JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on November 24, 2018, 09:02:29 PM
-
James Curtis Jenkins.
After enlisting in the United States Navy he won a place at the Medical Technology School that was part of Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was assigned to the pathology department.
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, his body was taken to Bethesda. Along with fellow student, Paul K. O'Connor, Jenkins was asked to assist Joseph Humes, Thornton Boswell and Pierre Finck in the autopsy of Kennedy.
Jenkins talks;
Thoughts?
Let's see how long it takes before a LN claims he just wants to sell a book?..
-
What are your thoughts?
-
What are your thoughts?
Don't know yet? So far, I've only seen the first part of the interview...???.
-
Interesting interview, but I fear the defenders of the faith are not going to like it.
Jenkins confirms the body's earlier arrival at Bethesda in a shipping casket, the surgery in the top of the skull (as mentioned by Sibert and O?Neill in their report) the location and size of the wound at the back of the head as well as the bullet entry in the temple, indicating a shot from the front.
Jenkins is one of those men who were ordered not to talk about the autopsy with anybody for many years. Once he was released from the gag order he decided to stay in the background. Only now, faced with his own mortality, is he talking, to ensure that his story is not lost to history. He is yet another person who was present at the autopsy, who, with no reason to lie and nothing to gain, is basically telling the same story as others like him have told to David Lifton in the past.
.
-
He just wants to sell a book ;D
Did Mr. Jenkins say any of this to the HSCA?
-
He just wants to sell a book ;D
Did Mr. Jenkins say any of this to the HSCA?
Did Mr. Jenkins say any of this to the HSCA?
I have no idea. I came across the newly posted interview on Youtube yesterday. Haven't had time to check yet.
Are you claiming that he didn't tell the HSCA and if so, is that going to be the strategy to dismiss what he said, regardless of the fact that he isn't the only one saying these things?
-
Valenti - It's unclear whether you are merely Quibbling with the time frame being described as "only now" or the Jenkins Eyewitness account itself. As the ever growing list of Living Eye Witnesses that viewed the actual assassination as well as those that Treated/Handled the JFK Body continues to dwindle, the Jenkins account warrants both Respect and close scrutiny.
-
Your verbiage does absolutely Nothing to further your point. Why not bring your level of discourse up several notches?
He can't. He needs to feel superior.... Not that he is, of course.
-
Did Mr. Jenkins say any of this to the HSCA?
I have no idea. I came across the newly posted interview on Youtube yesterday. Haven't had time to check yet.
Are you claiming that he didn't tell the HSCA and if so, is that going to be the strategy to dismiss what he said, regardless of the fact that he isn't the only one saying these things?
Well, O'Connor had the opportunity to make his claims to the HSCA and didn't and he was not under any gag rule.
-
Well, O'Connor had the opportunity to make his claims to the HSCA and didn't and he was not under any gag rule.
Jenkins also had his gag order lifted to talk to the HSCA. If I remember correctly, O'Connor explained later that he wasn't sure what he could and could not say when he was talking to the HSCA. Jenkins talks about his contacts with the HSCA in the interview.
But why are you dragging Paul O'Connor into this?
Sibert & O'Neill, Paul O'Connor, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Tom Robinson, James Jenkins and others are all basically telling (parts of) the same story. Why would all these people lie (because it seems that's where you're going with this)? Do you really think that all these people got together at some point in time and decided for no obvious reason to make up a false story?
-
Seems that Jenkins spoke to the HSCA in 1976 but Jenkinshis testimony was suppressed.
James Curtis Jenkins, then a Ph.D. candidate in pathology, worked as a laboratory technologist with the autopsy team. In a suppressed interview, the HSCA's Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy recorded that Jenkins had said, ?he saw a head wound in the ?...middle temporal region back to the occipital.??[277] (Emphasis added.) Jenkins prepared a diagram for the HSCA that was released with his interview. It matches his verbal description, showing a defect in the right rear of the skull.
-
Jenkins also had his gag order lifted to talk to the HSCA. If I remember correctly, O'Connor explained later that he wasn't sure what he could and could not say when he was talking to the HSCA. Jenkins talks about his contacts with the HSCA in the interview.
But why are you dragging Paul O'Connor into this?
Sibert & O'Neill, Paul O'Connor, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Tom Robinson, James Jenkins and others are all basically telling (parts of) the same story. Why would all these people lie (because it seems that's where you're going with this)? Do you really think that all these people got together at some point in time and decided for no obvious reason to make up a false story?
Because it appears Paul O'Connor and Jenkins are two sides of the same coin. I don't believe any of the FBI or SSA lied they just made erroneous observations. Drs. Hume and Boswell account were the actual pathologists and it's their observations that has to carry the most weight.
-
Because it appears Paul O'Connor and Jenkins are two sides of the same coin. I don't believe any of the FBI or SSA lied they just made erroneous observations. Drs. Hume and Boswell account were the actual pathologists and it's their observations that has to carry the most weight.
Exactly what I expected; outright dismissal! How you can claim that you are a "serious and objective observer of the evidence" when you simply close your eyes for anything that contradicts your world view. I bet you haven't even watched the interview....
More telling is even that you purposely ignored my question;
Sibert & O'Neill, Paul O'Connor, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Tom Robinson, James Jenkins and others are all basically telling (parts of) the same story. Why would all these people lie (because it seems that's where you're going with this)? Do you really think that all these people got together at some point in time and decided for no obvious reason to make up a false story?
To you, people who say something you don't like are simply lying or mistaken..... that's narrow minded and just sad.
-
Well, O'Connor had the opportunity to make his claims to the HSCA and didn't and he was not under any gag rule.
Before waving the HSCA around as if it were "Old Glory", let's remember the HSCA SEALED the Testimony of White House photog Robert L. Knudsen. Knudsen's HSCA Testimony revealed that he developed B/W JFK Autopsy photo(s) which displayed Probe(s) in the body of JFK running from Front-to-back. This makes the information the HSCA decided to Reveal and Not Reveal to John Q. Public subject to question.
-
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, his body was taken to Bethesda. Along with fellow student, Paul K. O'Connor, Jenkins was asked to assist Joseph Humes, Thornton Boswell and Pierre Finck in the autopsy of Kennedy.
Jenkins talks;
In 1967, the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President, wounds which they all saw at the time of the autopsy.
-
in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President, wounds which they all saw at the time of the autopsy.
How do you know the photos they were shown. were of the President, Bill?
-
How do you know the photos they were shown. were of the President, Bill?
Ray, they were there at the autopsy. Then four years later they were shown the autopsy photos and they each stated that what was depicted in the photos was the same as they had seen in person on the night of the autopsy.
-
Ray, they were there at the autopsy. Then four years later they were shown the autopsy photos and they each stated that what was depicted in the photos was the same as they had seen in person on the night of the autopsy.
CYA comments by the doctors? It's funny that the people who took the photos said that they aren't the ones they took, at the autopsy. What is your opinion on the Jenkins video, Bill?
-
Exactly what I expected; outright dismissal! How you can claim that you are a "serious and objective observer of the evidence" when you simply close your eyes for anything that contradicts your world view. I bet you haven't even watched the interview....
More telling is even that you purposely ignored my question;
Sibert & O'Neill, Paul O'Connor, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Tom Robinson, James Jenkins and others are all basically telling (parts of) the same story. Why would all these people lie (because it seems that's where you're going with this)? Do you really think that all these people got together at some point in time and decided for no obvious reason to make up a false story?
To you, people who say something you don't like are simply lying or mistaken..... that's narrow minded and just sad.
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
Mr. SPECTER - Yes; would you like to start with the neck wound?
Commander HUMES - All right, sir.
I might preface my remarks by stating that the President's body was received in our morgue in a closed casket. We opened the casket, Dr. Boswell and I, and the President's body was unclothed in the casket, was wrapped in a sheet labeled by the Parkland Hospital, but he was unclothed once the sheet was removed from his body so we do not have at that time any clothing.
Jenkins goes on to state there was a shot from the front to JFK's throat and that it came from the triple underpass. He goes on to make more embarrassing remarks that the wound to the back only penetrated a few inches. I also believe he caught himself just in time to amend his observation of the rear entry shot when he quickly switched the location from up in the rear of the head to the lower part of the rear of the head, much as Humes described and which the X-Rays prove the Dr's observation to be wrong. I believe Dr. Humes would agree as he indicated in his testimony before the WC and later affirmed during his testimony before the HSCA that X-Ray and photographs taken previous to and during the autopsy where of the upmost importance in making an accurate description of the wounds to JFK's head and upper torso when writing his autopsy report.
After Dr. Humes saw the enlarged photographs and X-Rays during his HSCA testimony he changed his opinion of the location of the entry wound to the head to conform with the observations made by Dr. Baden but indicated he had trouble accepting the HSCA Forensic Panel's observation of a difference of 10 cm between his reported location of the entry wound to the rear of the head and that of the panels.
WC testimony of Dr. Humes
Mr. SPECTER - Is the taking of photographs and X-rays routine or is this something out of the ordinary?
Commander HUMES - No, sir; this is quite routine in cases of this sort of violent death in our training. In the field of forensic pathology we have found that the photographs and X-rays are of most value, the X-rays particularly in finding missiles which have a way of going in different directions sometimes, and particularly as documentary evidence these are considered invaluable in the field of forensic pathology
HSCA testimony of Dr. Humes
Mr. CORNWELL. And finally, would you agree that the relative center portion of the photograph has what you, upon initially being shown this photograph in the Archives by our panel, could not identify, that's what you said might be a clot or some other it, and that is relatively off-center in the overall photograph the past you identified as being the wound of entry, the locations are as I described them.
Dr. HUMES. Yes, apparently.
Mr. CORNWELL. Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same; as to where the point of entry is?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. No. 1, it was a casual kind of a discussion that we were having with the panel members, as I recall it. No. 2, and I think before we talk about these photographs further, if I might comment, these photographs were made on the evening of November 22, 1963. I first saw any of these photographs on November 1, 1966, almost 3 years after the photographs were made, which was the first opportunity that I had to see those photographs. At that point, Drs. Boswell, Finck and I were asked to come to the National Archives to categorize these photographs, label them, identify them and we spent many hours going through that. It was not the easiest thing to accomplish, I might say, after 3 weeks short of 3 years. But we identified them and I think in light of the very extensive opportunity that various panels of very qualified forensic pathologists have had to go over them, we did a reasonably accurate job in cataloging these photographs. So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the 27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus making some distortion of anatomic views produced in this picture. By the same token. the object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings.....>>>>
Mr. CORNWELL. First, Dr. Humes, with respect to the X-rays, have you also today had an opportunity to look at those X-rays?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would ask you if you would mind stepping to the easel and describing for us what your view, or your opinion, would be as to the location of the entry wound on that X-ray.
Dr. HUMES. OK. I believe, particularly in this rather enhanced picture, I might say, it is a pleasure to have such because I didn't have anything of this kind formerly, that this would be the point of entrance.
Mr. CORNWELL. For the record simply, would you try to describe the point that you just indicated?
Dr. HUMES. Well, in this approximate area would be about where external occipital protuberance would be, the knob we can feel in the back of our head. This would be above it. There is a great enlargement here, so it looks considerably further away than it would be on a standard size film or on the skull and I believe this is above the external occipital protuberance. I think it also shows on the film that Dr. Baden was showing earlier. I think it shows even better in the in the A.P. view, the anterior-posterior view of the skull.
Mr. CORNWELL. So, you, in effect, would agree with the testimony of Dr. Baden that the entry wound on the X-rays is at the point in which there is, simply from a novice point of view, a dislocation or a jutting out.
Dr. HUMES. It is a fracture line that juts out from that.
Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you.
Dr. HUMES. If I might add, and more importantly, I had the opportunity, which none of the gentlemen had to do, to examine the President's skull from the inside when the brain was removed, with great care. There was one, and only one, wound of entrance. I think we are in a somewhat of a semantic discussion as to where it was.
Mr. CORNWELL. And would you agree that the fragments shown in the upper portion of the skull would also be relatively consistent with the same entry location on the skull?
Dr. HUMES. Oh yes, however, this bullet was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place.
Mr. CORNWELL. And referring to JFK exhibit F-302---
Dr. HUMES. Which is?
Mr. CORNWELL. The one on the very left, the drawing of the brain, would you also agree that the disruption of the brain, as shown in that drawing, is also in the upper portion and therefore would also be roughly consistent with the same entry location?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. CORNWELL. Dr. Humes, you have indicated that you, of course, worked under the handicap, which, of course, was caused by conditions beyond your control, during the autopsy and the writing of the report, of not having autopsy photographs to work with; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. Nor the X-rays by the time we were writing the report.
Mr. CORNWELL. Nor the X-rays. Your initial autopsy report indicated that, as you have just stated, the wound was, indeed, above, I believe the report is worded in terms of "slightly above," the external occipital protuberance. The testimony today indicates that the panel places that at approximately 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. Would that discrepancy be explainable?
Dr. HUMES. Well, I have a little trouble with that; 10 centimeters is a significant--4 inches.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to simply ask you a few specific questions in order to determine----
Dr. HUMES. I go back to the fact there was only one, period.
Mr. CORNWELL. To determine whether we can understand how such a discrepaed [sic?][RHS] late at night; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. That's correct.
-
Before waving the HSCA around as if it were "Old Glory", let's remember the HSCA SEALED the Testimony of White House photog Robert L. Knudsen. Knudsen's HSCA Testimony revealed that he developed B/W JFK Autopsy photo(s) which displayed Probe(s) in the body of JFK running from Front-to-back. This makes the information the HSCA decided to Reveal and Not Reveal to John Q. Public subject to question.
I see. So, because Robert Knudsen makes a claim that runs contrary to all the evidence he must be taken seriously and doubt has to be cast on the HSCA panel which concluded there was evidence of a conspiracy.
-
I see. So, because Robert Knudsen makes a claim that runs contrary to all the evidence he must be taken seriously and doubt has to be cast on the HSCA panel which concluded there was evidence of a conspiracy.
Maybe because Knudsen was there and the HSCA panel weren't?
-
I see. So, because Robert Knudsen makes a claim that runs contrary to all the evidence he must be taken seriously and doubt has to be cast on the HSCA panel which concluded there was evidence of a conspiracy.
Robert L. Knudsen was a White House Photog dating back to Eisenhower. He also held a High Security Clearance which is why he Headed the developing of the JFK Autopsy Photos on 11/23/63. If his Testimony was so outlandish: (1) Why did the HSCA take his Testimony in a Back Room away from the same TV cameras that filmed that Skit conducted by the alleged Umbrella Man/Witt? and (2) Why did the HSCA SEAL Knudsen's Testimony in order to Hide it from the public and posterity? Knudsen had Long Term High Level Credibility that could Not be Discredited or simply Ignored. It had to be Buried.
-
Maybe because Knudsen was there and the HSCA panel weren't?
You're saying Robert Knudsen was present during the autopsy?
-
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
Actually no, I wouldn't. Jenkins and O'Connor were assistants of the three men doing the autopsy and got just as close to the body as them. Floyd Reibe and Jerrol Custer took X-rays of the President's body. They were moving him around and also had a good view of the body. You don't need to be a doctor to see where the wounds are located!
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
I couldn't care less what Groden accepts or not. Why did you even bring him up? Were you saying; "Groden doesn't believe it, so neither should you"? I hope not because that would be a very weak argument to make. Anyway, the fact remains that in the video Jenkins confirms the arrival of the body in a shipping casket at 6.35 pm, which is also what Paul O'Connor and Dennis David said. The latter also confirms that Jerrol Custer had already made X-rays of the body and was on his way to get more film when Jackie arrived with the grey ambulance. Sibert & O'Neil wrote in their report that they heard one of the doctors (don't remember which one) remark that there seemed to have been surgery to the head. Jenkins confirms that he saw that surgical cut also. Jenkins, O'Connor, O'Neill and Tom Robinson all confirm the location of the wound at the back of the head.
It's easy to say that one person is full of crap, but here you have at least seven persons, who were all present at Bethesda, basically all telling parts of the same story and corroborating eachother on key points... Just how many people need to say the same things before you stop dismissing them as being full of crap?
Either all of these people got together and for no reason whatsoever decided to tell the same lies or something was going on at Bethesda, would you not agree?
When you claim to be an honest investigator, you can not simply dismiss these people as being full of crap. You really need to explain why the story these people and others have been telling (some still do to this day), does not justify the conclusion that something very untoward was happening at Bethesda.
Have a look at this video of Dennis David speaking in 2016;
Tell me what you think. Is he full of crap also?
-
He is the one person,that sounds credible.He gave such detail,from the casket,arriving around 8pm,but Kennedy's body arrived at 6:38 a hour and a half,before Mrs. Kennedy and the casket did. Also the shot from the TSBD was not a fatal wound.PSA, The National Archive,have the front windshield from the limo,it does have a bullet hole in it.
-
Robert L. Knudsen was a White House Photog dating back to Eisenhower. He also held a High Security Clearance which is why he Headed the developing of the JFK Autopsy Photos on 11/23/63. If his Testimony was so outlandish: (1) Why did the HSCA take his Testimony in a Back Room away from the same TV cameras that filmed that Skit conducted by the alleged Umbrella Man/Witt? and (2) Why did the HSCA SEAL Knudsen's Testimony in order to Hide it from the public and posterity? Knudsen had Long Term High Level Credibility that could Not be Discredited or simply Ignored. It had to be Buried.
So Dr's. Hume, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersol are all liers. Is that what's being implied? FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill were there too and there's nothing about seeing probes as claimed by Knudsen. I believe that Dr. Finck probed the hole in the upper back and Dr. Humes did with his pinky and that's it. No metal probe went thru JFK's body and the only place a probe could possibly have gone through was the upper back through the neck. Dr. Humes did not realize the wound in the throat was an exit wound until after he spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry Saturday morning.
To sum up the craziness of Knudsen's claim all the doctors in Parkland Hospital who examined JFK and all the doctors who examined JFK at Bethesda either failed to see chest wounds or covered up the alleged fact of the chest wounds.
-
So Dr's. Hume, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersol are all liers. Is that what's being implied? FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill were there too and there's nothing about seeing probes as claimed by Knudsen. I believe that Dr. Finck probed the hole in the upper back and Dr. Humes did with his pinky and that's it. No metal probe went thru JFK's body and the only place a probe could possibly have gone through was the upper back through the neck. Dr. Humes did not realize the wound in the throat was an exit wound until after he spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry Saturday morning.
To sum up the craziness of Knudsen's claim all the doctors in Parkland Hospital who examined JFK and all the doctors who examined JFK at Bethesda either failed to see chest wounds or covered up the alleged fact of the chest wounds.
So Dr's. Hume, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersol are all liers. Is that what's being implied?
Or under orders for the sake of national security... could that be? In any event, it's either those guys who are lying or a substantial number of lower ranking people, who for some unexplained reason got together and decided to collectively lie and tell (parts of) the same story. One thing is for sure, we know that Humes lied when he said he had destroyed the first draft of the autopsy report by burning it, because it had blood on it. We know he lied because under oath he confirmed he had written that first draft in a room no way near the body, so there couldn't have been blood on the paper.
FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill were there too and there's nothing about seeing probes as claimed by Knudsen.
Yes they were there, but not all the time in the autopsy room.
You keep on picking on one of those guys instead of the entire group of people who contradict the doctors with their statements. It probably makes it easier for you to dismiss individual people as liars (like you did with Jenkins and O'Connor) but perhaps you should try for once to be honest enough to deal with the combined story of all these people together.
-
So Dr's. Hume, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersol are all liers. Is that what's being implied? FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill were there too and there's nothing about seeing probes as claimed by Knudsen. I believe that Dr. Finck probed the hole in the upper back and Dr. Humes did with his pinky and that's it. No metal probe went thru JFK's body and the only place a probe could possibly have gone through was the upper back through the neck. Dr. Humes did not realize the wound in the throat was an exit wound until after he spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry Saturday morning.
To sum up the craziness of Knudsen's claim all the doctors in Parkland Hospital who examined JFK and all the doctors who examined JFK at Bethesda either failed to see chest wounds or covered up the alleged fact of the chest wounds.
You continue to avoid answering the Obvious. If Knudsen's claims were pure "craziness": (1) Why did the HSCA subpoena him to testify, and (2) Why did the HSCA SEAL his testimony?
-
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
Who were those "persons" who accompanied JFK's "casket" are you talking about? And how did they know whether or not JFK was in it?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes; would you like to start with the neck wound?
Commander HUMES - All right, sir.
I might preface my remarks by stating that the President's body was received in our morgue in a closed casket. We opened the casket, Dr. Boswell and I, and the President's body was unclothed in the casket, was wrapped in a sheet labeled by the Parkland Hospital, but he was unclothed once the sheet was removed from his body so we do not have at that time any clothing.
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
Jenkins goes on to state there was a shot from the front to JFK's throat and that it came from the triple underpass. He goes on to make more embarrassing remarks that the wound to the back only penetrated a few inches. I also believe he caught himself just in time to amend his observation of the rear entry shot when he quickly switched the location from up in the rear of the head to the lower part of the rear of the head, much as Humes described and which the X-Rays prove the Dr's observation to be wrong. I believe Dr. Humes would agree as he indicated in his testimony before the WC and later affirmed during his testimony before the HSCA that X-Ray and photographs taken previous to and during the autopsy where of the upmost importance in making an accurate description of the wounds to JFK's head and upper torso when writing his autopsy report.
Providing that Humes, the X-rays, autopsy photos, etc. are legit, then I agree. But the whole frickin point here is that they weren't legit for the reasons Jenkins provides. For example, you need to put yourself in JFK's position and show us how the Magic Bullet worked. Get in-between 2 lasers pointed at each other, -17 deg from horizontal and show your body position that matches JFK's entrance/exit wounds and shove it down the CT's throats. You can bet your arse that every LNer that has tried, has failed, otherwise, they would have posted their results faster than a speeding MB! This speaks volumes, IMO.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
After Dr. Humes saw the enlarged photographs and X-Rays during his HSCA testimony he changed his opinion of the location of the entry wound to the head to conform with the observations made by Dr. Baden but indicated he had trouble accepting the HSCA Forensic Panel's observation of a difference of 10 cm between his reported location of the entry wound to the rear of the head and that of the panels.
Here is one of the "shots" that was advocated by Jenkins:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
Makes sense to me considering way too many Bethesda hospital staff members described a gaping hole in the posterior of JFK's head.
WC testimony of Dr. Humes
[BS]
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
-
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
Actually no, I wouldn't. Jenkins and O'Connor were assistants of the three men doing the autopsy and got just as close to the body as them. Floyd Reibe and Jerrol Custer took X-rays of the President's body. They were moving him around and also had a good view of the body. You don't need to be a doctor to see where the wounds are located!
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
I couldn't care less what Groden accepts or not. Why did you even bring him up? Were you saying; "Groden doesn't believe it, so neither should you"? I hope not because that would be a very weak argument to make. Anyway, the fact remains that in the video Jenkins confirms the arrival of the body in a shipping casket at 6.35 pm, which is also what Paul O'Connor and Dennis David said. The latter also confirms that Jerrol Custer had already made X-rays of the body and was on his way to get more film when Jackie arrived with the grey ambulance. Sibert & O'Neil wrote in their report that they heard one of the doctors (don't remember which one) remark that there seemed to have been surgery to the head. Jenkins confirms that he saw that surgical cut also. Jenkins, O'Connor, O'Neill and Tom Robinson all confirm the location of the wound at the back of the head.
It's easy to say that one person is full of crap, but here you have at least seven persons, who were all present at Bethesda, basically all telling parts of the same story and corroborating eachother on key points... Just how many people need to say the same things before you stop dismissing them as being full of crap?
Either all of these people got together and for no reason whatsoever decided to tell the same lies or something was going on at Bethesda, would you not agree?
When you claim to be an honest investigator, you can not simply dismiss these people as being full of crap. You really need to explain why the story these people and others have been telling (some still do to this day), does not justify the conclusion that something very untoward was happening at Bethesda.
Have a look at this video of Dennis David speaking in 2016;
Tell me what you think. Is he full of crap also?
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
Actually no, I wouldn't. Jenkins and O'Connor were assistants of the three men doing the autopsy and got just as close to the body as them. Floyd Reibe and Jerrol Custer took X-rays of the President's body. They were moving him around and also had a good view of the body. You don't need to be a doctor to see where the wounds are located!
Jenkins and O'Connor and Reibe and Custer can say whatever the heck they want, it doesn't make it true. Dr. Ebersol is the only person that I've seen that was taking X-Rays (perhaps I missed something) and he's the one that actually held JFK's head for Stringer to photograph. There's nothing in Ebersol's testimony that even hints at the possibility of corroborating Jenkin's account, let alone O'Connor's. As to Siebert there's this account found in Bugliosis book
"In an October 24, 1978 affidavit to the HSCA, Agent James Sibert wrote, "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection."
So, this theory and claims about a surgery performed on JFK's brain before he arrived at Bethesda Hospital is BS: Just think about it. When and were could this surgery have been performed? It's ridiculous. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that it was impoossible.
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
I couldn't care less what Groden accepts or not. Why did you even bring him up? Were you saying; "Groden doesn't believe it, so neither should you"? I hope not because that would be a very weak argument to make. Anyway, the fact remains that in the video Jenkins confirms the arrival of the body in a shipping casket at 6.35 pm, which is also what Paul O'Connor and Dennis David said. The latter also confirms that Jerrol Custer had already made X-rays of the body and was on his way to get more film when Jackie arrived with the grey ambulance. Sibert & O'Neil wrote in their report that they heard one of the doctors (don't remember which one) remark that there seemed to have been surgery to the head. Jenkins confirms that he saw that surgical cut also. Jenkins, O'Connor, O'Neill and Tom Robinson all confirm the location of the wound at the back of the head.
I brought up Groden because even a far out CTer like him sees that it's BS: Dr. Wecht sees it the same way too. But, no. The body arrived prior to the hearst that carried JFK's body and Jackie. Doesn't matter that it's absolutely impossible for JFK's body to have been switched as it was under constant observation throughout the trip.
It's easy to say that one person is full of crap, but here you have at least seven persons, who were all present at Bethesda, basically all telling parts of the same story and corroborating eachother on key points... Just how many people need to say the same things before you stop dismissing them as being full of crap?
Either all of these people got together and for no reason whatsoever decided to tell the same lies or something was going on at Bethesda, would you not agree?
When you claim to be an honest investigator, you can not simply dismiss these people as being full of crap. You really need to explain why the story these people and others have been telling (some still do to this day), does not justify the conclusion that something very untoward was happening at Bethesda.
I'm sorry, Marty. Their story just doesn't add up. Nothing that I have come across so far makes me believe that something sinister was going on at Bethesda.
-
You continue to avoid answering the Obvious. If Knudsen's claims were pure "craziness": (1) Why did the HSCA subpoena him to testify, and (2) Why did the HSCA SEAL his testimony?
It's not obvious to me.
-
Marty, calm down. I did not just outright dismiss the claims of the persons mentioned in your post. What I did was to weigh the evidence and make the decision that the trained pathologist who most closely examined the body had to have a better view than the others. Would you not agree with that?
Actually no, I wouldn't. Jenkins and O'Connor were assistants of the three men doing the autopsy and got just as close to the body as them. Floyd Reibe and Jerrol Custer took X-rays of the President's body. They were moving him around and also had a good view of the body. You don't need to be a doctor to see where the wounds are located!
Jenkins and O'Connor and Reibe and Custer can say whatever the heck they want, it doesn't make it true. Dr. Ebersol is the only person that I've seen that was taking X-Rays (perhaps I missed something) and he's the one that actually held JFK's head for Stringer to photograph. There's nothing in Ebersol's testimony that even hints at the possibility of corroborating Jenkin's account, let alone O'Connor's.
Jenkins and O'Connor and Reibe and Custer can say whatever the heck they want, it doesn't make it true.
So, they are all four liars with no obvious reason to lie who just happen to corroborate eachother and tell more or less the same story? Really?
As to Siebert there's this account found in Bugliosis book
"In an October 24, 1978 affidavit to the HSCA, Agent James Sibert wrote, "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection."
Who determined it not to be correct? Sibert? Or was he just told it had been a mistake?
So, this theory and claims about a surgery performed on JFK's brain before he arrived at Bethesda Hospital is BS: Just think about it. When and were could this surgery have been performed? It's ridiculous. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that it was impoossible.
I have no idea where it would have happened. I'm not even claiming it happened. All I've done is provide evidence to see how you would deal with it. Now I know, you just dismiss it outright.
As to the Jenkins video, I think he's full of crap. He believes in the casket switching nonsense that not even Robert Groden accepts. Kennedy's casket was accompanied by several persons throughout the entire episode from Parkland Hospital to when it arrived at the morgue in Bethesda Hospital and the body was removed and placed on the morgue's metal table while being viewed by Dr's Humes and Boswell.
I couldn't care less what Groden accepts or not. Why did you even bring him up? Were you saying; "Groden doesn't believe it, so neither should you"? I hope not because that would be a very weak argument to make. Anyway, the fact remains that in the video Jenkins confirms the arrival of the body in a shipping casket at 6.35 pm, which is also what Paul O'Connor and Dennis David said. The latter also confirms that Jerrol Custer had already made X-rays of the body and was on his way to get more film when Jackie arrived with the grey ambulance. Sibert & O'Neil wrote in their report that they heard one of the doctors (don't remember which one) remark that there seemed to have been surgery to the head. Jenkins confirms that he saw that surgical cut also. Jenkins, O'Connor, O'Neill and Tom Robinson all confirm the location of the wound at the back of the head.
I brought up Groden because even a far out CTer like him sees that it's BS: Dr. Wecht sees it the same way too. But, no. The body arrived prior to the hearst that carried JFK's body and Jackie. Doesn't matter that it's absolutely impossible for JFK's body to have been switched as it was under constant observation throughout the trip.
Well, if that's true, you've got a large number people of lying about the same thing for no obvious reason. Why would they do that, do you think?
It's easy to say that one person is full of crap, but here you have at least seven persons, who were all present at Bethesda, basically all telling parts of the same story and corroborating eachother on key points... Just how many people need to say the same things before you stop dismissing them as being full of crap?
Either all of these people got together and for no reason whatsoever decided to tell the same lies or something was going on at Bethesda, would you not agree?
When you claim to be an honest investigator, you can not simply dismiss these people as being full of crap. You really need to explain why the story these people and others have been telling (some still do to this day), does not justify the conclusion that something very untoward was happening at Bethesda.
I'm sorry, Marty. Their story just doesn't add up. Nothing that I have come across so far makes me believe that something sinister was going on at Bethesda.
But it adds up to you that these people would get together, without obvious reason, and decide to tell (parts of) the same story? Seems to me that something else is holding you back from looking at this information with an open mind.
-
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
Who were those "persons" who accompanied JFK's "casket" are you talking about? And how did they know whether or not JFK was in it?
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
Providing that Humes, the X-rays, autopsy photos, etc. are legit, then I agree. But the whole frickin point here is that they weren't legit for the reasons Jenkins provides. For example, you need to put yourself in JFK's position and show us how the Magic Bullet worked. Get in-between 2 lasers pointed at each other, -17 deg from horizontal and show your body position that matches JFK's entrance/exit wounds and shove it down the CT's throats. You can bet your arse that every LNer that has tried, has failed, otherwise, they would have posted their results faster than a speeding MB! This speaks volumes, IMO.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Here is one of the "shots" that was advocated by Jenkins:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
Makes sense to me considering way too many Bethesda hospital staff members described a gaping hole in the posterior of JFK's head.
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
Humes was a conspirator. Burned his notes. Performed post-mortem surgery on JFK. etc., his testimony was not reliable and should have been stricken from the records.
Gosh, I wonder what could have been in those notes that Boswell, Finck or Ebersol would not have been privy to.
Who were those "persons" who accompanied JFK's "casket" are you talking about? And how did they know whether or not JFK was in it?
There was a boatload of people that accompanied the casket from Parkland to Bethesda. Too numerous to name and I'm not going to go do a search just to satisfy your curiosity. How do you know JFK was not in the casket? When and how could his body have been switched?
Providing that Humes, the X-rays, autopsy photos, etc. are legit, then I agree. But the whole frickin point here is that they weren't legit for the reasons Jenkins provides. For example, you need to put yourself in JFK's position and show us how the Magic Bullet worked. Get in-between 2 lasers pointed at each other, -17 deg from horizontal and show your body position that matches JFK's entrance/exit wounds and shove it down the CT's throats. You can bet your arse that every LNer that has tried, has failed, otherwise, they would have posted their results faster than a speeding MB! This speaks volumes, IMO.
Let's see. JFK's body was switched before the grey hearst arrived at Bethesda. All of the doctors, SSA, FBI agents, JFK's staff, LBJ and even Jackie were in on the conspiracy. The Parkland doctors and the staff were also in since they could have been the ones who performed the initial cranial surgery. Robert Kennedy was also in on the conspiracy or the coverup since the X-Rays and photos were for a time in his possession. I'll stop here as there's enough beans to make a burrito.
For starters, for that picture to make more sense the downward angle of the street must be taken into the equation. Then at least put JBC in the picture.
Here is one of the "shots" that was advocated by Jenkins:
Bye, bye Jackie.
Makes sense to me considering way too many Bethesda hospital staff members described a gaping hole in the posterior of JFK's head.
So the Zapruder film is also a fake.
-
CYA comments by the doctors? It's funny that the people who took the photos said that they aren't the ones they took, at the autopsy. What is your opinion on the Jenkins video, Bill?
It's funny that the people who took the photos said that they aren't the ones they took, at the autopsy.
Can you quote Stringer (autopsy photographer) saying that the photos were not the ones he took?
What is your opinion on the Jenkins video, Bill?
I haven't watched it.
-
Gosh, I wonder what could have been in those notes that Boswell, Finck or Ebersol would not have been privy to.
Newbie?
There was a boatload of people that accompanied the casket from Parkland to Bethesda. Too numerous to name and I'm not going to go do a search just to satisfy your curiosity. How do you know JFK was not in the casket? When and how could his body have been switched?
Name even 1 of the boatload of people who knew JFK was in the casket. As far as switching the body goes...didn't you watch the video? You need to do more "video watching" instead of "winging it", IMO.
Let's see. JFK's body was switched before the grey hearst arrived at Bethesda.
No, this one is a no brainer. JFK was never placed in the ordained casket, he was placed in the casket that Jenkins and others described. Why would they lie?
All of the doctors, SSA, FBI agents, JFK's staff, LBJ and even Jackie were in on the conspiracy.
Huh?
The Parkland doctors and the staff were also in since they could have been the ones who performed the initial cranial surgery. Robert Kennedy was also in on the conspiracy or the coverup since the X-Rays and photos were for a time in his possession. I'll stop here as there's enough beans to make a burrito.
You need to do more research re your BS Burrito.
For starters, for that picture to make more sense the downward angle of the street must be taken into the equation.
It was, 6 degrees.
Then at least put JBC in the picture.
What for?
Here is one of the "shots" that was advocated by Jenkins:
Bye, bye Jackie.
Huh?
So the Zapruder film is also a fake.
No, just edited.
-
Newbie?
Name even 1 of the boatload of people who knew JFK was in the casket. As far as switching the body goes...didn't you watch the video? You need to do more "video watching" instead of "winging it", IMO.
No, this one is a no brainer. JFK was never placed in the ordained casket, he was placed in the casket that Jenkins and others described. Why would they lie?
Huh?
You need to do more research re your BS Burrito.
It was, 6 degrees.
What for?
Huh?
No, just edited.
Quote from: Oscar Navarro on Today at 01:52:49 AM
Gosh, I wonder what could have been in those notes that Boswell, Finck or Ebersol would not have been privy to.
Newbie?
Fullmember.
There was a boatload of people that accompanied the casket from Parkland to Bethesda. Too numerous to name and I'm not going to go do a search just to satisfy your curiosity. How do you know JFK was not in the casket? When and how could his body have been switched?
Name even 1 of the boatload of people who knew JFK was in the casket. As far as switching the body goes...didn't you watch the video? You need to do more "video watching" instead of "winging it", IMO
I don't believe I'm doing this. It's so freaking absurd that anyone would believe that JFK was not in the Britannia model casket brought by Vernon Oneal but here goes.
Vernon Oneal, Jackie Kennedy, Adm. Burkley, Gen. Godfrey McHugh, The Irish Mafia (O'Donnell, O'Brien, Dave Powers), SSA Kellerman, David Sanders (orderly who lined the casket), Doris Nelson and Diana Bowron (wrapped Kennedy's body), SSA Clint Hill, Sgt. Bob Dugger, Ted Clifton, Rep. Henry Gonzalez, SSA Bill Greer, Andy Berger, Hugh Sidey, Pam Turnure, Makc kilduff, Evelyn Lincoln, Mary Gallagher, Ken Larry, Col. McNally, Col. Swindal, Joe Ayers, Marie Fehrmer, Lyndon Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, SSA Winston Lawson, Dr's Hume and Boswell, Dr. John Ebersole
I suffered thru the video once. That's enough.
Let's see. JFK's body was switched before the grey hearst arrived at Bethesda.
No, this one is a no brainer. JFK was never placed in the ordained casket, he was placed in the casket that Jenkins and others described. Why would they lie?
Because they're liers. But I have a scenario for you that could possibly explain how JFK's body was placed in the Britannia casket and then appeared in the simple metal casket at Bethesda. The Britannia model was like one of those Russian dolls that enclose smaller dolls inside. Ha! Problem solved. That is if you ignore how it was transferred from AF1 to the mysterious hearst at Bethesda and another body was placed inside the Britannia casket. Food for thought ::)
All of the doctors, SSA, FBI agents, JFK's staff, LBJ and even Jackie were in on the conspiracy.
Huh?
Yeah! They all had to be in the conspiracy for the BS: Jenkins story to make some sort of sense. In a Twilight Zone kind of way.
The Parkland doctors and the staff were also in since they could have been the ones who performed the initial cranial surgery. Robert Kennedy was also in on the conspiracy or the coverup since the X-Rays and photos were for a time in his possession. I'll stop here as there's enough beans to make a burrito.
You need to do more research re your BS Burrito
.
You mean read more conspiracy claptrap? No thanks.
For starters, for that picture to make more sense the downward angle of the street must be taken into the equation.
It was, 6 degrees.
Then at least put JBC in the picture.
What for?
Because he was in the vehicle and he was wounded by the bullet that went thru JFK. You know, the Magic Bullet
Here is one of the "shots" that was advocated by Jenkins:
Bye, bye Jackie.
Huh?
From that angle the shot would have hit Jackie.
So the Zapruder film is also a fake.
No, just edited.
Which part?
-
You're saying Robert Knudsen was present during the autopsy?
No I'm saying, he took photos after the autopsy. None of the HSCA experts were there at all.
-
Can you quote Stringer (autopsy photographer) saying that the photos were not the ones he took?
No. but I can quote the woman who produced the photos.
Saundra Spencer.
"Saundra Kay Spencer, according to chain of evidence documentation, processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos."
[/quote]
I haven't watched it.
There's a surprise.
-
Another thing the Jenkins You Tube video does is corroborate the wound sighted/described by the Dr's that treated JFK at Parkland Hospital. Same BACK-Of-The-Head location and the same gaping size.
-
No I'm saying, he took photos after the autopsy. None of the HSCA experts were there at all.
You're saying Robert Knudsen was present during the autopsy?
No I'm saying, he took photos after the autopsy. None of the HSCA experts were there at all.
I see. Knudsen took photos while the body was being prepared for the stuff that's done after an autopsy. Was Knudsen alone? If not, does any one else corroborate his story?
-
I see. Knudsen took photos while the body was being prepared for the stuff that's done after an autopsy. Was Knudsen alone? If not, does any one else corroborate his story?
Why not conduct some research on your own? You are currently pot shotting from a position of Ignorance.
-
Another thing the Jenkins You Tube video does is corroborate the wound sighted/described by the Dr's that treated JFK at Parkland Hospital. Same BACK-Of-The-Head location and the same gaping size.
Jenkins could have adopted their testimony as his own. It wasn't as if their testimony was a well kept secret.
-
Jenkins could have adopted their testimony as his own. It wasn't as if their testimony was a well kept secret.
A Corpsman handling the body of JFK at Bethesda remains out of the lime light for 55 years and then all the sudden decides to Steal the testimony of others? Is that the best you can come up with? BS:
-
I've had a number of discussions with Jenkins, and can say it is a mistake to think he's just telling CT's what they want to hear.
1. He has long insisted he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, and that the pre-autopsy surgery proposed by Horne did not happen.
2. He has long insisted the back of the head at and below the level of the ears was present, but shattered, at the beginning of the autopsy. This is a problem for CTs, such as Mantik, who insist the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the low back of the head was missing both at Parkland and Bethesda.
-
So Dr's. Hume, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersol are all liers.[sic] Is that what's being implied? FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill were there too and there's nothing about seeing probes as claimed by Knudsen. I believe that Dr. Finck probed the hole in the upper back and Dr. Humes did with his pinky and that's it. No metal probe went thru JFK's body and the only place a probe could possibly have gone through was the upper back through the neck. Dr. Humes did not realize the wound in the throat was an exit wound until after he spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry Saturday morning.
To sum up the craziness of Knudsen's claim all the doctors in Parkland Hospital who examined JFK and all the doctors who examined JFK at Bethesda either failed to see chest wounds or covered up the alleged fact of the chest wounds.
Stringer the photographer at the autopsy said this to the ARRB.
Q.Were any probes put inside the cranium
Stringer I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q.Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
Stringer. It was put into the back part.
Q The back of the body. And then did the probe come out of the neck?
Stringer No.
Q So when your'e referring to the neck, your referring from behind?
Stringer. From Behind.
So it seems probe(s) were used.
-
I've had a number of discussions with Jenkins, and can say it is a mistake to think he's just telling CT's what they want to hear.
1. He has long insisted he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, and that the pre-autopsy surgery proposed by Horne did not happen.
2. He has long insisted the back of the head at and below the level of the ears was present, but shattered, at the beginning of the autopsy. This is a problem for CTs, such as Mantik, who insist the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the low back of the head was missing both at Parkland and Bethesda.
Bringing Horne into the discussion only confuses the pre-autopsy issue with respect to what Jenkins saw/handled at Bethesda on 11/22/63. Jenkins verifies the body of JFK coming into the Bethesda morgue inside a cheap shipping casket. This is further corroboration that the body of JFK was physically handled at some point between being loaded onto AF1 and its' arrival at the Bethesda Morgue where Jenkins was stationed.
-
I've had a number of discussions with Jenkins, and can say it is a mistake to think he's just telling CT's what they want to hear.
1. He has long insisted he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, and that the pre-autopsy surgery proposed by Horne did not happen.
Pat, if he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, how and when did the big incision he saw across the head happen?
-
Pat, if he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, how and when did the big incision he saw across the head happen?
This is a recent addition to his story. But I think I can answer for him. He doesn't know.
-
I've had a number of discussions with Jenkins, and can say it is a mistake to think he's just telling CT's what they want to hear.
1. He has long insisted he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, and that the pre-autopsy surgery proposed by Horne did not happen.
2. He has long insisted the back of the head at and below the level of the ears was present, but shattered, at the beginning of the autopsy. This is a problem for CTs, such as Mantik, who insist the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the low back of the head was missing both at Parkland and Bethesda.
Holy smokes! I finally finished watching this new video and was saddened to find that Jenkins had caved in to pressure, and had moved the head wound down from where he used to claim it was. He'd previously claimed the top of the back of the head was missing and that the far back of the head was shattered but extant beneath the scalp, but has now switched it around.
Now, why would he have done this? Well, one can only guess, But Jenkins makes repeated references to a neurologist friend in this interview, who'd recently been shown the autopsy photos. This can only be Dr. Michael Chesser, a supporter of Dr. David Mantik. Chesser has studied my website, and is undoubtedly aware that I've used Jenkins' comments to combat Mantik's bs about the Harper fragment exploding from the middle of the occipital region. Presumably, he's talked to Jenkins on this point, and has convinced him to change his description of the head wound location.
-
Why not conduct some research on your own? You are currently pot shotting from a position of Ignorance.
What, can't ask questions?
-
No I'm saying, he took photos after the autopsy. None of the HSCA experts were there at all.
Knudsen did not take any photos, period. He was told by Adm. Burkley the next day to develop negatives of photos taken of the autopsy. From the very beginning of his testimony for the HSCA he states the following
Mr. Purdy. Did all the people who were present there with you examine the prints, or did just some of them rxamine the prints?
Mr. Knudsen. Examine the prints -- they were examined for quality but not for detail. In other words, as a photographer, I can take and make a print and examine it and make sure it is good quality and ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture. You are not looking for that sort of thing. You are looking for the quality, to make sure the print is technically correct. It was examined for technical purposes, not for the subject matter.
Then 15 years later, for some reason, Knudsen allegedly remembers details of a photograph of JFK being held with his torso held up and with two, maybe three metal probes, 24" long, 3/4" in circumference, made of aluminum or stainless steel, going completely through his neck and torso. After being informed the testimony of another person (Jim Fox) does not mention anything about probes, Knudsen begins to doubt his memory and changes his recollection to possibly having seen a B/W negative of probes going through JFK. By the end of the interview Knudsen attempts to get out of his predicament by relying on what is obvious, after 15 years his memory of the events ain't so hot. Knudsen should have stuck to what he said at the beginning of the interview ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture.
-
Knudsen did not take any photos, period. He was told by Adm. Burkley the next day to develop negatives of photos taken of the autopsy. From the very beginning of his testimony for the HSCA he states the following
Mr. Purdy. Did all the people who were present there with you examine the prints, or did just some of them rxamine the prints?
Mr. Knudsen. Examine the prints -- they were examined for quality but not for detail. In other words, as a photographer, I can take and make a print and examine it and make sure it is good quality and ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture. You are not looking for that sort of thing. You are looking for the quality, to make sure the print is technically correct. It was examined for technical purposes, not for the subject matter.
Then 15 years later, for some reason, Knudsen allegedly remembers details of a photograph of JFK being held with his torso held up and with two, maybe three metal probes, 24" long, 3/4" in circumference, made of aluminum or stainless steel, going completely through his neck and torso. After being informed the testimony of another person (Jim Fox) does not mention anything about probes, Knudsen begins to doubt his memory and changes his recollection to possibly having seen a B/W negative of probes going through JFK. By the end of the interview Knudsen attempts to get out of his predicament by relying on what is obvious, after 15 years his memory of the events ain't so hot. Knudsen should have stuck to what he said at the beginning of the interview ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture.
The above is Not asking "questions". The above are assertions arrived at without knowing the Full story. Ask yourself why Knudsen was Not asked to testify before the WC vs being Back Roomed under Oath by the HSCA. Now get to work.
-
The above is Not asking "questions". The above are assertions arrived at without knowing the Full story. Ask yourself why Knudsen was Not asked to testify before the WC vs being Back Roomed under Oath by the HSCA. Now get to work.
You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face. Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page) Case closed. Walk:
-
You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face. Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page) Case closed. Walk:
It is obvious that you have No Idea as to the back story connected to the eventual SEALED HSCA Testimony of Knudsen. Just do the required research. Expanding your knowledge will render better conclusions on your part. Right now, you look very foolish.
-
You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face. Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page) Case closed. Walk:
This format might be handier to read
Knudsen HCSA deposition
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/Knudsen.htm
-
In Knudsen's interview, he said he was disturbed that he remembered probe(s) in the body, but nobody else did. Well the photographer, Stringer, certainly saw them.
"Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two probes through the body that nobody else recalls, it puts a question in my mind, and yet but I could not imagine where I could get the idea from, if I had not seen it. And yet it is starting to bother me now that there is nothing in the autopsy about it. Certainly that would be in the autopsy, if it were true. At this point, I wish I had studied the negatives rather than glance at them. At this point, I am confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly that there was this photograph, yet nobody else recalls it, and it is apparently not in any report. If it is not in any report -- I cannot conceive why it would not be in the report. If it were there -- it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind so much. "
-
In Knudsen's interview, he said he was disturbed that he remembered probe(s) in the body, but nobody else did. Well the photographer, Stringer, certainly saw them.
"Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two probes through the body that nobody else recalls, it puts a question in my mind, and yet but I could not imagine where I could get the idea from, if I had not seen it. And yet it is starting to bother me now that there is nothing in the autopsy about it. Certainly that would be in the autopsy, if it were true. At this point, I wish I had studied the negatives rather than glance at them. At this point, I am confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly that there was this photograph, yet nobody else recalls it, and it is apparently not in any report. If it is not in any report -- I cannot conceive why it would not be in the report. If it were there -- it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind so much. "
What Stringer saw is not in dispute, a single (not "them")probe inserted into the back wound which did not go through the body. Knudsen's claims are unsupported and he even admits in the above quote he just glanced at the negatives. Just think, nobody at Parkland and Bethesda saw any wounds to JFK's body that corroborate Knudsen's claims. There are no holes in JFK's shirt and jacket that corroborate Knudsen's claims. The evidence is just not there.
-
What Stringer saw is not in dispute, a single (not "them")probe inserted into the back wound which did not go through the body. Knudsen's claims are unsupported and he even admits in the above quote he just glanced at the negatives. Just think, nobody at Parkland and Bethesda saw any wounds to JFK's body that corroborate Knudsen's claims. There are no holes in JFK's shirt and jacket that corroborate Knudsen's claims. The evidence is just not there.
For whatever reason You seem to have forgotten about the Throat Wound.
-
For whatever reason You seem to have forgotten about the Throat Wound.
No, I'm referring to the through the body probe. There was a possibility that Knudsen saw a negative of the probe inserted into the back wound and then added that it went through the neck and then just imagined there was another probe through the body. In both cases Knudsen was wrong which is the important point. Knudsen oobviously believed this and told his wife about it but, as he himselff repeatedly asserts, little attention was paid to the contents of the photographs and the negatives.
-
In Knudsen's interview, he said he was disturbed that he remembered probe(s) in the body, but nobody else did. Well the photographer, Stringer, certainly saw them.
"Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two probes through the body that nobody else recalls, it puts a question in my mind, and yet but I could not imagine where I could get the idea from, if I had not seen it. And yet it is starting to bother me now that there is nothing in the autopsy about it. Certainly that would be in the autopsy, if it were true. At this point, I wish I had studied the negatives rather than glance at them. At this point, I am confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly that there was this photograph, yet nobody else recalls it, and it is apparently not in any report. If it is not in any report -- I cannot conceive why it would not be in the report. If it were there -- it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind so much. "
Stringer said he saw a probe or probes being used, but didn't see any probe going all the way through the body. He also said, contra Knudsen, he didn't take any photographs of probes in the body.
Q: Did you see metal or any other kind of probes being used during the autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you take any photographs with probes in the body?
A: Not that I can recall.
Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium that you recall?
A: I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
The bigger problem with Knudsen is that, off the record, he'd spent years claiming he was the guy who photographed the autopsy. However, there is no evidence that he was present for that event other than his own private claims. His name doesn't appear the S&O report as being present in the Bethesda morgue, nor does he appear in any way in the testimony of the various Bethesda witnesses. He couldn't have been the autopsy photographer as he claimed. And if his role as autopsy photographer was a fabrication, how can you vouch for anything else he's said?
-
Stringer said he saw a probe or probes being used, but didn't see any probe going all the way through the body. He also said, contra Knudsen, he didn't take any photographs of probes in the body.
Q: Did you see metal or any other kind of probes being used during the autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you take any photographs with probes in the body?
A: Not that I can recall.
Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium that you recall?
A: I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
The bigger problem with Knudsen is that, off the record, he'd spent years claiming he was the guy who photographed the autopsy. However, there is no evidence that he was present for that event other than his own private claims. His name doesn't appear the S&O report as being present in the Bethesda morgue, nor does he appear in any way in the testimony of the various Bethesda witnesses. He couldn't have been the autopsy photographer as he claimed. And if his role as autopsy photographer was a fabrication, how can you vouch for anything else he's said?
Knudsen did not even claim that he took photographs of the autopsy when interviewed by Purdy of the HSCA.
Mr. PURDY - When did you first become aware of the existence of photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
Mr. KNUDSEN - The morning following the autopsy, Dr. Berkley -- to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Berkley had the film holders in a brown paper bag and handed them to me. Jim Fox, the Secret Service expert, was told to go over and develop them and see that they were secure at all times.
-
Stringer said he saw a probe or probes being used, but didn't see any probe going all the way through the body. He also said, contra Knudsen, he didn't take any photographs of probes in the body.
Q: Did you see metal or any other kind of probes being used during the autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you take any photographs with probes in the body?
A: Not that I can recall.
Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium that you recall?
A: I don't think so. I think it was primarily in the neck area.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come out of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
The bigger problem with Knudsen is that, off the record, he'd spent years claiming he was the guy who photographed the autopsy. However, there is no evidence that he was present for that event other than his own private claims. His name doesn't appear the S&O report as being present in the Bethesda morgue, nor does he appear in any way in the testimony of the various Bethesda witnesses. He couldn't have been the autopsy photographer as he claimed. And if his role as autopsy photographer was a fabrication, how can you vouch for anything else he's said?
Your contention above would hinge on the belief of there being Only 1 so-called "autopsy". Humes and his "surgery to the head..." comment when JFK's body was removed from the Shipping Casket let the cat out of the bag. Knudsen and Stringer may have been on hand at different times when the body of JFK was worked on. Remember, the developing of the alleged "Autopsy" X-Rays, (when/who), is correspondingly also sketchy.
-
Interesting things about the autopsy: Remember when Finck testified that there were "generals in the room" "directing the autopsy?" Well, it turns that was only one general in the room. The only high ranking brass where admirals---Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, commanding officer of the U.S. National Naval Medical Center and Adm. George C. Burkley, White House physician to the President. In fact, the only Army personnel in the autopsy room was Finck himself and the commanding officer of the Washington military district, the guy in charge of the funeral. Hardly something with any pull. Additionally, in order to attempt to fix the body to show wounds from the back, the conspirators would have to have a team, in fact, two teams (and a backup) already in place either at Bethesda or Walter Reed But, no one knew where the president's autopsy was going to take place until Mrs. Kennedy told them that it was going to be at Bethesda when AF1 was on the way back to Washington.
-
From a CD of the White House Audio Tapes of Air Force One
MEMORANDUM
October 17, 1995
To: Jeremy Gunn
From: Doug Horne
Subject: Air Force One Audiotapes from November 22, 1963
1. As directed, Joan Zimmerman and I visited Archives II to listen to audio recordings
of the November 22, 1963 Air Force One tapes.
-snip-
4. Joan Zimmerman and I took voluminous notes, noting the many occasions when
spoken word on the tapes is not accounted for on the LBJ transcript. We also took notes
in an attempt to expand on areas of the "transcript" which are only summations of
conversations (vice verbatim accounts), and attempted to correct occasional inaccuracies
found in the LBJ "transcript."
-snip-
B. Onboard Air Force One on the return flight to Washington, Secret Service Agent
Kellerman, and later General Ted Clifton (Military Aide to the President) make it clear
that their desire is for an ambulance and limousine to take President Kennedy's body to
Walter Reed General Hospital for autopsy"..under guard...," as specified by General
Clifton. Gerald Behn, Head of the White House Secret Service Detail, counters that a
Helicoptor has been arranged to take the President's body to the National Naval Medical
Center at Bethesda for autopsy, and all other personnel will be choppered to the
South Grounds of the White House. Ultimately, the President's physician, Admiral
George Burley (on Air Force One), sides with Gerald Behn (at the White House) in
support of a Bethesda autopsy and persuades the Surgeon General of the Army,
Gneral Heaton (in Washington) to cancel arrangements for a Walter Reed autopsy.
Once it becomes clear that Bethesda is to be the site, two things happen:
first, both Admiral Burkley and General Clifton insist that the President's body be transported to
Bethesda by ambulance(vice helicoptor), even though Gerald Behn at the White House
informs General Clifton that President Kennedy's Naval Aide, CAPT Shepard, has
assured him that it will be no problem for the helicoptor to carry the heavy casket;
second, even though Admiral Burkley and General Clifton insist on ambulance
transport of JFK's body to Bethesda, Gerald Behn at the White House subsequently
orders Roy Kellerman: "You accompany the body aboard the helicopter,"
-snip-
(2) An Air Force document titled: "Historical Highlights of Andrews Air Force Base, 1942-1989" states
that "...the body of the slain President was removed to Walter Reed General
Hospital...," which further fuels the controversy over the movements of the President's
body after Air Force One landed at Andrews.
-snip-