Medical Analysis of The JFK Assassination :: John F. Kennedy American History Essays

Medical synopsis of The JFK Assassination Dr. Charles Crenshaws word of honor confederacy of Silence caused a minor common sense when it was released in 1992, even attracting the attention of the youthful York Times. Coauthored by Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, it told several conspiratorial stories about the assassination, and especially about the social function of Dr. Crenshaw, then a occupier physician at Parkland Hospital, in the care of John Kennedy and lee(prenominal) Harvey Oswald.It has since been reprinted as Trauma Room One.Among the interesting things that Crenshaw claims areThe back of Kennedys organize was blown out, clearly implying a shot from the sedgy Knoll in front of Kennedy.A small wound in Kennedys throat was an intrigue wound, proving a shot from the front, and not from the Snipers Nest behind Kennedy.Parkland doctors, subtile there was a conspiracy, have feared to speak out.The Presidents body was altered between Parkland Hospital and the autopsy at B ethesda.And the most sensational Lyndon Johnson called the operating(a) room were Oswald was being treated and demanded a confession be extracted from the impeach assassin.Conspiracy authors, wanting to push the idea of a shot from the Grassy Knoll, have lapped up Crenshaws account. For example, Gary Aguilar quotes Crenshaw as followsHe, with co-authors, Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, Conspiracy of Silence (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the Presidents head wound was posterior on the dear side. In Conspiracy of Silence he wrote, I walked to the Presidents head to abide a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crateran empty cavity. Conspiracy writer Gary Aguilar accepts Crenshaws account. His hear on supposed back of the head witnesses is useful and interesting although galore(postnominal) of his assessments of the testimony are to be treated skeptically. How does Crenshaw know such things? correspond to the book, he had a central role in treating Kennedy. Yet when the New York Times called up Crenshaw in reponse to his book, he backed away from the books claims as to how central he was, saying that Hansen and Shaw took poetic license on this issue. Crenshaw admitted . . .that the role he played in Kennedys case was minor. See the Times of whitethorn 26, 1992.It hardly inspires confidence in the book when Crenshaw says things like this.