Robert Wagner Replies to Gary Aguilar

Introduction

In December 2024, Kennedys and King published Dr. Gary Aguilar’s review of my book JFK Assassinated – In the Courtroom: Debating the Critical Research Community (“JFKA”). JFK was my second book about the assassination of President Kennedy. My first book, The Assassination of JFK: Perspectives Half a Century Later, was published in 2016. I met Gary in November 2017 at the Houston mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, where I served as a prosecution expert consultant. Having since exchanged a few hundred emails and engaged on private group threads, Gary and I are familiar with each other’s views on this subject. While we have significant disagreements, I have always admired Gary’s dedication and enormous contributions to this case.

Gary addresses six topics. Below I address them individually and then conclude with important overall context discussed in JFKA not mentioned by Gary. Space for my reply is limited, so I can only address high points. There is much more supporting detail offered in JFKA.

Response

1. The Fatal Head Wound – Especially the Parkland Hospital Recollections

Gary complains that I rely on Dr. McClelland’s recollection, extrapolating it to every doctor and layperson in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland. Gary criticizes me for neglecting sufficient discussion of the reports of two neurosurgeons, Kemp Clark and (allegedly) Robert Grossman.[1] This critique completely sidesteps the primary point of my analysis.

This issue is principally about considering where on the president’s head that adults—many of them doctors, some of them laypeople—say they saw a sizable hole, and addressing the differences between their recollections and the autopsy evidence. Gary’s well-known survey of Parkland (and Bethesda) witnesses includes mostly laypeople and medical doctors who are not neurosurgeons.[2] Gary implicitly trusted such witnesses to accurately report their observations about the location of a large wound somewhere on a human head. So, the issue is not that neurosurgical credentials are necessary to accurately report what was seen. The issue is distilled to this: When witness observations conflict with autopsy evidence, is there alternate substantive evidence that provides value in determining where to grant greater weight as to reliability?

McClelland’s authorized sketch has been seized upon by the critic community as “Exhibit A” of the location of the area of missing skull. I quoted Doug Horne (p. 206), when describing the whereabouts of the location of the area of missing skull, which Horne says was attested to “virtually unanimously” by Parkland treatment physicians: “It was approximately fist sized, or baseball sized, or perhaps even a little smaller—the size of a very large egg or a small orange; … it was in the right rear of the head behind the right ear.”[3] Horne’s summary description matches well with the McClelland drawing:

The Parkland witnesses do not describe the wound in the same detail from person to person, but in any case, their descriptions of the wound location are noticeably at odds with that described at autopsy as: “chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions”[4] (emphasis added). By and large, the Parkland witnesses described the wound location as chiefly occipital.

There is persuasive evidence nullifying the accuracy of those recollections, and it is not blind reliance on autopsy doctors, but on evidence not in dispute: the large triangular fragment recovered from the limousine and brought to the Bethesda morgue late into the autopsy. The triangular (“delta”) fragment measured about 4 inches by 2.5 inches. Researcher John Hunt considered anatomical locations just in front of, or behind, the president’s right coronal suture; locations that are generally agreed to be the possibilities for the fragment’s origin. Regardless, no one claims this fragment is occipital bone from the back of the president’s head [5]:

Gary has not addressed how head wound witnesses at Parkland (and Bethesda) failed to note this large area of skull missing from the top of the president’s head—coincidentally more or less the same size of the area of missing skull according to McClelland.[6] Unlike at Parkland, the Bethesda witnesses, early in the autopsy, would have observed enlargement of that wound as the autopsy doctors reflected the president’s scalp and portions of the skull adhered to the reflected scalp and also fell away from the head, enlarging the span of missing skull (p. 288) such that no significant sawing (if any) was needed to extract the president’s brain (the brain could not have been extracted from the area of missing bone represented by the McClelland sketch).[7]

That Parkland witnesses failed to note the large hole in the top of the president’s skull is irreconcilable to the “delta fragment” evidence.[8] Further, those witnesses do not describe a second large hole (this one on the top of the head, either in back of, or in front of, the right coronal suture), nor a contiguous larger wound extending from occipital bone forward to the coronal suture anterior on the parietal bone, even with the due examination by the Parkland doctors, as mentioned by Gary. The large wound was on the top of the head, not lower on the back of the head.

That the area of missing skull was at the top of the president’s head is confirmed by one of the autopsy photographs (“views”)—taken from behind the president showing the large wound on top of his head, which autopsy assistant James Jenkins described as having brain matter visible.[9] When FBI Agent James Sibert was shown this autopsy photograph by William Law, he said, “I definitely remember that. That’s just the way it looked.”[10] When, for Law and Debra Conway, Sibert sketched the dimensions of the delta fragment, Conway commented, That’s huge! I mean, that’s the top of your head.”[11] Gary’s review omits these issues as presented in JFKA, yet this is clearly the central theme of my analysis, not McClelland’s singular reporting.

How could Parkland witnesses have been mistaken? We know Bethesda witness Sibert appeared on Gary’s surveyed list of “right rear” witnesses and confirmed that location verbally to Law, yet also authenticated an autopsy photograph—taken before any autopsy manipulations were performed—that very clearly shows the wound on the top of the president’s head.[12] Reports of visible cerebellar brain tissue (e.g., neurosurgeon Clark and anesthesiologist Jenkins) are also in conflict with this evidence, although as Gary has previously written, the “external occipital protuberance (EOP), overlies the upper margin of the cerebellum which lies beneath it.”[13] It follows that because the autopsy reported location of the inshoot was “slightly above” the EOP,[14] the bullet could have missed the cerebellum (defecting up, to be discussed), which brain pictures from the supplemental autopsy confirm.

2. The Entry Wound on the Back of the President’s Head

Here, Gary notes Pierre Finck’s autopsy commentary, which he contends I ignore or misinterpret. Neither assertion is true. Consider the so-called “mystery photo.” That view is one of three extant pictures (views) to document bullet wounds.[15] Noteworthy is that Finck told his boss, General Blumberg, that he directed only three pictures (views) be taken: “the occipital wound (external and internal aspects), as well as the wound in the back” (pp. 222, 254). Gary mistakenly notes that I omitted a key part of Finck’s description, namely, “I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull” (emphasis added).[16] Not only do I quote this phrase (p. 221), but I devote significant narrative to its meaning in context because it is key to understanding the “mystery photo” (pp. 221-223; 251-258).

Gary points to the semi-circular notch in the “mystery photo” and claims “outside beveling is plainly visible,” concluding that this is evidence of outshoot. Importantly, Finck never claimed there was any evidence of outshoot anywhere on the intact skull, and he had that skull in his hands.[17] Finck clearly had something else in mind. As discussed in JFKA (pp. 255-257), critic researcher Don Thomas warned of wrongly interpreting beveling features: “when dealing with fragments or margins of bone, and not through-and-through holes [as is the case here], all bets are off. This is because the laminate nature of cranial bone lends itself to chipping that can easily be confused with beveling.”[18] I also quoted Vincent Di Maio: “Chips of bone can flake off the edge of an entrance hole.”[19] One of Gary’s seminal published works is also relevant to this point, relating, “…there are numerous cases from the scientific literature in which the documented beveling characteristics were the reverse of what might be expected from the known direction of wounding”[20] (emphasis added). As expressed in JFKA (p. 256), even though Finck told Blumberg otherwise, there is no extant photograph showing the internal aspect of the skull for the entry wound, the partner to what we see in the semi-circular notch in the “mystery photo.” As Finck related to Blumberg, the portion of a “crater”[21] was “obvious” on the internal aspect. Although this involves speculation, it finds support because, again, Finck never claimed to have seen outshoot evidence anywhere on the intact skull and, again, Finck held that skull in his hands.

Finck said he directed pictures be taken of the occipital wound of entrance (not parietal, as Gary now claims), both internal and external aspects. I propose that the “mystery photo” was the picture of the external aspect. Finck never said generalized pictures were taken of the skull. The most reasonable conclusion is that the “mystery photo” was a particularized picture – one of just three views directed, meaning that each had targeted purpose from Finck’s perspective. For the “mystery photo,” then a targeted, particularized picture of what? The occipital wound of entrance, just as Finck related to Blumberg. How could it be otherwise? It could only be otherwise if one were to disconnect his intention from the outcome, which would not be reasonable. In JFKA chapters 9 and 10, I discuss confusion posed by the “mystery photo” among researchers and all three autopsy doctors (see particularly p. 229). The autopsy doctors, Finck included, saw the pictures for the first time a few years after the autopsy—then setting the table for confusion—and understandably even more hazy recollections fifteen years later as to the HSCA, and three decades later to the ARRB. These impediments should not override what Finck told Blumberg in early 1965 before he ever saw the autopsy pictures, although total clarity is indeed lacking.[22]

While researchers disagree about whether a noticeable forward head movement at Z312-Z313 is because of a rearward bullet strike (it was, as notable members of the critic community acknowledge) or, alternatively, Zapruder film blur artifacts (as Gary believes), or that Puppe’s Rule (a secondary fracture of the president’s skull terminated when meeting a prior fracture) establishes that a low shot to the back of the president’s head was the first trauma inflicted to his head, as argued by Randy Robertson and Michael Chesser (both recognized by the critical community as having radiology interpretation expertise[23]); the evidentiary weight confirms that the president was at Z312-Z313 struck low on the back of the head in occipital bone (not parietal, as Gary maintains as occurring at circa Z327), just as Finck and other autopsy doctors concluded.

3. The “Back and to the Left” Lunge

Gary says I concluded that “either a ‘jet effect’ or a ‘neuromuscular reaction’ or both, best explain(s) Kennedy’s rearward jolt.” That is not at all what I wrote. In JFKA, I simply rejected the effects of bullet momentum as an explanation for the “lunge” (pp. 335-336).

In long-ago private conversation, Gary scolded me for my claim of the effect of the Z312-Z313 shot lifting the president’s torso against gravity, but no more. (In response, I pointed out that Tink Thompson recognized this “lifting” effect in Last Second in Dallas.[24]) I place weight on the expertise of Larry Sturdivan (degree in physics) to the extent of his contention that a penetrating bullet strike to the head would not lift a torso against gravity, as it must have just after Z312-Z313, but physics Ph.D. David Mantik had also so concluded.[25] Now, the retort from Gary is that a similar effect can be seen from the effect of a supposed rear head strike just after circa Z327. I will leave the readers to determine for themselves if a forward torso lunge occurs just after circa Z327 akin to the rearward torso lunge just after Z312-Z313, but I cannot make that reach.[26] Gary says these lunges (just after Z313 and Z327) were both caused by the president’s head as it “tugged” his torso in the same direction. The notion that the lifting of the president’s entire torso just after Z313 was caused by the “tugging” of the president’s head finds objection by two physics-trained researchers, one pro-conspiracy and one anti-conspiracy. I also note that even Tink described the post Z313 event as “lifts and throws his body backward and to the left ...” (emphasis added), which is accurate and connotates something more severe than a “tug.” Finally, while we all agree that such an effect occurred after Z312-Z313, Randy Robertson and Don Thomas, both critic researchers and important believers of a shot fired at circa Z327 (like Tink, in support of the acoustics case), deny that this shot even struck the president.[27]

Gary notes that “the debris field” (matter ejected from the president’s head) went “principally to the president’s left-rear.” It is also well-known, however, that Agents Greer and Kellerman, riding two rows in front of the president, were sprayed with human matter[28]; some human matter was located as far forward as on the hood of the car[29]; and the Harper bone fragment was reportedly found by its namesake well forward location of the limousine at Z313.[30] Human matter was jettisoned in many directions (plainly visible at Z313, and not at circa Z327), as hydraulic cavitation from the sheer force of the shot caused the president’s head to explode.[31]

4. Provenance of CE 399

Gary’s criticism relates to the government’s documentation of the chain of possession of CE 399, particularly of O.P. Wright’s claim that the recovered bullet had a pointed tip, rather than a rounded nose, as does CE 399[32]:

In Last Second in Dallas, Tink relates details of his 1966 conversation, and of testing Wright on his recollection of seeing a pointed tip bullet. Wright forcefully implied that such a mistake was not possible.[33] For Wright, one could evidently not mistake the difference between the two types of bullets.

In a long-ago email exchange, Gary confirmed that he had no reason to suspect that the two middle intermediaries in the six-person transmission chain of CE 399, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, and Secret Service Chief James Rowley, took part in evidence manipulation. According to documentation Gary cites, neither Johnsen nor Rowley could many months later positively identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled on November 22, 1963. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude, however, that Johnsen and Rowley, when later presented with CE 399 for identification, would not have merely claimed they were unable to identify it, but would have instead said, consistent with Wright, that CE 399 was positively not the bullet? (As mentioned in JFKA, p.120, without identifying markings it would not be realistic for either Johnsen or Rowley months later to distinguish one round-nosed bullet from another.) Wouldn’t Wright have said the same thing in 1964 to Gordon Shanklin? Would Shanklin have risked tampering with witness accounts, like Wright’s, in the larger ongoing investigation in which such impropriety could be easily exposed? From this analysis one must be skeptical of Gary’s and Tink’s argument, if not reject it, as I do, for this and other reasons explained in JFKA.

5. Directionality of the Fatal Shot

Gary takes issue with my assertion that a bullet entered low on the president’s head, in occipital bone, and exited high on the top/top right side of the present’s head upon deflection. Noteworthy is Don Thomas’ admonition in Hear No Evil, that bullets will deflect as he took to task the HSCA’s bullet trajectory analysis: “There was no good reason to believe that the bullet track through the skull would be anywhere close to the same as that prior to impact. On the contrary, the bullet would almost certainly deflect … This is why a knowledgeable (and honest) person would not undertake such an analysis in the first place” (emphasis added).[34] It follows that the path of bullet (or bullet fragments) deflection through a skull is a unique event, difficult if not impossible to replicate on any human head, much less a cadaver skull.

This issue highlights a certain line of demarcation: did the shot that struck the president in the back of the head do so in occipital bone as the first head strike (my position, with this event being the sole shot to the head), or did the shot strike much higher–about four inches higher than reported at autopsy–in parietal bone as a second head strike (Gary)? As to the bullet strike to the back of the head, the weight of the evidence (as previously discussed) supports the lower occipital location, and that there was no head trauma prior to that strike. That being the case, then a bullet (or bullet fragments) upward deflection is self-evident from the visible damaged and undamaged (e.g., undamaged face and forehead) portions of the president’s head, as shown in the autopsy pictures. In turn, this leads to the next issue.

As to the “lead storm” fragment pattern seen on the autopsy X-rays, the questions posed are the directionality of a bullet causing that pattern, as well as the interpretation of the pattern. I recognize this issue is complex and, especially in isolation, hazardous for lone shooter supporters, but there are issues beyond what Gary has addressed.

There were at least two impacts on the skull by a bullet (or bullet fragments) on entry and then on exit. A disintegrating jacketed bullet can shed at least larger fragments as it passes through the head (shown on the Biophysics Lab test featured by Gary and JFKA, p. 318). A bullet (or bullet fragments) can also shed fragments upon exit from collision with the skull and for that proposition there is evidence: an X-ray of the delta fragment (formerly located in the right front quadrant of the president’s skull in the same region where there are also tiny fragments visible in the X-rays) shows tiny metallic fragments on that bone at the exit (not entrance) site. In Tink Thompson’s reconstruction, he acknowledges that a Mannlicher-Carcano--alleged Oswald bullet--struck the president in the back of the head,[35] as I believe Gary does, and so do I, although we disagree on the timing and location, as mentioned. As the first shot, however, at least two large and visibly mangled M-C bullet fragments (CE 567 and CE 569) collided with the president’s skull upon exit – producing evidence of that exit on the delta fragment (recall, from the top of the president’s head) and accompanying tiny fragments (pp. 282-283, 321-323), which, according to James Humes, were “similar in character to the particles seen within the skull (emphasis added).[36] Additionally, the president’s head was attached to a living human body unlike a shooting test on a cadaver skull. The chaos resulting from hydraulic cavitation (visible explosion) of the president’s living head is relevant to any consideration of the fragment pattern. As researcher Pat Speer notes, with evidence, it appears that many of these tiny fragments are outside of the skull, in the scalp.[37]

Gary’s notes that Massad Ayoob concluded, “The explosion of the president’s head as seen in frame 313 … is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore hyper-velocity rifle bullet …” As discussed in JFKA, Ayoob also concluded, in the same article, “It is entirely possible that he [Oswald] also shot JFK in the back of the head with another bullet, which for unexplainable reasons did damage out of proportion to its ballistic capability as most of us would perceive that to be.”[38] Entirely possible. Vincent Di Maio also allowed for an Oswald bullet to have struck the president in the head. (In JFKA, I explained Gary’s concerns with Di Maio’s conclusions.[39]) The simple point is that two prominent gunshot wound experts allowed for the lone shooter theory.

6. Acoustics Evidence

Gary’s assertion that I rely on the Ramsey Panel is wrong. Throughout more than forty pages (pp. 162-195, 416-428) of related analysis and discussion, not once do I substantively refer to the Ramsey Panel’s work. It is only an endnote (197, p. 423) where such reference is made, and then only to acknowledge criticisms of the panel’s work by Don Thomas and Tink Thompson. Gary has the reader of his review believe my acoustics analysis is superficial, which is entirely wrong. Gary again sidesteps the basis for my conclusions.

Acoustics evidence, especially as to supporting the theory of a shot from the grassy knoll, is built upon three prongs: (1) reconstruction tests conducted in Dealey Plaza in 1978 and related waveform comparison analysis done by HSCA experts, (2) alleged instances of crosstalk on two police frequencies, and (3) evidence that motorcycle cop H.B. McLain was in the right locations in Dealey Plaza as shots were fired. In addition, for the acoustics evidence to be valid, all agree that McLain’s microphone had to be the microphone in question, picking up gunshot sounds as he was accompanying the motorcade. I have no ability to directly opine on waveform science or crosstalk that both supporters and detractors of the acoustics evidence use to make their case, although I explain strengths and weaknesses of both sides in relation to each of these issues in JFKA. Rather, I dispute the assertion that McLain’s was the open microphone, referring to it as a “deal-killer” for the acoustics case (p. 175; see also p. 336). In JFKA, I relate my several strands of reasoning, covering many pages of analysis. Not once in Gary’s review is the name “McLain” mentioned, nor my related analysis. Also, the HSCA report said that McLain asked a reasonable question, one for which the only reasonable answer further invalidates the acoustics case: “If it was my radio on my motorcycle, why did it [channel 1, the frequency purportedly containing evidence of gunshots] not record the revving up at high speed plus my siren when we immediately took off for Parkland Hospital?”[40] Channel 1 did not pick up engine revving and siren sounds because McLain’s radio was switched to channel 2 – the frequency devoted to the presidential motorcade, which it was McLain’s job to be monitoring.

Gary objects to my reference to Michael O’Dell as an acoustics evidence expert. But it was Tink Thompson that acknowledged O’Dell’s expertise. In Last Second in Dallas, he writes, “The universe of people really knowledgeable about the acoustic evidence is vanishingly small: James Barger, Don Thomas, Chris Scally, and one other person, Michael O’Dell.”[41] O’Dell informs me he reached out and then was invited to consult with James Barger and Tink for a year or two prior to publication of Last Second in Dallas, raising the issues noted in JFKA, and others. As described in chapter 7 of JFKA, O’Dell questions technical (waveform) aspects and the interpretation of crosstalk relied on by Barger and, by extension, Tink. O’Dell raises valid issues not addressed in Last Second in Dallas. In JFKA I wrote that O’Dell’s work impinges the acoustics evidence (p. 191). I am unaware of any rebuttal to O’Dell’s criticisms. Gary says that I cite, in extenso, Michael O’Dell’s work and incorrectly implies that O’Dell and the Ramsey Panel are the basis for my conclusion. Rather than simply recite my book index, as Gary did, for O’Dell page references (several containing name references only, and one of those pages cited by Gary – my error – was an incorrect page reference), it is not hard to see that less than ten percent of the word count of this topic relates to O’Dell. And it is certainly not O’Dell’s work in extenso.

Concluding Remarks

In both books I emphasize an important theme that should guide anyone’s analysis of the assassination: Oswald’s movements in the depository were not controlled. If there was a sophisticated conspiracy to frame an innocent patsy, it would have been job one to make sure the patsy could not produce an alibi. For all that supposed conspirators could know, Oswald would be in the company of coworkers as the shots rang out. After the release of JFKA, Vince Palamara noted on the JFK Education Forum, “Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was a conspiracy is the following: there is no evidence that Oswald’s movements were controlled in any fashion on 11/22/63 to PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING AN ALIBI. As an open-minded author/researcher, I myself cannot think of a good counterargument to this challenge” (emphasis in the original).[42] I propose to Vince and others that there is no good counterargument. This should give any researcher pause. As noted in both books, if Oswald was a shooter (not a patsy), then the notion of a Mafia or some (direct or indirect) government involvement in the assassination is realistically precluded. A conspiracy involving Oswald and other rogue types is possible, however, although anyone partnering with Oswald in murdering the president would have taken on considerable risk given Oswald’s high-profile activities earlier in 1963. I am not dogmatic, however. I have said for years that I am an Oswald (probably) did it guy. Probably.

Editors: Gary Aguilar will reply to Mr. Wagner soon.

---------------

1. In 2003, David Lifton authored an article questioning whether Dr. Grossman was even in Trauma Room 1 during the president’s treatment: “That is the issue: not what Dr. Grossman alleges he saw; not his interpretations; but whether he was there.” https://www.jfk-assassination.net/grossman.htm. Thus, contrary to Gary’s assertion, and respecting Lifton’s analysis, I will not give weight to Dr. Grossman’s representations out of a proper abundance of caution.

2. https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1.

3. Doug Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK – Volume 1, (2009), p. 69.

4. CE 387 of the Warren Commission hearings. Material quoted and discussed in JFKA, pp. 276-282.

5. “A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence,” https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm.

6. In a 50^th anniversary interview in 2013, Dr. McClelland said the wound was “at least five inches in diameter.” https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=jfk+robert+mcclelland+interview+with+hsca&mid=4D55662CC464643168B34D55662CC464643168B3&FORM=VIRE. See just after the six-minute mark.

7. James Humes, Warren Commission testimony (2H 354): “We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily ..." See also James Jenkins, At The Cold Shoulder of History, (2018), pp. 26-27. The pertinent material is quoted in JFKA at pp. 211-212.

8. If one concludes (as I do) that the so-called Harper fragment was also parietal bone (not from the rear of the head), then the actual span of missing skull (ejected from the top/top right of the president’s head) is even larger. The trapezoidal Harper fragment measured about 2.75 by 2.2 inches. See JFKA, pp. 440-441 (endnote 224).

9. At The Cold Shoulder of History, (2018), p. 141. Material discussed in JFKA, pp. 209-210.

10. In the Eye of History, (2015), pp. 376-377. Material is quoted in JFKA at p. 210.

11. In the Eye of History, (2015), pp. 395, 479. Material is quoted in JFKA at pp. 210, 441 (endnote 225).

12. ARRB, view #3. Although there were thirty-eight individual pictures taken at the autopsy (Doug Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board – Volume 1, (2009), Illustrations section (Figure 57), many of those black and white and color pictures taken were of the same “view;” there are just seven views corresponding to those many individual pictures. Four of the views were pictures taken of the body (including view #3 – Figure 61) prior to any autopsy manipulations being performed.

13. “The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy,” Murder in Dealey Plaza, (2000), p. 181. Material quoted and discussed in JFKA, pp. 258-259. In his review of JFKA, Gary refers to November 1977 HSCA interview notes (7 HSCA 286), indicating that Dr. Jenkins “believes he was ... the only one who knew the extent of the head wound” (emphasis added). How could that be if it were Clark and/or (allegedly) Grossman that lifted and inspected the president’s head (according to Grossman or Dulaney)? Which doctor should be relied upon?

14. CE 387 of the Warren Commission hearings.

15. ARRB, view #7 (Doug Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board – Volume 1, (2009), Illustrations section (Figure 66).

16. January 25, 1965, Finck letter to Blumberg and accompanying February 1, 1965, notes, ARRB Medical Exhibit 28, see particularly pp. 327, 332.

17. See, for example, February 1, 1965, Finck notes to Blumberg, ARRB Medical Exhibit 28, see particularly p. 331: “No EXIT wound is identifiable at this time in the skull …” (emphasis in the original). Finck then relates that it was upon receipt of the late-arriving fragments (including the delta fragment) that provided evidence of a bullet exit. Material quoted and discussed in JFKA at pp. 255-258.

18. Hear No Evil, (2010), p. 273. Thomas’ comments related to the beveling on the delta fragment.

19. Gunshot Wounds (3^rd ed.), (2016), pp. 100-101. Material quoted in JFKA at p. 448 (endnote 250).

20. https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm. See footnote 352. Material quoted and discussed in JFKA at pp. 255-258.

21. February 1, 1965, Finck notes to Blumberg, ARRB Medical Exhibit 28, see particularly p. 331: “I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region ... Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater (emphasis added), the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of ENTRANCE” (emphasis in the original). Material quoted in JFKA, p. 221.

22. Finck told Blumberg there were three pictures capturing specific wounds, and on that he is correct. While it would have made sense that a picture of the internal aspect of the skull would have been taken to document the inshoot beveling that Finck said he saw, such a picture is not extant in the official collection. Instead, the controversial “back of the head” view is extant as a third picture view.

23. Robertson: see for example his review of Tink Thompson’s book Last Second in Dallas at https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/a-review-of-last-second-in-dallas-by-josiah-thompson; Chesser: see James Jenkins’ book, At The Cold Shoulder of History, (2018), pp. 156-157. Material related to discussion in JFKA at p. 130.

24. Last Second in Dallas, (2021), pp. 354-356. Material discussed in JFKA at p. 143.

25. “The Zapruder Film Controversy,” Murder in Dealey Plaza, (2000), p. 343. Mantik apparently believes the lurch we see on the Zapruder film just after Z313 is the effect of film alteration. Material discussed in JFKA, pp. 139-143, 396-397 (endnote 149), 410 (endnote 154).

26. See slow motion version of the Zapruder film at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zwG3QdPLfw&rco=1. Note that at around Z327, and then the few frames following, Jackie, with her right hand on the president’s back, begins the movement to the trunk of the car. By far it is better to study the slow-motion film than to try to interpret still frames.

27. Hear No Evil, (2010), p. 717. See, for example, Randy Robertson’s analysis published on the Kennedys and King website, in which Robertson describes a direct impact at 328 on the limousine windshield (“A whole bullet directly struck the windshield frame at 328 ...”), allegedly shown by a flare in the windshield. Robertson believes that, without that flare, “there is no convincing visual evidence for an impact at 328…” https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/a-review-of-last-second-in-dallas-by-josiah-thompson. Material related to discussion in JFKA at p. 142.

28. FBI Agent Frank O’Neill September 12, 1997, ARRB deposition transcript at p. 74.

29. See FBI Agent Robert Frazier’s February 22, 1969, testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1297#relPageId=11.

30. See David Mantik’s book JFK’s Head Wounds, (2015), pp. 54-61; Mantik’s book The Final Analysis (2024), pp. 219-226.

31. For example, see Sherry Fiester’s analysis in Enemy of the Truth (2012) (pp. 250-251). Fiester explains that projectile fragmentation creates a certain chaos, such that, “Since the brain is encased by the closed and inflexible structure of the skull, only breaking the skull open can relieve the temporary cavity pressure. The fractured skull may or may not remain intact. If the scalp tears from the force of temporary cavitation, bone fragments may be ejected from the skull. In this event, blood and tissue will forcefully exit from the opening created by the missing bone fragment. If a portion of the scalp adheres to the dislodged bone fragment, a bone avulsion is produced (emphasis added). (Material quoted and discussed in chapter 11 of JFKA.) As such, there is more to the analysis of the “debris field” than an angle of a shot.

32. The pointed tip bullet at right is a picture adapted from Tink’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, (1967), p.175.

33. Last Second in Dallas, (2021), pp. 23-26. Material quoted and discussed in JFKA, pp. 117-121, 391-392 (endnote 130).

34. Hear No Evil, (2010), pp. 434-437. Material quoted in JFKA at p. 302.

35. Last Second in Dallas, (2021), p. 230.

36. James Humes Warren Commission testimony, 2H 354-355. Less than half of that bullet’s mass was ever recovered. Whatever happened to most of that bullet’s mass can only be speculated, including perhaps explaining the controversial Tague curb strike. JFKA, pp. 463-464 (endnote 291).

37. Chapter 18 of Speer’s online book (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs ). Material, including personal communication with Speer, quoted in JFKA, pp. 311-312. For example, Speer cites an August 23, 1978, report of Dr. David Davis (HSCA radiology consultant), who reported, “It is not possible to totally explain the metallic fragment pattern that is present from some of the metallic fragments located superiorly in the region of the parietal bone, or at least projecting on the parietal bone, are actually in the scalp.” (7 HSCA 222-225, particularly at 224)

38. American Handgunner, March/April 1993, p. 106. Material quoted in JFKA at p. 324.

39. Gunshot Wounds (3^rd ed.), (2016), p. 166. Material quoted and explained in JFKA at pp. 323-324.

40. HSCA report, pp. 492-493 (comments offered by Representatives Devine and Edgar).

41. Last Second in Dallas, (2021) p. 339. Material quoted in JFKA, p. 186.

42. JFK Education Forum, May 3, 2024, post.