But did any of the Parkland doctors specifically say "two shooters"?
This is very typical of loose language by Morley -- yes, he conflates what a few doctors said about the head wound, and the neck wound, into saying that they all supported two shooters.
The controversy started with the wound in Kennedy's throat which appeared to Dr. Malcolm Perry to be one of entrance.
The controversy continued with Dr. Robert McClelland's belief that the back of JFK's head was blown out.
But does it even matter what the doctors at Parkland thought?
I wish I had the article that he promised to provide to the ARRB.
THE ODDS that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim.
And so it is not clear to me why I should really care about what some doctors at Parkland Hospital thought.
It's instructive to note that doctors weren't in the emergency room all that long. JFK was logged into the Parkland Hospital register at 12:38 P.M. At 1:00 P. M. he was declared dead. That is a total of twenty-two minutes - but keep in mind that not all the doctors were in the emergency room right from the beginning.
Consider all that the doctors had to do:
Dr. Charles Carrico first assessed JFK's condition.
With the assistance of two residents and one nurse, they opened JFK's suit coat and shirt and listened for a heartbeat. Carrico put his arms up Kennedy's back and felt blood and debris but no wound.
Dr. Curtis and Dr. White do a cutdown on JFK's right ankle and insert catheters.
Dr. Carrico pushed a endotracheal tube down JFK's throat.
Kennedy is then hooked up to a respirator.
They then remove the endotracheal tube, and Dr. Perry then performed a tracheostomy.
Dr. Peters then made an incision in JFK's chest to insert a tube to drain any blood on the right side of his chest.
Dr. Ronald Jones then inserted a chest tube on the left side of JFK"s chest.
Three residents (including Dr. Crenshaw) then made additional cutdowns on JFK"s arms and legs to infuse blood and fluids.
Dr. Burkley then asked Dr. Peters to give steroids to the President.
Dr. Clark then felt the carotid artery for a pulse and then asked for a cardiotachyscope (a cardiac monitor) be connected to JFK, and then starts external heart massage.
Someone then got Dr. Perry a stool so he can better give heart massage.
I am sure that I have left out much of what was done in the emergency room.
The doctors, the residents, and the nurses all worked frantically to save JFK and in about twenty minutes he was dead. The emergency room wasn't that big and it was incredibly crowded. To think that these doctors were able to fully understand Kennedy's wounds is a silly proposition.
Ben Bradlee wrote an article on the autopsy evidence for the Boston Globe in June of 1981 in which some of the Parkland witnesses said that tracings of the autopsy photographs were not exactly what they remembered.
In some interviews, some doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital emergency cart.
And here is a drawing from Robert Wagner's excellent book, JFK Assassinated: In the Courtroom: Debating the Critic Research Community: (page 275 in the Kindle edition)
Here is an excerpt from testimony before the ARRB by Dr. Peters: (emphasis added)
Jeremy Gunn: Now, I am approaching this as a layperson, which may be good or may be bad. I would have imagined myself if I had seen President Kennedy in Trauma Room 1 and this part of the skull — the part that's within Line 1 of Dr. Boswell — if this were missing, I would imagine it would be noticeable to me as a layperson that there is severe damage to the skull. Is — would that be a misperception on my part?
Dr. Peters: Depends on which angle you approached him.
Dr. McClelland: From the front you might not —
Dr. Peters: right.
Dr. McClelland: — think that.
Dr. Peters: That's right.
Jeremy Gunn: So none of you made observations that would — or maybe the question is: Did any of you see any appearance of damage by looking just at the scalp and just at the hair that would suggest that that much of the skull was missing, or were you even in the position to be able to —
Dr. Jones: Well I think you could see the top part of the head reasonably well. He had a very thick bushy head of hair —
Dr. Peters: Yeah.
Dr. Jones: — and it was difficult to see down through the hair.
Dr. Baxter: All —
Dr. Jones: I didn't see any indentation of the skull or anything like half of the top of the head was missing.
Dr. Baxter: All matted with blood. Unless you were up there and directly examining it, I don't think anybody could make a statement from what I saw. I mean it was just one mass of blood and hair.
Dr. Peters: I was amazed when I saw the first x-ray of the skull — the lateral skull of the extent of the fragmentation of the skull. I did not appreciate that I think because a lot of it was covered by scalp at the time we worked on him. We were doing a resuscitation, not a forensic autopsy.
Another key issue regarding the Parkland doctors is memory. Their initial reports were all over the map, but over the years a few have become convinced that JFK was shot from the front.
But who am I to blather on? Here is Loftus' own summary of her findings, as published in her memoir, Witness for the Defense (1991): "As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into corners. Memories don't just fade...they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed -- colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions...Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities."
As a result, I'm forced to reject the primacy of the Parkland witnesses. Their statements have been erratic from the get-go, and have only grown more erratic over time. Those holding them up as a "smoking gun" in the JFK case both misrepresent the location of the wound described by the bulk of these witnesses, and the consistency of these witnesses as a whole. There's just no "there" there.
Memories fade over time. A very important figure in the chain-of-custody on the autopsy materials, and the living person who perhaps more than any other would have been able to resolve some of the lingering questions related to the disposition of the original autopsy materials, is Robert Bouck of the Secret Service. At the time he was interviewed he was quite elderly and little able to remember the important details. Similarly, the records show that Carl Belcher, formerly of the Department of Justice, played an important role in preparing the inventory of autopsy records. He was, however, unable to identify or illuminate the records that, on their face, appear to have been written by him.
Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples’ recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor’s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as “proof” for one theory or another.
It's instructive to look at the early statements of the Parkland doctors. What is really clear is that there never was any unanimity about JFK's wounds. And given the fact that they were only in the emergency room a short time, and they did not have time for a proper examination of JFK's wounds, you would not expect unanimity.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on the Medical Evidence
The attending physician in the John Lennon murder was proved wrong about his wounds.
Wecht complains about the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.
Wecht has a suggestion for Dr. Baden.
Wecht's memoir mentions his examination of the autopsy materials in 1972 but neglects to talk about his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind.
James DiEugenio's obituary of Dr. Wecht leaves out his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind.
Dr. Cyril Wecht (1931 - 2024) זיכרונו לברכה
My obituary for Dr. Cyril Wecht.
A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot.
A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot.
Dr. Wecht believes that JFK's throat wound was one of exit.
Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary.
JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory,
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, features Dr. Charles Crenshaw to bolster its claim that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Viewers are not informed of Dr. Crenshaw's credibility problems.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers on the opinions of Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda witnesses regarding JFK's head wound.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers into thinking the Harper fragment was occipital bone that came from the back of Kennedy's head.
Have a look at Dr. Joseph Dolce's bad judgment
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed uses a variety of supposed witnesses to allege that the wound in the back of Kennedy's head was one of exit. Audrey Bell is one such witness and she doesn't have much credibility.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, tries to make the case that because Parkland Hospital doctors saw cerebellum extruding from Kennedy's head wound, that it indicated an exit wound.
While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, alleges that autopsy pathologists were told to fit the wounds to a presupposed conclusion.
A podcast with Robert Wagner who has written an important book on the medical evidence.