Interesting video of Dr Jenkins who was at the autopsy of JFK.

[John Mytton]

You have proof that the 20-something witnesses to the back head wound were all lying? Lets hear it. That film clip certainly doesn't do it.

Please explain why these eyewitnesses of yours are all describing something dramatically different?



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Please explain why these eyewitnesses of yours are all describing something dramatically different?



JohnM

They are not. They are all pointing to the same location, albeit not 100% in the same manner.

Only somebody desperate for a bogus argument would claim they were all pointing to a "dramatically different" location.

Back of the head = back of the head, it is not "top of the head", whether you like it or not

[Steve Barber]

They are not. They are all pointing to the same location, albeit not 100% in the same manner.

Only somebody desperate for a bogus argument would claim they were all pointing to a "dramatically different" location.

Back of the head = back of the head, it is not "top of the head", whether you like it or not

 Its really large of you to call Mrs. Kennedy a liar.  Funny thing though, in three separate films, and one snapshot showing the back of the head, Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, not one of them show a wound back there,--least of all the Zapruder film!  No hole because none exited. we have some of you people claiming the back of the head is "blackened out" to hide a hole, yet Mrs. Kennedy hands just happen to cover that very spot when she shoves his head away from her as she attempts to exit the back seat.  It's all nothing but nonsense. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Funny thing though, in three separate films, and one snapshot showing the back of the head, Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, not one of them show a wound back there,--least of all the Zapruder film!  No hole because none exited. we have some of you people claiming the back of the head is "blackened out" to hide a hole, yet Mrs. Kennedy hands just happen to cover that very spot when she shoves his head away from her as she attempts to exit the back seat.  It's all nothing but nonsense.

And how do you explain the back of the head wound seen, at and after that autopsy, by people like Paul O'Connor, Floyd Reibe, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson?

[John Mytton]

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-oconnor.html

[Steve Barber]

And how do you explain the back of the head wound seen, at and after that autopsy, by people like Paul O'Connor, Floyd Reibe, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson?

 Excuse me, but I'll rely on what Mrs. Kennedy said to Theodore White within 7 days of her husbands head exploding in her face as he was killed.  You go right ahead rely on the words of people whom years later were interviewed by a nutcase named Lifton, and said that the autopsy pictures he showed them weren't what they saw, basing it all on memory from years and years ago.  I don't give a damn what these people said years later!   Mrs. Kennedy described--in graphic detail exactly--what she saw, and it was written down and proof read by her-- what she tried to do to save her husband--trying to keep the top of his head down so that "maybe I could keep the brains in".  You choose to completely toss out what she said, and instead rely on people who were claiming they saw something that wasn't there!!  TYPICAL foolish nonsesne!   

[Martin Weidmann]

"The video presented above features Paul K. O'Connor being questioned while on the witness stand during the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

The late Mr. O'Connor was a technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who assisted at President Kennedy's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963.

In the above video, O'Connor is first questioned by defense lawyer Gerry Spence (who was representing his "client", Lee Harvey Oswald), and then "U.S. Government" prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi gets a chance to cross-examine O'Connor, with Vince exposing the inaccuracies being told by the witness with respect to his outrageous allegation of: "There was no brain [in JFK's head] to be removed [at the autopsy]".

There are many conspiracy theorists who put their complete faith in O'Connor's wild tales, even though (to my knowledge) he is the only witness on the planet who ever said he saw all four of these crazy and impossible things on 11/22/63:

1.) There was no brain at all in President Kennedy's head.

2.) There was a huge wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's head.

3.) President Kennedy was inside a body bag when he was removed from the casket at Bethesda (instead of being wrapped merely in sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).

4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" type casket.

That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous fraud/kook/nutcase (take your pick). Because there was a whole lot of brain left inside Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. In fact, the majority of his brain was still inside his cranium when he arrived at the Bethesda morgue. [See Warren Commission Final Report, Page 544.]

Therefore, O'Connor's ridiculous assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces") was gone is reason enough right there, in my opinion, to pretty much dismiss everything else he had to say about President John F. Kennedy's autopsy."

David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-oconnor.html

I destroyed this pathetic crap by Von Pein some days ago. Even if O'Connor was the only person who observed all four things, there are witnesses who corroborate each individual thing he saw. It's just a very weak attempt to discredit one witness by ignoring the witnesses who support him.

Just how weak does your case have to be to use these kind of tactics to keep it alive?