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

[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?

[Dan O'meara]

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?

How do you explain it when the Z-film shows there is no such blowout at the back?

[Martin Weidmann]

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!

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.

Yes you are excused.

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!   

Of course you don't give damn. I mean, why in the world would you care about what people who actually were present at the autopsy and saw the wound up close have to say. Yes, they did say it years later, because they were under orders not to say anything until they were given permission to talk to the HSCA and all say the same thing. Just how naive can you be?

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!

What is utter nonsense is a silly, ignorant, fool. who wasn't there, dismissing testimony by people who were actually there and saw the wounds up close. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT WAS THERE AND WHAT WASN'T!

[Martin Weidmann]

How do you explain it when the Z-film shows there is no such blowout at the back?

I'm not convinced the Z-film shows that

[Dan O'meara]

I'm not convinced the Z-film shows that

Then post a Z-frame that shows the blowout at the back of the head or at least name one.

[Martin Weidmann]

Then post a Z-frame that shows the blowout at the back of the head or at least name one.

Do you think that just because you don't see it in the Z-film it couldn't possibly have happened?

[Dan O'meara]

Do you think that just because you don't see it in the Z-film it couldn't possibly have happened?

 
I'd forgotten about the "Weidmann Invisible Blowout" theory.
Just for the record - there is no way a massive blowout at the back of the skull would not appear on the Z-film.
The Z-film clearly shows "jets" of material being blown upwards from the top of JFK's head.

And let's have a closer look at the people you keep wheeling out who saw this blowout at the back of the head:
Jenkins - describes a massive flap on the side of the head that opened up to reveal a massive injury to the top of the head.
Custer - describes a wound he can get both hands into
Reibe - Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
           A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
O' Connor - Regarding the wound in the head, O'Connor said there was 'I..no use me opening the skull because there were no brains."
                  O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
                  said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
                  the top.

Each man describes a massive injury, not just to the back of the head, but one consistent with what we see in the Z-film and autopsy pics.
You have nothing, zero, that demonstrates the injury to JFK's head was a blowout at the back of the head. It was a massive injury that removed most of the bone from the top right side of the skull.

[Dan O'meara]

God gosh man get a hold of yourself. No offense to the late Jackie Kennedy-Onassis but I do not look to her to be the all-knowing expert on the ballistic evidence in this case. Nor would she want to be!!

What ballistic expertise is required to see the top of someone's head is missing?