunshot wound".
So, here's a simple observation and what I think is a very logical (and basic) question to ask after reading your quote above....
Since there is a spot on the back of JFK's head that DOES look like it could be a bullet hole---and since we both KNOW for a fact that there WAS, indeed, one single bullet hole of entry on the back side of President Kennedy's head---then what do you suppose the chances are of the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" in the autopsy photo really NOT being a bullet hole in JFK's head after all?
Seems like a fair question to me. And I don't think it's a question that can be reasonably answered in the following manner (as some CTers and LNers seem to want to do).....
Well, DVP, the red spot only LOOKS like a bullet hole. The REAL bullet hole is hiding somewhere else in that autopsy picture. It's just a coincidence that the red spot (of blood?) in the photo just happened to take the form and general shape and appearance of a bullet hole. Whereas the REAL bullet hole, which cannot be seen at all in the picture (or at least most people have a hard time seeing it, except perhaps Patrick J. Speer) has decided to go AWOL from the photo, with no "redness" or other qualities to it at all that can be easily noticeable, even though that photo was taken under very good (and bright) lighting conditions. ~shrug~
[End Silly Explanation.]
So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the notion that the thing that looks like the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head really isn't a bullet hole at all. But at the same time, there really is a bullet hole of entrance somewhere else on the back of JFK's head in the BOH photograph.
What an amazing piece of unintentional and miraculous photographic misinterpretation that would turn out to be indeed, if it is to be believed. And, amazingly, Pat Speer (and many other CTers and LNers) actually do believe in it. I, however, cannot stretch unbelievable coincidence quite that far.
The red spot, in my opinion, is definitely the bullet hole.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-954.html
-
David: Peter Cummings examined the original materials - he says the x-rays and photos are much clearer than the ones we can see - and he concluded that the bullet entered lower in the head, near the EOP and not the cowlick. He concluded, among other things, that the fractures in the skull radiate from that lower entrance location and that if the entrance was the higher cowlick that those fractures would have also been higher. That bullet hole may been where it entered the scalp (as we can see) but it's not where it entered the skull, e.g., the scalp was pulled up higher making the entrance appear higher. That's hard to believe.
As for me: I am completely confused and lost on this one.
Here's his interpretation:
-
Notwithstanding what Pat Speer said at one point, I don't think the red smudge looks like a bullet hole into the skull at the cowlick area at all. On the Ida Dox drawing, yes. But isn't that why CTers have such a problem with this? Why would the Church Committee and HSCA been so eager - suspiciously eager - to move the wound higher except to bolster the SBT? It does seem distinctly odd. As for my admitted pure guess that perhaps the ruler was showing the dimensions of the massive wound, it would be a better fit - if a fit at all - for those who insist the wound was a gaping hole at the back as some Parkland witnesses suggest. I have a really hard time with "No, they are carefully showing the red smudge even though the doctors said it was 4" lower."
-
David: Peter Cummings examined the original materials - he says the x-rays and photos are much clearer than the ones we can see - and he concluded that the bullet entered lower in the head, near the EOP and not the cowlick.
Well, the HSCA's FPP said something totally different, as did the Clark Panel. Both of those panels concluded that the entry wound was in the cowlick, and those panels certainly were looking at the "original materials", just like Peter was.
That bullet hole may been where it entered the scalp (as we can see) but it's not where it entered the skull, e.g., the scalp was pulled up higher making the entrance appear higher. That's hard to believe.
It's just about impossible to believe, IMO. I went many rounds with author John Canal several years ago regarding that exact "Scalp Pulled Up" issue you mentioned. If you're really bored and have nothing else to read (not even the phone book), you can always bore yourself some more by having a look at my 26-part "BOH Talk" series, here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
-
Notwithstanding what Pat Speer said at one point, I don't think the red smudge looks like a bullet hole into the skull at the cowlick area at all. On the Ida Dox drawing, yes. But isn't that why CTers have such a problem with this? Why would the Church Committee and HSCA been so eager - suspiciously eager - to move the wound higher except to bolster the SBT? It does seem distinctly odd. As for my admitted pure guess that perhaps the ruler was showing the dimensions of the massive wound, it would be a better fit - if a fit at all - for those who insist the wound was a gaping hole at the back as some Parkland witnesses suggest. I have a really hard time with "No, they are carefully showing the red smudge even though the doctors said it was 4" lower."
So, Lance, do you think the 4 Clark Panel doctors were just lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP (via the quote I provided earlier)?
-
So, Lance, do you think the 4 Clark Panel doctors were just lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP (via the quote I provided earlier)?
I think I would agree with Pat Speer that there was a high likelihood they were agenda-driven for the reasons he lays out in his Chapter 13. I simply find it inconceivable that (1) doctors dealing with the actual body would have been wrong by 4+ inches, and (2) the photos with the ruler would have been intended to pinpoint the location of a bullet wound if the doctors had decided the wound was 4+ inches lower. Beyond that, I make no claims and have no answers.
-
Huh? What do you mean? There is no "large wound" visible in this autopsy photo below at all....so how could the ruler in the picture be "pointing out" any of the dimensions of the large wound (which, of course, was located on the right/front/top part of JFK's head, not in the rear of the head?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg)
Agreed
At the autopsy they also took a specific pair of photos of this wound and it's clear as the scalp is pulled and tightened, the wound responds as one would expect by narrowing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxjQrX9P/BOHEntrancea-zps1aef7673.gif)
Now even though the above autopsy wound morph along with the Back of head autopsy photo shows exactly where the wound was, we also have Humes endorsing CE 388? And when describing the head wound Humes says he measured this wound to be 15 x 6 mm which appears to correspond to the head wound size in the above autopsy photos, the elongation caused by the bullet tearing the scalp.
Commander HUMES - Turning now to Commission Exhibit 388, where we have depicted in the posterior right portion of the skull a wound which we have labeled "in" or a wound of entrance and a large roughly 13 cm. diameter defect in the right lateral vertex of the skull. I would go into some further detail in describing these wounds.
The scalp, I mentioned previously, there was a defect in the scalp and some scalp tissue was not available. However, the scalp was intact completely past this defect. In other words, this wound in the right posterior region was in a portion of scalp which had remained intact.
So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters.
When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area.
And because of where Humes originally stated where the back of head bullet entrance was and the bullet coming from high and behind, this led to the bonkers forward head lean of JFK in CE388. The WC and/or the Kennedy family should have allowed access to the original autopsy photos. But even then, they did have access to the Zapruder film frames which do not show this exaggerated forward head lean? Unfortunately this has given uninformed CT's a ton of cannon fodder over the years.
Mr. SPECTER - What conclusions did you reach then as to the trajectory or point of origin of the bullet, Dr. Humes, based on 388?
Commander HUMES - We reached the conclusion that this missile was fired toward the President from a point above and behind him, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, on one detail on your report, Dr. Humes, on page 4, on the third line down, you note that there is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. which on the smaller size is, of course, less than 6.5 mm.?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - What would be the explanation for that variation?
Commander HUMES - This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than the caliber of the missile that traversed it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/s27r65gT/CE-388-JFK-head-wound.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYKYjLg4/CE-386-boh-jfk-back-wound.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFzGqBqD/ce-389-z312.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XtRj4T4/ce-390-z313.jpg)
In the following graphic, I overlayed the ruler from the above autopsy photo with a ruler showing a 1cm measurement from another autopsy photo and used this 1cm measurement to confirm Humes 15 x 6 mm measurement.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W17KhStL/BOH15x6mm-For-Herbert-zps99a4c739.jpg)
Also, here's another photo showing a similar scalp tear from a bullet entrance wound.
(https://i.postimg.cc/brbV8945/head-wound.jpg)
JohnM
-
So, Lance, do you think the 4 Clark Panel doctors were just lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP (via the quote I provided earlier)?
The 4 Clark Panel doctors were not lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP. They were simply wrong.
-
With everything we know based on the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film, I believe that these HSCA diagrams are the best representation of the head wound and the resulting expulsion of matter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd6K4HCv/HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/52xJ7XCJ/Photo-hsca-ex-139.jpg)
JohnM
-
Since holes in one's head do not , as a rule, move, perhaps one plus one equals two?
-
With everything we know based on the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film, I believe that these HSCA diagrams are the best representation of the head wound and the resulting expulsion of matter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd6K4HCv/HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/52xJ7XCJ/Photo-hsca-ex-139.jpg)
JohnM
You are among a majority of LNs with that belief. I am not convinced. That the 3 autopsy pathologists would misplace the wound by 4 inches is extremely unlikely. Also, the fracture lines explanation offered by Peter Cummings is quite convincing.
I've timestamped it at 42:21, if it doesn't start there for you.
-
You are among a majority of LNs with that belief. I am not convinced. That the 3 autopsy pathologists would misplace the wound by 4 inches is extremely unlikely. Also, the fracture lines explanation offered by Peter Cummings is quite convincing.
I've timestamped it at 42:21, if it doesn't start there for you.
Thanks Tim that's food for thought, I've previously come across this explanation of the skull fracture and I took a screen grab of the radiating fracture lines for reference and I can't explain why the skull fractured in this way, perhaps there isn't enough information in the 2D X-ray? In the video, Stu.rdivan* also gives his opinion that upon impact the bullet broke up and yawed but in the ballistic tests I have seen, I haven't seen such a radical yaw in that limited amount of space but perhaps the bullet upon fragmenting changed direction upon entering the skull?
* For some reason whenever this Forum sees the letters tu.rd like in Satu.rday it changes these letters to 'Person'?!
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4whb39p/Cummings-skull-fracture-radiate.jpg)
But at the end of the day I believe that the wound next to the ruler is the back of head entrance hole because upon close inspection and primarily, it's a hole which can be physically manipulated and secondly the dimensions match Humes original measurements.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxjQrX9P/BOHEntrancea-zps1aef7673.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W17KhStL/BOH15x6mm-For-Herbert-zps99a4c739.jpg)
On Speers web site he postulates that the bullet wound is this darkened splodge on the BOH autopsy photo but the dimensions don't appear to match Humes measurements and as opposed to the parting of the hair at the point of impact to provide a better look, Speers darkened splodge is not being highlighted in any way.
(https://media.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2023_05/image.png.d72e61a847c468f8cb2500cbc98109cf.png)
I just had a quick look at the ED Forum page and DVP quite humorously points out that there is other darkened splodges! The fact that none of these splodges have been highlighted in any way just shows a lot of wishful thinking.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkjQn38n/two-imaginary-boh-bullet-entrances.jpg)
In this similar scalp bullet hole, the entrance was shaved as to highlight the impact point because indicating the bullet hole is the number one reason for taking the autopsy photo!
(https://i.postimg.cc/brbV8945/head-wound.jpg)
So in conclusion I don't know why Humes thinks the wound was so low but iirc he did flip flop on it's position before finally going back to his original belief? Also Jerry Organ and along with his posts appears to have disappeared from this Forum(A real shame), believes that the skull hole was felt from within and mistakenly gave this result?
JohnM
-
Thanks Tim that's food for thought, I've previously come across this explanation of the skull fracture and I took a screen grab of the radiating fracture lines for reference and I can't explain why the skull fractured in this way, perhaps there isn't enough information in the 2D X-ray? In the video, Stu.rdivan* also gives his opinion that upon impact the bullet broke up and yawed but in the ballistic tests I have seen, I haven't seen such a radical yaw in that limited amount of space but perhaps the bullet upon fragmenting changed direction upon entering the skull?
* For some reason whenever this Forum sees the letters tu.rd like in Satu.rday it changes these letters to 'Person'?!
Stur.ivan's opinion is based largely on what he observed at Edgewood Arsenal.
Though all the Biophysics Lab test shots were aimed so that the WC’s specified entry and exit locations would lie on a straight trajectory, none of the bullets penetrated the front of the skull at the “intended” exit location. One even punched out through the right orbit (eye socket) near the nose. Nor were the researchers surprised by the fact that all those fragmented bullets exited from an obviously curved path. All were quite familiar with the trajectories of bullets and bullet fragments through tissue simulant.
Stur.ivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 199). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4whb39p/Cummings-skull-fracture-radiate.jpg)
But at the end of the day I believe that the wound next to the ruler is the back of head entrance hole because upon close inspection and primarily, it's a hole which can be physically manipulated and secondly the dimensions match Humes original measurements.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxjQrX9P/BOHEntrancea-zps1aef7673.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W17KhStL/BOH15x6mm-For-Herbert-zps99a4c739.jpg)
On Speer's web site he postulates that the bullet wound is this darkened splodge on the BOH autopsy photo but the dimensions don't appear to match Humes measurements and as opposed to the parting of the hair at the point of impact to provide a better look, Speers darkened splodge is not being highlighted in any way.
(https://media.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2023_05/image.png.d72e61a847c468f8cb2500cbc98109cf.png)
I just had a quick look at the ED Forum page and DVP quite humorously points out that there is other darkened splodges! The fact that none of these splodges have been highlighted in any way just shows a lot of wishful thinking.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkjQn38n/two-imaginary-boh-bullet-entrances.jpg)
In this similar scalp bullet hole, the entrance was shaved as to highlight the impact point because indicating the bullet hole is the number one reason for taking the autopsy photo!
(https://i.postimg.cc/brbV8945/head-wound.jpg)
Notice the difference between the fracture lines in the Dox drawing and those highlighted by Cummings in the autopsy photo. Seems a bit suspect, does it not?
Pat Speer's candidate for the entry wound is below the EOP. As is the one circled by DVP.
So in conclusion I don't know why Humes thinks the wound was so low but iirc he did flip flop on it's position before finally going back to his original belief? Also Jerry Organ and along with his posts appears to have disappeared from this Forum(A real shame), believes that the skull hole was felt from within and mistakenly gave this result?
JohnM
I doubt that Jerry was right. Humes did briefly change his mind about the location of the wound but he was pressured to do so. He did not finish his HSCA testimony before reverting back to original finding.
I would encourage you to read Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays and head wounds. I don't agree with everything that he says in them but they are well worth reading.
-
Stur.ivan's opinion is based largely on what he observed at Edgewood Arsenal.
Though all the Biophysics Lab test shots were aimed so that the WC’s specified entry and exit locations would lie on a straight trajectory, none of the bullets penetrated the front of the skull at the “intended” exit location. One even punched out through the right orbit (eye socket) near the nose. Nor were the researchers surprised by the fact that all those fragmented bullets exited from an obviously curved path. All were quite familiar with the trajectories of bullets and bullet fragments through tissue simulant.
Stur.ivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 199). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.
Notice the difference between the fracture lines in the Dox drawing and those highlighted by Cummings in the autopsy photo. Seems a bit suspect, does it not?
Pat Speer's candidate for the entry wound is below the EOP. As is the one circled by DVP.
I doubt that Jerry was right. Humes did briefly change his mind about the location of the wound but he was pressured to do so. He did not finish his HSCA testimony before reverting back to original finding.
I would encourage you to read Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays and head wounds. I don't agree with everything that he says in them but they are well worth reading.
One more thought is these top of head autopsy photos, if the bullet fragments came up from the bottom right then I'd expect the right side brain to be more eviscerated but I can see the left side almost intact and what appears to be an open horizontal tract which would be consistent with a bullet entering at the higher cowlick position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0pdRHCq/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)
This sketch of JFK's brain is very close to what we can see in the above autopsy photos.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sgmyYhsk/Photo-hsca-ex-302.jpg)
JohnM
-
At the autopsy they also took a specific pair of photos of this wound and it's clear as the scalp is pulled and tightened, the wound responds as one would expect by narrowing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxjQrX9P/BOHEntrancea-zps1aef7673.gif)
Thank you, John.
-
There is no "large wound" visible in this autopsy photo below at all....so how could the ruler in the picture be "pointing out" any of the dimensions of the large wound (which, of course, was located on the right/front/top part of JFK's head, not in the rear of the head?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg)
If the ruler was intended to measure the diameter of the so-called cowlick "wound," or its distance from something, why wasn't the end of the ruler placed immediately next to it both vertically and horizontally?
-
What we need is more autopsy (and Parkland) photos! Come on Donald, make it happen! ;D
-
Again, but this time in the context of the LN narrative, we see an effort to "save" a theory that, to me, simply makes no sense. If a CT were arguing for the cowlick position, we'd all be saying:
1. Give me a plausible explanation for autopsy doctors, dealing with the actual body, being wrong by 4". That would be an utterly staggering error.
2. Give me a plausible explanation for photos with a ruler carefully (or perhaps not so carefully), identifying a red smudge that no one at the autopsy said was a bullet wound.
3. Convince me that a high-velocity bullet striking the top of a skull at a very considerable angle would leave a wound so inconsequential that we have to debate whether it's a hole at all. I find that unbelievable.
4. Explain why the HSCA was presented with an Ida Dox drawing that so clearly exaggerated the "bullet hole" appearance of the smudge (after she was provided with non-JFKA materials showing "how it should look").
5. Explain the later pressuring of the autopsy doctors as pretty thoroughly documented in Pat Speer's Chapter 13.
There simply had to be an agenda here. I can only assume that the EOP bullet position was deemed problematical. That would be my real concern: Is it problematical?
-
The embalmer Thomas Evan Robinson:
"large gaping hole in back of head."
"smaller wound in right emple"
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1vpZpqQ/embalmer-notes.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
LNers: "Nah, he was mistaken, just like the many doctors at Parkland!"
Nurse Bowron:
"I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat,..."
Nah!