And indeed, some of the witness testimony points to a large wound on the "back" of Kennedy's head. But, in order to make this argument, conspiracy authors have had to engage in massive selectivity in the use of evidence. And they have had to ignore or declare to be faked the best evidence movies from Dealey Plaza, and photos and x-rays from the Bethesda autopsy.
Just what do lone assassin theorists, and conspiracy theorists, say about the head wound?
The following are four versions of what the head wound looked like. They can be used as a benchmark as you look at the evidence. Two support the idea of a lone shooter in the School Book Depository, and two support the idea of a shooter from the Grassy Knoll.
| ![]() |
| ![]() |
| ![]() |
Dealey Plaza Head Wound Witnesses
These are the people who watched in awe and horror as Kennedy's head exploded in Dealey Plaza. How do they describe the wound?
Dealey Plaza "Gore" Witnesses
These are the people who, although they didn't see Kennedy's head explode, saw and sometimes felt the results of the explosion.
Dealey Plaza Photographic Evidence
Three amateur photographers were in Dealey Plaza, and captured the head shot with their 8 mm. cameras with enough resolution to allow us to see the explosion of brain matter from Kennedy's head.
|
The Harper Fragment
The Harper Fragment was a piece of bone, apparently from Kennedy's head, that was recovered in Dealey Plaza the day after the assassination. Conspiracy theorists insist that the bone was occipital bone, implying that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. Dr. Joseph Riley, a conspiracy-oriented physician, evaluates this claim.
Brain Matter Hit Bobby Hargis
Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis, riding to Kennedy's left and a bit behind him, was hit by matter blown out of Kennedy's skull. Does his testimony prove a shot from Kennedy's right front, the direction of the Grassy Knoll?
Parkland Doctors Confront the Autopsy Photos and X-rays
If the photos and x-rays from the autopsy are really forged, then the doctors from Parkland Hospital ought to see large discrepancies between autopsy materials and what they remember from the emergency room. In 1988, NOVA took four of the Parkland doctors to the National Archives, and showed them the entire set of photos and x-rays. This page records their reaction.
Was the Left Side of Kennedy's Head Wounded?
There is indeed substantial evidence of that, as shown by this essay by Russell Kent, on the Dealey Plaza UK web site. But does this "substantial evidence" mean there was a wound to the left side of Kennedy's head, or does it mean that if dilligent researchers dig through enough testimony they can find "substantial evidence" of the most unlikely propositions? Conspiracy books tend to downplay or omit this evidence entirely, since it suggests that witness testimony isn't very reliable.
Impeach Photos and X-rays With Witness Testimony?Yes, that's what conspiracy theorists will try to do. Faced with autopsy photos and x-rays showing that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind, they will marshall witnesses whose accounts conflict with the autopsy photos and x-rays. They will then insist that the photos and x-rays must be faked. How reliable is witness testimony? On May 18, 1998, Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board spoke at Stanford University. As the chief staff person for the Board, he had an intimate familiarity with the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses, many of whom he had interviewed. His conclusion about witness testimony was as follows: The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony.First published on the web on the Fair Play web site, you might want to check out the entire speech. Likewise, the Final Report of the ARRB stressed the problems with witness testimony: 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 people's 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. |