What James Jenkins saw: revelations from a witness to JFK’s autopsy

Last month James Jenkins, a man who witnessed the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy 50 years ago, spoke with JFK researchers in Dallas.

Doug Horne, former ARRB analyst.

One of them was Doug Horne, who served as chief analyst for military records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s. Horne thinks Jenkin’s story is important and I agree.

Jenkins’s story certainly can’t be dismissed as more speculation from a conspiracy theorist. In fact, Jenkins’s account is eyewitness testimony that must be acknowledged by any serious student of the JFK story.

What follows are excerpts from Horne’s report:

“On Thursday, November 21, 2013. I noticed a tall, reserved, dignified and almost shy man standing in the lobby of the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas, where the JFK Lancer conference was being held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. He was well over six feet tall, wore glasses, had white hair, and sported a well-trimmed short white beard; was impeccably groomed, and had an air of quiet and seriousness that made me hesitant to approach him. I immediately knew it was James Curtis Jenkins, one of the two Navy corpsmen who served as “autopsy technicians” and assisted the Navy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, at President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963.”

Horne notes that Jenkins’s comments were sober and detailed.

He spoke about the condition of JFK’s brain:

“Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain — a ‘skull cap’ (his term for a craniotomy) — were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy [emphasis added by Horne]. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: ‘The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.'”

Jenkins spoke about the nature of Kennedy’s head wound:

“Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole.”

“However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this site, nor did they discuss it any further. When questioned, he said he did not recall seeing evidence of a bullet’s entry high in the forehead, above the right eye, but did state that these two sites were completely different, i.e., separated by enough distance to be distinguishable. He had no recollection of the bullet entrance wound low in the posterior skull described by all three pathologists in the autopsy report, and in their testimony over the years.”

Read Horne’s complete report on his Inside the ARRB blog.

I wonder what anti-conspiracy theorists make of Jenkins’s account.

 

 

 

 

 

159 comments

  1. Jason L. says:

    This is interesting, as it corroborates the line in the Sibert/O’Neill report regarding a possible surgery to the head that was done prior to the autopsy.

    • Dave says:

      I would really love to see Dr. Cyril Wecht weigh in with his opinion on this new Jenkins information on the Bethesda autopsy, and on Doug Horne’s analysis of it. To me, what I have read of Horne, and now Jenkins (via Mantik’s notes of 11/22/13) makes sense. But I’m no forensic pathologist, just a guy with a J.D.

      Calling Dr. Wecht!

      • Pat Speer says:

        Jenkins did not support Horne’s theories. Mantik and Horne have cherry-picked a few of his statements to make it appear that he does, but Jenkins was adamant that the back of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy–overlying shattered skull, but intact. If this is true, and there’s good reason to believe it is, Horne and Mantik will have to revise their theories a bit.

  2. Jonathan says:

    “I wonder what anti-conspiracy theorists make of Jenkins’s account.”

    I’ll try: Does Jenkins have an M.D. degree? Why should we trust Jenkins rather than the autopsy doctors? Why should we trust Jenkins’s memory? Has Jenkins ever reported these alleged observations before? Did Jenkins talk with Horne at a gathering of conspiracy theorists?

    • Jonathan says:

      I’ll respond to my own objections.

      Jenkins, not an M.D., was a knowledgeable medical technician, a trained observer, who had o dog in the fight. Unlike Humes and Boswell, who were under pressure from the military brass in the gallery.

      Doug Horne, elsewhere, makes a persuasive case that Kennedy’s body arrived at the autopsy room at 6:35 p.m. and underwent the “surgery to the top of the head” by Humes before the official arrival of the body around 8:00 p.m. on 11-22-63.

      • Lanny K says:

        The fact that you find Horne’s case for the 6:35 p.m. arrival of JFK’s body to Bethesda “persuasive” is, for my money, Exhibit A for the case of “Doug Horne Assassination Scam Artist Extraordinaire.”

        Horne has been pimping the alleged value of the “after action report” of Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian for the past 15 years; as if it was the greatest historical discovery since Bedouin shepherds tripped over the Dead Sea Scrolls.

        I am assuming you share his breathless enthusiasm for this document.

        To read Horne’s various writings and interviews on this subject one would think he never conducted the phone interview with Roger Boyajian on Sept. 5, 1997 which, along with a follow up letter from Boyajian, comprised the major contents of ARRB Medical Exhibit MD236 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=758) in which Boyajian admits to having no knowledge of any details of JFK’s arrival to the Bethesda morgue whatsoever. Not a description of the hearse/ambulance, casket, and certainly not a description of the President’s body at any opening of the casket.

        Wrote the former Marine Sergeant in his letter: “One thing bothering me is that I can’t recall seeing the casket arrive, yet I state in the report that it arrived at 16:35 hours. I think I split the detail initially sending seven men to meet the ambulance, and taking the remainder with me to set up security posts within the corridors.”

        Even if he did that, he has no apparent memory of which squad member was responsible for the entry or what additional facts constituted a positive ID of President Kennedy’s body that would distinguish it from some other decedent being routinely transported into the medical center.

        At least Boyajian had the humility to have been “bothered” by his obvious memory lapse. I have encountered very few conspiracy theorists, least of all Doug Horne and his partner-in-not-so-benign-neglect David Lifton, who have expressed any concern about such a glaringly weak factual foundation for the report at all.

        Nor have I encountered any sharp minded assassination researchers who have expressed the slightest curiosity that the Boyajian report does not mention the arrival of the ambulance containing Mrs. Kennedy and company and the fact that a casket from that vehicle was offloaded into the Bethesda morgue.

        Are we to assume therefore that that event did not occur?

        As for James Jenkins, I would have great interest if his recent remarks at the JFK Lancer conference were in the form of a professionally prepared verbatim transcript of his presentation.

        I would count it even more valuable if Mr. Jenkins would give sworn testimony to some official investigative body equipped with subpoena power that asked him pointed questions by which he could confirm or amend information he gave to the HSCA in an unsworn phone interview in 1977.

        I have the unqualified LEAST amount of faith in the integrity and accuracy of ANY JFK assassination evidence that has passed through the “filter” otherwise known as Douglas Horne.

        • Dave says:

          When I read the totality of ARRB Ex. MD236, I think the notes and reports made by Marine Sgt. Boyajian within days of the autopsy speak much more accurately and tellingly than his recollection some 34 years later. Best evidence on the casket arrival time of 18:35 is his after-action report of 11/26/63.
          Why all the vitriol directed towards Doug Horne?

          As for your insistence on a verbatim transcript of Jenkins’ presentation at Lancer, I assume this was video/audio taped so it should not be too hard to obtain at some point. Jenkins is a key witness by any standard.

        • Rob H says:

          The important thing you missed is that Boyajian made two entries for the arrival of JFK’s casket. This is a bit odd as under normal circumstances, the casket should have arrived just once.

          This irregularity takes on a greater magnitude by the testimony of medical technician Jerrol Custer. Custer had taken X-Rays of Kennedy. En route to having these developed, he witnessed Jacqueline Kennedy enter the administration building from the motorcade which had just arrived. According to the official record, the motorcade should have had possession of the body, yet Custer had already taken X-Rays of it. This means the official motorcade never had the body in the first place.

          Further corroboration on this point is given by Dennis David who helped unload a shipping casket from a black Cadillac hearse. This was the shipping casket autopsy technicians Paul O’Connor and Jim Jenkins claim contained the body.

          Some twenty minutes later, David observed the arrival of the Kennedy motorcade from the second floor of the administration building.

          Taking Boyagian to task over not actually seeing the body is irrelevant and I can’t understand why you emphasize it. What counts is his two log entries for the arrival of JFK’s coffin which, along with other witnesses, builds support for clandestine removal of the body from the Dallas casket.

          There can be little doubt at this point that Kennedy’s body was surgically tampered with. None of the Dallas doctors saw the enormous defect principally in the parietal region and extending from the occipital all the way to the frontal bone. Both Carrico and Baxter described a wound in the rear skull whose dimensions they estimated at 5 X 7 and 6 X 8 centimeters.

          Furthermore, most of the Dallas doctors described cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound. Cerebellar tissue is located in the occipital which is at the skull rear. Yet the autopsy photos show no such damage. So either the Dallas doctors are wrong or the photos have been tampered with as well.

          • “The important thing you missed is that Boyajian made two entries for the arrival of JFK’s casket. This is a bit odd as under normal circumstances, the casket should have arrived just once.”~Rob H

            Nonsense, the early entry makes no mention of “Kennedy” or anyone else as being in the casket.
            It was a MORGUE, caskets arrive at morgues constantly, both empty and with bodies in them.
            \\][//

          • ARRB MD 236 – ARRB Call Report of September 5, 1997 Telephone Interview of Roger Boyajian (Former NCOIC of Marine Security Detail at Autopsy of President Kennedy), With His Contemporaneous After-Action Report:
            […]
            > 3. “At approximately 1835 (6:35) the casket was received at the morgue entrance and taken inside.
            […]
            6. At approximately 0345(3:45 AM) November 23, the casket was removed from the morgue, and at 0350 Mrs. Kennedy came downstairs and departed with the casket.”
            * * * *
            NOTE: “THE CASKET” indicates the same one both times; the elaborate bronze casket from Dallas.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=758#relPageId=5&tab=page

            \\][//

          • Approximately what time of the day or night did the autopsy begin?
            Dr. HUMES. “well, the President’s body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35 the evening … You may have heard part of the testimony which reflected that the panel reviewed..”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm

            So we are dealing with “APPROXIMATELY” and “AS FAR AS I RECALL”– here on an issue that creates a profound dispute, wherein PRECISION of accounts of times would be of absolute necessity to make a positive determination.

            Even Boyajian’s “After-Action Report” uses the term, ‘APPROXIMATELY’ when noting the time of the arrival of a casket. And that After-Action Report was only about 6 days after the event. Yet no exact time is made note of, only an approximation.

            And one must take seriously the term used to characterize such a report: “After-Action Report”.

            Where is a ‘ticket’ with a verifiable time stamp that could resolve all of this? As far as I know there is none in this case.

            As it is said, “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” (Truzzi)

            In my and other’s opinions, the claim that President Kennedy’s body was stolen and pre-autopsy surgery was done on his wounds, are quite extraordinary claims. I would add to this that the evidence put forth for these claims is far from extraordinary, but is in fact weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence built in the main on supposition and rhetorical wrangling.

            Certain counter proofs are more persuasive to my mind. Especially so is Dr Burkley’s testimony of having been in personal custody of the casket carrying the body of JFK from Parkland, throughout the flight on AF1 from Texas to DC, and from the airport to Bethesda; never once leaving sight of that precious cargo.

            We can argue the unlikely logistics of an operation of the type suggested by Lifton and Horne, but it all comes down to my first observation, theirs are NOT extraordinary proofs.
            \\][//

          • pat speer says:

            As stated in a separate post, I was at the 2013 conference and both saw Jenkins speak, and personally spoke to him. Well, I saw him speak again last fall, and once again spoke to him. I explained to him that Mantik and Horne and many others have tried to explain inconsistencies in the record by theorizing there was a pre-autopsy which few saw, in which Humes changed the wounds. He looked at me with disgust and told me that that didn’t happen in the morgue where he worked. I spotted a loophole, and asked him “Are you saying that the body could have been altered in another morgue at the hospital?” To which he responded by saying there was no other morgue, and that the scenario I described (Horne’s and Mantik’s) simply “Did not happen.” Period. And yes, there was a witness to this exchange, who confirms my recollection of Jenkins’ words.

        • “The fact that you find Horne’s case for the 6:35 p.m. arrival of JFK’s body to Bethesda “persuasive” is, for my money, Exhibit A for the case of “Doug Horne Assassination Scam Artist Extraordinaire.”~Lanny K

          I couldn’t agree with you more Lanny; your whole post here is a summation of my views as well.
          \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            First, your slippery remark that caskets arrive at morgues all the time attempts a very false implied logic, that caskets were going into the Bethesda morgue chill room all night long. No such thing occurred at Bethesda on the night of JFK’s autopsy. Caskets were not coming in all the time.

            First, that there were only six chill boxes in the morgue which gives you some idea how low the volume of bodies being delivered there was under normal circumstances.

            What you fail to mention is the very high level of security at the morgue. Generally, no one was allowed inside except those delivering the body, some FBI and Secret Service agents, and those carrying out the examination. (There may have been some high-ranking officers in the bleachers.) Any time a technician left the morgue, he was accompanied by a Marine guard. The morgue was effectively sealed off and restricted to JFK’s post mortem.

            I spoke to Paul O’Connor who told me he recalled only two caskets. The cheap metal casket in which Kennedy’s body was contained, and later, the fancy bronze coffin. O’Connor’s shipping casket account is supported by Jenkins and Reibe. That means the bronze casket which arrived with the motorcade was empty.

            Boygian’s log entries clearly refer to the shipping casket and the bronze casket. No others came in.

            Dennis David, the officer of the day, who delivered the shipping casket, then witnessed the arrival of the Kennedy motorcade from the second floor of the administration building some twenty minutes later. Technician, Jerrol Custer, on his way upstairs to have X-rays developed taken of JFK, saw Jackie Kennedy enter the administration building. So these accounts further strengthen the argument that the bronze coffin (which should had the body) was empty.

            So you Warren Commission supporters have some explaining to do.

            As a final note, I defy any of you to find a single Parkland witness who saw that huge hole on the right side of Kennedy’s head. Most of them indicated a wound in back restricted to the occipital-parietal region. Some described cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound which is only found behind the occipital. Carrico and Baxter gave diminsions of 5 X 7 and 6 X 8 cm. By the time JFK’s body reached the Navy morgue, the wound in the rear skull is somehow gone and replaced by one in the right parietal three times as big.

            Sorry, but skull wounds don’t change location and grow bigger.

          • Photon says:

            The first physician to see JFK Bill Midgett( and coincidently the LAST Parkland physician to see the back of JFK’s head) precisely stated the wound to the right side of the head-as seen in the Zapruder film.
            When all is said and done he is the only physician who appears to have had a good look at the head, as he helped pick him up out of the car and put him on the stretcher.
            And Bill Midget drives CTers crazy.

          • “So you Warren Commission supporters have some explaining to do.”~Rob H

            I am NOT a Warren Commission supporter pal.

            I do support the truth however, and this Horne and Lifton “body snatching” myth is nonsense.

            You say,” By the time JFK’s body reached the Navy morgue, the wound in the rear skull is somehow gone and replaced by one in the right parietal three times as big.
            Sorry, but skull wounds don’t change location and grow bigger.”

            Wounds do change in transit when the skull is shattered as JFK’s was. The mass of gooey hair and flesh held together while the body was laying still. But the handling of the casket caused it to collapse and fragment in transit.

            The reason that there was no notice of the temporal wound at Parkland is due to the fact that it was covered by a flap of skin and hair that only fell forward when the body was laid on the stomach.

            There was ONE wound to the head, that had an entrance at the temple, and a trough through the right side of the skull to the Occipital-Parietal. The jelly-like brain matter in the matted hair acted as sort of a “net” until the body was moved and jostled about. Bones displaced and the wound grew larger.
            \\][//

          • So Rob H,

            How about starting a conversation on the Moon Hoax, or the “Paul McCartney was done away with just before the Abbey Road album”. Or “nobody died int the Boston Bombings” – Hell you got a million lunatic “conspiracy theories” to choose from if you want to go that route:

            https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/mazzucco-american-moon/
            \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            Hello Willy,

            It appears the moderators of this site are not terribly swift in allowing a response to some of your posts.

            I’ll use this to present my counter-rebuttal to your “flap theory”.

            The flap theory is your attempt to explain why none of the Dallas medical witnesses saw the gaping hole in the right parietal which was later seen at Bethesda.

            Suffice to say, everything you put forth is sheer speculation with not a shred of evidence to support it.

            At face value, the idea that a skull flap caused by the impact of a bullet could snap back into place so snugly that no one at Trauma Room 1 saw the edges is ridiculous. Think about it. That would mean no blood oozing around the margins and no flecks of blood and brain matter forward of the wound. One would expect some spray in that direction.

            Your faulty speculation is impeached further by the fact that at Parkland, a sheet was tightly wrapped around JFK’s head. That would have kept the so-called mystery skull flap in place wouldn’t it? The coffin was padded and I’m not aware of any serious jostling after the sheet was placed on the head.

            Yet for some reason which is not in accord with your “held in place by gooey hair and flesh” theory, when Kennedy was lifted from the casket at Bethesda, the huge wound in the parietal was immediately obvious.

          • “I’ll use this to present my counter-rebuttal to your “flap theory”.
            The flap theory is your attempt to explain why none of the Dallas medical witnesses saw the gaping hole in the right parietal which was later seen at Bethesda.”~Rob H

            The flap at the wound in the right temple is NOT a theory, it is a well known fact.

            Furthermore it has absolutely nothing to do with the wound in the occipital-parietal.

            I think you must be confusing this with the fact that the scalp was malleable and could be pulled over the occlusion of the gaping wound in the rear. Two different situations.
            * * * *
            Another point:

            1st Lt. Richard Lipsey, witness to arrival of Kennedy’s body in the Bronze casket it left Dallas in:

            An honor guard lifted the heavy bronze casket from the hearse, took it into the morgue, and set it on the floor. “Then the honor guard left,” says Lipsey. “It was just myself and a couple of technicians in the room. We lifted the body out of the coffin and put it on a table. I had never seen a dead man before.”

            http://www.countryroadsmagazine.com/culture/history/eyewitness-to-history

            \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            Willy,

            Regarding the flap, you cited this as a reason why the Dallas doctors failed to see the big gaping hole in the parietal witnessed later at the autopsy.

            I will stick to my guns in that this flap did not exist at Dallas and for reasons I give in the previous post, it’s unlikely it would have been missed.

            The flap did appear at Bethesda which simply supports the pro-tampering thesis.

          • Rob H says:

            Willy,

            Regarding the flap, you cited this as a reason why the Dallas doctors failed to see the big gaping hole in the parietal witnessed later at the autopsy.

            I contend this flap did not exist at Dallas and it’s unlikely it would have been undetected for reasons previously given.

            The flap did appear at Bethesda which simply supports the pro-tampering thesis.

        • Rob H says:

          Jenkins was contacted by HSCA investigators Flanigan and Purdy. He tried to give them his recollection of events in the morgue, but they refused to discuss anything beyond Admiral Osborne’s assertion, that a bullet was recovered from Kennedy which rolled onto the examination table. So that was the only information Jenkins provided.

          Jenkins informed Paul O’Connor what had happened, and in response, Paul made no effort to pass on what he knew. He just went along with the agenda.

          This is one of several incidents which leads me to believe the HSCA was less than honest.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Rob H,

            “Jenkins was contacted by HSCA investigators Flanigan and Purdy. He tried to give them his recollection of events in the morgue, but they refused to discuss anything beyond Admiral Osborne’s assertion, that a bullet was recovered from Kennedy which rolled onto the examination table. So that was the only information Jenkins provided.”

            What is your source for that, please? I ask because this HSCA interview of Jenkins by Purdy runs 16 pages, and Jenkins had plenty to say about the autopsy:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=329&search=jenkins#relPageId=1&tab=page

  3. Jean Davison says:

    I think the key phrase here may be “50 years ago.”

    When Jenkins talked to the HSCA in 1977, he described only one head wound: “middle temporal region to the occipital.”

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=4

    He provided this drawing of the front and back of the body:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=16

    Lifton also interviewed Jenkins at about this time. According to Best Evidence, “Jenkins did no see an entry wound on the front of the head” (see Chapter 27).

    • Rob H says:

      Jean,

      Back around 2002, when I requested the HSCA transcripts of O’Connor and Jenkins’ testimonies, I received only the Flannigan-Purdy interview notes dealing with Osborne.

      At the Mary Ferrell website, I noticed there is no face sheet for either O’Connor or Jenkins with regard to their autopsy testimony transcripts, leaving the question open as to when they were released.

      I find it inexcusable these documents were withheld considering their explosive content, none of which has any bearing on national security.

    • Rob H says:

      Jean,

      That document you presented is not testimony, but consists of interview notes made by investigators Flannigan and Purdy.

      Given Jenkin’s explosive remarks, he should have been called on to testify but wasn’t.

      Suffice to say, this impeaches the integrity of the HSCA investigation.

      I remember sitting in Cyril Wecht’s office in 2002 and asking to what degree the X-rays and photos were authenticated. Wecht smiled and said, “There wasn’t much”. When I asked why he resigned, Wecht’s response was, “Because it was clear they weren’t going to do much”.

  4. Preston Newe says:

    Those unaware of Doug Horne’s startling revelations about James Jenkins will also find on a downloadable pdf file that Doug Horne also authored explaining what was happening to JFK’s body on AF-1 in Dallas, how it got separated from Jackie Kennedy & pre-autopsy head surgery to remove bullet fragments as revealed on the AF-1 audio tapes & witness recollections. The file is here:

    http://www.manuscriptservice.com/AF-1_page/

    Fellow researcher David Liston can be seen & heard in the later part of his recent lecture at Bismarck State College describing the multi-hour cleanup of AF-1’s forward cargo/luggage bay to remove blood here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huHUs6yDw

    I had trouble sleeping after taking in all this information. It’s very clear what was going on & what is means.

    • Lanny K says:

      In the link you provided to Doug Horne’s recent manuscript “The AF1 Tapes and Subsequent Events at Andrews
      AFB on November 22, 1963,” Horne begins with the subhead “Context is Everything” and states as an overarching premise “Everything in this essay is grounded around one basic undeniable fact: that the heavy, bronze, reddish brown ceremonial casket from Dallas, in which JFK’s body was taken aboard AF1 at Love Field in Dallas, was empty when the public saw it unloaded from Air Force One on live television shortly after 6:04 p.m. November 22, 1963 and placed into a light gray Navy ambulance.”

      Apart from the undeniable fact that the empty casket fantasy was, is and continues to be HIGHLY DENIABLE, Horne and Lifton like to pretend that an empty casket supports the testimony concerning shipping caskets and multiple casket deliveries. But the real conspiracy here is their use of the testimony concerning shipping caskets, body bags and surgical alteration of the corpse prior to autopsy to convince us that the casket was, in fact, empty. It is a sleight of hand and far from meaningless turn of phrase necessitated by the fact that since there is no direct evidence of the body having been stolen out of its casket PRIOR to Air Force One’s take off from Dallas, it is essential that folks like yourself can nonetheless INFER earlier theft of the corpse from the testimony of people seeing the body at autopsy AFTER its return to Washington.

      What is really pathetic about this myth is that the whole premise for surgical alteration of the President’s wounds is to prove the conspiracy’s existence by providing “evidence” of its alleged attempt to conceal itself by tampering with the forensic evidence.

      In a move that can only be described as tragically ironic, the architects of this particular brand of nonsense simply invented one conspiracy out of whole cloth in order to pave way for proving the other one. In this case, it is that the Secret Service stole the body out from under the noses of the Kennedy family and staff in order to facilitate the forensic tampering that they somehow already knew would be required.

      That is to say, that the conspirators knew that by placing shooters in front of the President as well as behind they were all but assured of creating prima facie evidence of a multi-shooter conspiracy rather than the scenario of a lone nut assassin. Rather than simply avoiding that risk of discovery by placing all assassins to the rear, Horne believes the greater risk of evidence tampering after the fact was inexplicably selected as part of the conspiratorial strategy.

      Of course once the shooting started, there was no way of knowing or controlling whether the Presidents wounds would ultimately lend themselves to effective and convincing manipulation. Nor is there any evidence that the Secret Service attempted to manipulate traffic on board Air Force One in the 33 minutes JFK’s body was on board prior to take off so as to give its agents unfettered access for the purpose of skullduggery. Horne suggests a method by which they might have attempted such control, but there is simply no evidence of such an effort taking place.

      Thus, Horne would have us believe the conspirators were unbelievably lucky TWICE with regard to TWO CRITICAL aspects of the assassination: the physical manner and extent to which the President was wounded coincidentally allowed for successful surgical tampering, AND a sufficient opportunity to steal the body just happened to prevent itself (rather than to have been well planned) within the narrow time window of 33 minutes.

      Finally, when evaluating the shipping casket and body bag shell games testimony that is used to sell the mythological scenario of corpse napping, consider that this information came from three different individuals: X-ray technician Ed Reed, morgue technician Paul O’Conner, and photography assistant Floyd Riebe. In each case, their respective working partners (Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins and John Stringer) contradicted either the casket type, use of a body bag and/or both – not to mention other autopsy witnesses who undercut the body theft evidence with their own testimony to ARRB or HSCA.

      (Note: In Horne’s detailed analysis of Jenkins’ appearance on his “Inside the ARRB” blog, item number (8) may give the impression that FBI agents Sibert and O’Neil were barred from the morgue AFTER carrying the ceremonial Dallas casket inside but BEFORE the casket was opened. Both agents specifically testified in their 1997 sworn ARRB depositions (both of which Horne attended) that they carried the casket inside the morgue, viewed the casket opening and identified President Kennedy’s remains (and the absence of any “body bag”) before leaving the morgue for the initial taking of photographs and x-rays (which they also witnessed through a glass window in the door connecting the morgue anteroom and the morgue lab proper).

      • Bill Pierce says:

        Lanny K writes:
        “That is to say, that the conspirators knew that by placing shooters in front of the President as well as behind they were all but assured of creating prima facie evidence of a multi-shooter conspiracy rather than the scenario of a lone nut assassin.”

        That’s correct. I can’t speak for Mr. Horne, but I believe the CIA-sponsored conspirators wanted the hit to look like a sophisticated ambush using multiple shooters linked to Castro and the Kremlin. They were not trying to hide it. Powerful government insiders including RFK, Burkley, LBJ and Hoover immediately suspected the scenario above and shut it down.

        WC fundamentalists need to understand that conspiracists are not responsible for the misidentification of Oswald’s rifle; destruction of evidence by the FBI; the bizarre autopsy; the moving head wounds; the CIA’s perplexing behavior regarding Oswald’s Mexico City odyssey; failure of the Secret Service to protect the president; the rush to clean and refit the limousine . . . and hundreds of other important matters that raise serious questions about the credibility of government institutions and the piece of nonsense entitled The Warren Report.

        If you find the idea of conspiracy so outlandish, you need to understand that your side is responsible for the mess.

        • Tom S. says:

          Rob H,

          We maintain a 500 word count maximum, per comment.
          http://www.wordcounttool.com/
          I cannot approve your recent comment.

        • John McAdams says:

          WC fundamentalists need to understand that conspiracists are not responsible for the misidentification of Oswald’s rifle;

          You are responsible for sloppily accepting the erroneous early report, and ignoring better evidence.

          destruction of evidence by the FBI;

          You are responsible for claiming that it indicates a conspiracy to kill JFK.

          the bizarre autopsy;

          The fault of Jackie and Burkley, who decided to do the autopsy at Bethesda.

          the moving head wounds;

          It’s you buffs who have “moved” them, by accepting bogus evidence and ignoring the best evidence.

          the CIA’s perplexing behavior regarding Oswald’s Mexico City odyssey;

          It wasn’t perplexing, and it’s the fault of you buffs for claiming it was.

          failure of the Secret Service to protect the president;

          Which suggests conspiracy how?

          the rush to clean and refit the limousine . . .

          Only after Frazier had examined it and produced a report on what he found. And photographed it.

          If you find the idea of conspiracy so outlandish, you need to understand that your side is responsible for the mess.

          It’s you buffs who refuse to accept the evidence, and willfully have created the “mess.”

          • Rob H says:

            Hello John,

            So nice to see you again.

            You’ll have to explain how a bullet can go through the back, torso and wrist bone of two individuals and come out looking pristine.

            The Army ballistics tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal, where test shots were fired through a cadaver’s wrist bone, resulted in every one either being smashed at the nose, distorted or splintered. That is proof enough that CE 399 could not have done what people like you claim.

            Now I suppose you’ll try and counter with the yaw argument, that the bullet developed spin and went into Connally sideways. If so, show us the damage the missile would have incurred along its lateral portion. You can’t because it isn’t evident on 399.

            Even worse, CE 399 wasn’t found on the body of either man it struck, but on a hallway stretcher.

            FBI Firearms expert, Robert Frazier, indicated there was no blood on it.

            Sorry, but CE 399 has FAKE written all over it.

            And this is the “best evidence”, the so-called high standard of proof you wish to sell us?

          • John McAdams says:

            The Army ballistics tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal, where test shots were fired through a cadaver’s wrist bone, resulted in every one either being smashed at the nose, distorted or splintered.

            Fired at full muzzle velocity. But CE 399 was slowed down passing through Kennedy and Connally. The velocity when it hit Connally’s wrist was about 1100-1200 fps.

            If so, show us the damage the missile would have incurred along its lateral portion. You can’t because it isn’t evident on 399.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

            Looks badly mashed to me.

            Even worse, CE 399 wasn’t found on the body of either man it struck, but on a hallway stretcher.

            So you think somebody shot Ronny Fuller with Oswald’s rifle?

          • Rob H says:

            Since the moderators of this site are being painfully slow at allowing responses to new posts, I will use this as a means to respond with regard to your defense of the single-bullet theory.

            You state that the (Edgewood Arsenal) ballistics test shots hit the cadaver wrists at full velocity. And this is not in accord with CE 399’s true velocity which, before hitting the cadaver wrist, was slowed by both Kennedy and Connally and reduced to 1100-1200 fps.

            First, no less than Colonel Joseph Dolce, who at the time was the Army’s foremost ballistics expert, expressed in a letter to the HSCA (Doc 180-10084-10450) that the damaged test bullets which struck the cadaver were proof CE 399 could not have accomplished what the Commission claims.

            So Dolce is on my side here, and that’s mighty powerful expertise.

            The loss in velocity you refer to is simply a distinction without a difference. A bullet striking a human wrist bone at 1100 fps will still sustain serious damage.

            In support of that, I refer you to Major Alfred Olivier, one of two supervisors for the Edgewood Arsenal tests.

            WCH V, p. 83

            Specter:

            What is there about the wound of entry or exit which led you to think that the governor’s wrist wasn’t struck by a pristine bullet?

            Olivier:

            Well, he would have had a larger exit wouond than entrance, which he did not.

            P. 86

            Specter:

            If the bullet had passed through Connally losing 400 fps, would damage to the governor’s wrist be the same?

            Olivier:

            It would have been greater.

            Read pp. 83-87. Olivier gave Specter two choices. A non-pristine bullet which would accord with the damage to Connally’s wrist, or a pristine bullet which would have caused more.

            You may say “Looks badly smashed to me”. Well, the Edgewood Arsenal report describes it as pristine.

            I’ll add, after the autopsy ended and all the outsiders and higher-ranking Naval officers departed, Humes probed the back wound.

            Both O’Connor and Jenkins observed the probe making indentations of the pleura (the lining of the chest cavity) without going through.

            This is corroborated by John Stringer in his ARRB testimony.

          • Rob H says:

            John,

            This is regarding your statement that Demorenschildt put a shotgun into his mouth and pulled the trigger.

            You weren’t there and you didn’t see it.

          • John McAdams says:

            The loss in velocity you refer to is simply a distinction without a difference. A bullet striking a human wrist bone at 1100 fps will still sustain serious damage.

            Fackler experimented with this, and got this bullet:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

            Here is an account of his experiment:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf

            Lattimer also replicated the Single Bullet:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg

            And an account of his experiments:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt

          • John McAdams says:

            First, no less than Colonel Joseph Dolce, who at the time was the Army’s foremost ballistics expert, expressed in a letter to the HSCA (Doc 180-10084-10450) that the damaged test bullets which struck the cadaver were proof CE 399 could not have accomplished what the Commission claims.

            Did he do any experiments?

            Remember, the Forensic Pathologists of the HSCA FPP didn’t have any problem with the condition of CE 399.

            Specter:

            What is there about the wound of entry or exit which led you to think that the governor’s wrist wasn’t struck by a pristine bullet?

            Look at the context here. The issue is whether the bullet had hit something else first — like Connally’s torso and Kennedy’s torso. Olivier is saying the bullet had to have been slowed down.

            You may say “Looks badly smashed to me”. Well, the Edgewood Arsenal report describes it as pristine.

            Look at the damn picture!

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

            Both O’Connor and Jenkins observed the probe making indentations of the pleura (the lining of the chest cavity) without going through.

            Are you actually claiming that the bullet didn’t penetrate into the chest cavity?

            An MC bullet could penetrate 48 inches of knot free pine.

            Check the following on probing a wound:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm#backwound

          • John McAdams says:

            This is regarding your statement that Demorenschildt put a shotgun into his mouth and pulled the trigger.

            You weren’t there and you didn’t see it.

            You really need to read the following:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

            From the autopsy:

            The only wound on the body was in the left side of the roof of the mouth. . . . Prior to the beginning, however, x-rays were taken by x-ray technicians from the radiology department of Bethesda Hospital. During the course of this examination by Dr. Cuevas, writer was
            present and received small pieces of lead as they were collected from the brain and skull area. Also recovered was the plastic wadding from the shotgun shell. . . . Dr. Cuevas stated that the wound was, in fact, in the left side of the upper maxilla and that the pellets from the shotgun shell traveled upward front to back and right to left.

          • Rob H says:

            With regard to FBI destruction of evidence, if there was a conspiracy, depending on what was destroyed, the agents involved could be held accountable as accessories after the fact along with obstruction of justice.

          • Rob H says:

            We buffs are responsible for creating a mess?

            When the government hides pro-conspiracy evidence under the cover of “national security”, deliberately suppresses testimony of key witnesses like Jack Ruby, offers impossible explanations like the single-bullet theory, or introduces the jet effect on the word of only one physicist, it reaps the contempt it has earned.

      • Dave says:

        Paul O’Connor’s interviews and “testimony” at Bugliosi’s mock Oswald trial are on YouTube. He says when the bronze casket was opened before him at the “official” 8 pm autopsy, the body was in an unzipped body bag (not how it left Dallas). He also said there was no need for any craniotomy because there was already a huge hole in the skull and only “half a handful” of the brain left! This supports Jenkins’ account, as well as Horne’s view that there was definitely pre-autopsy surgery done prior to 8 pm.
        History will not be kind to Dr. Humes.

        • brianh51 says:

          Dave:

          Actually I just saw the same YouTube with the late Paul O’Connors testimony.

          You are absolutely correct except he didn’t even say it was a ” bronze casket “.

          • Rob H says:

            Brian,

            Good catch. Dave pulled a fast one in misquoting O’Connor who has always maintained Kennedy’s body was removed from a shipping casket.

            This is standard operating procedure for Warren Commission buffs.

      • Rob H says:

        Prove the claimed “contradictions”.

        Citations, please.

      • Rob H says:

        I’m not convinced you’ve read “Best Evidence”, in which case, perhaps you shouldn’t be judging it.

        Contrary to your assertion that theft of the body from the Dallas bronze coffin is HIGHLY DENIABLE, in reality, it is highly difficult to refute.

        O’Connor, Jenkins and Reibe actually saw Kennedy’s body delivered inside a shipping casket, not the bronze one he was placed in.

        This is also confirmed by Dennis David, whose detail unloaded the shipping casket and delivered it to the morgue, then saw the Kennedy motorcade arrive twenty minutes later.

        Larry, you must EXPLAIN how Kennedy’s body could be with the motorcade if the morgue already had it.

        As a fifth witness, Technician Jerrol Custer took X-Rays of JFK and while waiting for the elevator on the first floor of the administation saw Jackie Kennedy enter. (She had just left the motorcade parked out front.)

        So how could the body be with the motorcade if Custer had taken X-Rays of it some time beforehand?

        To this can be added that Kennedy’s head wound was much larger by the time it arrived at the morgue. Upon removing the body and placing it on the examination table, Humes exclaimed there had been surgery to the top of the head.

        These events and many more in “Best Evidence” create a very strong circumstantial case for medical tampering.

        It wasn’t necessary to put all the shooters to the rear. As long as the conspirators gained control of the body and were able to distort wounds or even add new ones, they could control the autopsy findings.

        You state there is no evidence for body theft prior to take off by AF-1. That may be true, but the body was stolen, nonetheless as the evidence above shows. And even if there is no direct evidence to establish this, it likely happened there.

        Lifton and other researchers have established a window of opportunity existed. When Johnson boarded the plane, he insisted everyone move to the front plane to witness his swearing-in as president. To ensure this was done, the Secret Service ushered almost everyone to the front of the plane. Jacqueline Kennedy was eventually coaxed in as well.

        At that stage, it would have been possible for the Secret Service to remove the body, stash it inside a body bag and store it in one of the aft closets.

        I’ve also wondered if upon arrival at Andrews, the Secret Service simply waited for everyone to get off the plane and then carried out the above.

        And don’t be too quick to rule out Secret Service involvement. FBI Agent Frank O’Neill (who attended the autopsy) regarded Roy Kellerman a suspect.

        Again, I suggest you read “Best Evidence” slowly and take notes.

      • Rob H says:

        Sibert and O’Neill have credibility, hence their insistence that they never lost sight of the body is troubling. This is because the contradictory testimony of O’Connor, Jenkins, Reibe, David and Custer is equally credible.

        I lean toward the latter because the evidence for medical tampering with the body is too strong to dismiss.

        That doesn’t mean Sibert and O’Neill are lying, but I suspect they were somehow fooled.

  5. Photon says:

    Just exactly how knowledgable was he? What can we make about his claim to be a” Ph.D. Student in Pathology” when no such degree granting program existed at Bethesda in 1963. His only training in medical affairs prior to coming to Bethesda was attending Hospital Corpsman “A” school- he apparently never attended college which anybody who has attended graduate school knows is a prerequisite to get into graduate school.
    To get any advanced degree in Pathology requires an M.D. and completion of an approved residency program in pathology; such degrees are granted only rarely and in conjunction with research done during the residency. Why the subterfuge? What evidence is there that he ever actually did any procedures directly involving contact with the autopsy subject? And for heaven’s sake what is the baloney about his claim of recognizing and exit wound by a gray color of the skin? That is complete nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that he ever even saw a gunshot wound prior to Nov. 22,1963, much less that he had any expertise in wound evaluation.
    Finally, Mr. Horne knows nothing about autopsies, about autopsy technique, nor craniotomies. Anybody with a pair of eyes knows that it would have been impossible to remove “en bloc” JFK’s “skull cap” in the customary fashion as it was not intact and had fractures associated with the entrance wound. It is not inconceivable that Boswell had to saw some portions of the skull to adequately dissect out and remove the brain. Horne’s comments reveal that he has never seen an autopsy nor has any idea what transpires when a brain is removed post-mortem in the autopsy suite.
    Again, another example of conspiracy theorists coming up with poorly educated technicians not qualified to make reputable judgements about medical or forensic evidence simply because the real experts will not support their theories. What exactly does Mr. Jenkins do now? What has he done for the last 50 years? Why if he only attended the Lancer conference to simply observe others was he the subject of a specific ” breakout conference”?
    Finally, the disgusting accusation by Mr. Horne accusing Dr. Boswell of committing a felony prior to the autopsy would almost certainly result in a libel suit if CAPT. Boswell was still alive.I wonder if Dr. Boswell’s family is aware of this slander ; perhaps Mr. Horne would be able to explain to them why he has the right to make unsubstantiated claims about a decorated carrer Naval Officer,veteran and recognized authority in Pathology simply by making things up.

    • andy young says:

      Proton does a person need a driving license to understand a car crash has happened? One thing is important, he was there, were you? Your knowledge about the assassination is good, dates times names qualifications etc, leads me to think your not an enthusiast but more of a professional, full time so to speak, with a wealth of information at your fingertips.
      Your posture is at odds with the 81 percent of your population, I wonder how much of the remaining percentage is undecided.
      New people to this site with an interest in this subject should look for themselves and make up there own minds, for some it will be for fun, others it may become addictive. in the what ifs or buts,the more interest the louder the cry to release to hidden documents, welcome all newcomers, read and partisipate, let us all stand behind Jeff.

  6. JG says:

    Was he under oath ?

    • Jeff Pascal says:

      One of the most interesting things Jenkins says is “the spinal cord was completely severed on both sides” How in the world could a bullet do that? Certainly not hitting high in the rear of the head and exiting high in the right side above the ear. There are several major irreconcilable conflicts between the Parkland Doctors and the Bethesda Doctors-between the Autopsy Assistants, X-Ray Tech,Radiologist,& Embalmer,with the Autopsy Doctors, between the FBI Agents, and the Autopsy Doctors Report and so forth.The Key questions are- Were wounds enlarged in searching for bullets, or fragments, prior to the official Autopsy?Were bullets, or fragments recovered and not placed into evidence?

      • Photon says:

        Jeff Pascal , do you realize that statement completely impeached Jenkins credibility?
        In the process of removing the brain it is reflected back out of the posterior fossa of the skull. It is then removed by cutting the medulla at the level of the foramen magnum at the base of the skull.
        The spinal cord begins at the foramen magnum.
        As the neck was not dissected out as has been repeatedly stated by critics of the autopsy it was impossible for Jenkins ever to have seen the cord, let alone claim to note it to be severed on”both sides”, whatever that means.
        The thing I find very curious is the comment about the carotids being cut-apparently Mr. Horne has no idea how the brain is removed. But the real joke is Jenkins comments about using the carotids for ” infusion”. Incredible as it seems he had no idea of how they fix the brain.
        I realize that most people without a medical background have no idea how to interpret complete nonsense put out by people who claim to “know” but actually don’t.But the level of gullibility of some of the folks who lap this tripe up is rather depressing

        • Paulf says:

          Seriously, photon, what are your qualifications to discuss autopsies? Do you have any relevant degrees? What makes you more of an expert?

          And if you are to be believed, the way you critique the statements of eyewitnesses, most of the people involved in the treatment, transportation and autopsy of the president are incompetent, unqualified and of poor character. Isn’t that a bit odd that so many shady characters wound up in such positions of responsibility?

          • Photon says:

            They tended not to be in positions of responsibility- that is my point in establishing credentials. Most if not all of the autopsy witnesses favored by conspiracy theorists have no evidence of being involved directly with the autopsy, nor actually coming into contact with the body, nor even being a position to make the claimed observations. Jenkins claim of seeing a spinal cord “cut in two places” is a prime example- the cord was never dissected out of the back nor visible during removal of the brain, ie. to Jenkins it was INVISIBLE and his claimed observation was physically impossible. And yet people give his claims credence because he “was there”. Never mind the fact that his observations have changed markedly as time goes on.
            I don’t claim to be an expert- but I do defer to real experts like forensic pathologists, the vast majority of whom that are familiar with the case support the Warren Report conclusions- the exception being Dr. Wecht. I can take his objections seriously because he has the credentials of being an expert in the field. Virtually no other pro- conspiracy “experts” have any real expertise in the subjects that they claim to be authorities in. From Groden’s claim of being a photographic expert completely destroyed at the Simpson trial to Mr. Horne’s claims of being an expert in autopsy protocol and surgery to an entomologist who claims to be an acoustics expert the conspiracy community is chock full of people who simply don’t know what they are talking about.

  7. Prestion Newe says:

    I don’t believe the Navy would have kept James Jenkins employed if he were incompetent or untruthful. Many professions in life require the services of a subordinate helping their superior accomplish certain tasks. The biggest difference between Mr. Jenkins & his critics is & will always be that he was there at JFK’s autopsy performing his assigned duties & his detractors were not.
    I’m expecting Cyril Wecht & Fox News’ Dr. Baden to see & join this thread at moment; both know a lot about autopsies, much more so than anonymous self-proclaimed experts. The door’s open, gentlemen.

    • Photon says:

      But what were those duties? If one of his claims is proven to be impossible how can you believe anything he says-particularly his claims of how involved in the autopsy he claimed to have been?
      Particularly his nonsensical claim to be able to identify an exit wound by gray skin color.
      For instance, he claimed to have removed the brain as an assistant. That is ridiculous.

      • Photon says:

        And exactly how long was he in the Navy and what did he do after?

      • Rufus Pinochle says:

        It is not uncommon for the diener (i.e. helper) to perform organ removal (among other duties, such as weighing, etc.) E.g. see this add for a current federal opening (with attention to the first listed duty):

        https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=8aeb03949b35c8619eeb103f80474345&_cview=0

        However, the notion that the pathologists collaborated on a clandestine surgery to destroy evidence requires a great deal of imagination. The autopsy was not perfect, but it’s the only one JFK ever got, and so the report filed on form 503 must stand as the proximate record. Everything else, especially second-hand interpretations from suboptimal radiographs and testimony that twists and turns and evolves over the course of multiple investigations, is necessarily less reliable.

        • Photon says:

          If you think that a diener would be involved in removing the brain of a victim of a gunshot wound to the head you would be mistaken. If you think that a diener would be involved in removing the brain of a gunshot wound to the head victim who happens to be President of the United States you would be grossly mistaken.
          As Jenkins didn’t even know how to fix the brain it would appear that his responsibility in the autopsy suite has been vastly overblown.

          • Rufus Pinochle says:

            I have been mistaken before, but I think the diener’s particular responsibilities would depend on the established relationship with the pathologist(s) — one would not expect the division of labor to be the same for each set of autopsists in the country.

            I agree wholeheartedly that in a case of this, perhaps unprecedented, magnitude, the assistant’s role would be less pronounced than usual. Indeed, I believe Jenkins’ “testimony” is consistent in that regard as it reflected that he neither removed nor fixed Kennedy’s brain, is that correct? So, in that sense, there doesn’t seem to be much to dispute. The impression I got was that he (Jenkins) was primarily an observer at this autopsy and, on account of his previous experience, saw fit to comment on certain aberrations or irregularities.

            Does that mean his conclusions (specifically that JFK’s brain was removed before the autopsy) are valid? Of course not. Does it mean that all his observations should be discounted? I’d say of course not to that, too. Fact is, the autopsy was incomplete and took place in circumstances that the pathologists could not have found ideal, and that has given much fuel to the speculations concerning conspiracy of one sort or other. Without RFK’s overbearing presence upstairs and with an empty, quiet gallery, a complete autopsy would have ensued and much of the hubbub about secret surgeries and missing fragments would have never arisen.

        • Rob H says:

          Your conclusion shows such rank ignorance on the subject, it’s not even worth a full response.

          For openers, based on the testimony of witnesses like Dennis David, Paul O’Connor, Jim Jenkins, Floyd Reibe and Jerrol Custer, we have a break in the legal chain of possession on the body. Yet you would have us accept as fact, this legally inadmissable evidence.

          Next, are you aware it was Dr. Burkley who ordered Humes not to dissect the neck wound? I doubt it. This reduces the single-bullet theory to mere conjecture as to whether a bullet transited Kennedy. It also establishes that the autopsy doctors were directed in a manner designed to steer the examinataion clear of certain areas.

          You may have faith in the autopsy report, but only because you don’t have a good understanding of all the facts, much like McAdams.

          • John McAdams says:

            Next, are you aware it was Dr. Burkley who ordered Humes not to dissect the neck wound? I doubt it. This reduces the single-bullet theory to mere conjecture as to whether a bullet transited Kennedy.

            No, the wound in the back was clearly an entrance wound, since it had an abrasion collar.

            No bullet was found in the body, either by dissection or on the x-rays. So it had to have exited, and when Humes talked to Perry he correctly inferred it exited at the neck.

            Evidence Humes did not have confirms this:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg

            It also establishes that the autopsy doctors were directed in a manner designed to steer the examinataion clear of certain areas.

            No, it establishes that the autopsy was rushed, since the Kennedy people on the 17th floor were repeatedly calling down asking “when will this be over.”

            See Manchester on that.

            Also see:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

  8. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Mr. Jenkins, thank you for attending the 50th anniversary, re-stating your observations and expounding on them. We are fortunate Dr. Mantik was there to record them as I believe he is well respected in the research community.
    Your statements, to me are the final “nail in the coffin” regarding conspiracy. In conjunction with those of Corpsman O’Connor and FBI agents Siebert and Oneil about the “blowout in the back of the head” at Bethesda form a triumvirate of witnesses observation on the day of the execution. A multitude of Doctors, Nurses and others at Parkland in Dallas describe the same thing. Even if they did not lift he head as stated on this website the wound was large enough to notice otherwise by bending slightly or tilting the head. As it was they tried blood transfusions trying to save his life. This came pouring out of this right rear blowout head wound along with brain matter onto the gurney, dripping into the bucket on the floor.
    With the drawings of Dr. McClelland for Six Seconds in Dallas in 66′, Dr. Crenshaw’s 97′ diagram for the AARB an exit wound seems evident to a layman like me.
    This is all only exacerbated by the statements of the mortician. He noted, after stuffing the skull with a filling he inserted a piece of rubber into the right rear head wound hole to prevent oozing which he stitched the remaining portion of JFK’s scalp.

    I don’t know who fired the shot’s or orchestrated it but I have no doubt he was shot from the front and their was thus a conspiracy of some sort.

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Addendum. Mr. Jenkins, I’ve read you and Mr. O’Neil were forced to sign a non discousure statement regarding what you saw. The story of Dr. Pitzer is important here as well, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm?menu=JFKindex

    Dr.’s Humes and Boswell were pathologists, “diagnosis of disease” but not forensic pathologists, inexperienced in the forensics part. Dr. Finick arrived after the Brain, Heart and other organs were removed. He was a forensic pathologist, albeit in a administrative capacity with little and no recent hands on experience as you had, literally. His notes were stolen. Dr. Humes first report was burned, by him.
    These men were under the direction of others in the audience as the autopsy proceeded. I cannot but conclude your statements and those of others contain more veracity than the “official” version.
    Thank You, again.

    • John McAdams says:

      The story of Dr. Pitzer is important here as well, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm?menu=JFKindex

      Simkin is grossly irresponsible in putting that on his site without letting his readers know that the chief researcher on the issue (Allan Eaglesham) has concluded that Pitzer was not murdered.

      http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/

      Further, Eaglesham doubts Marvin’s story:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/marvin.htm

      • Tom S. says:

        Rob H,

        Comments are moderated. If you are submitting comments to discuss the facts in the articles, they will be approved as quickly as I can read them. If you are submitting comments to provoke or attack, do some research before presenting your insults.:
        http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/faculty_mcadams.shtml

        • Rob H says:

          Tom,

          It’s a bit of both. McAdams may be more eloquent in his abrasive behaviour, but he is abrasive just the same.

          I don’t see why these people should be allowed any special protection when they constantly refer to us as “buffs”, CTs, full of nonsense and the like. Or accuse us in one form or another of distorting the facts or doing second-rate research.

          That’s asking for it.

      • Rob H says:

        As usual, since the moderators are moving at snail’s pace in allowing new responses, I will use this to respond to your counter-rebuttal of my critique of the single bullet theory.

        Lattimer and Fackler are not ballistics experts. Hence, we must defer to those who are. The testimony of those who supervised the Army’s Edgewood Arensal report and the opinion of Colonel Joseph Dolce.

        I take Olivier’s statement at face value. He said Connally’s wrist wound could not have been caused by a pristine bullet and said it in plain English. There is no “context” which diminishes this remark.

        Dolce denounced the single-bullet theory and stated the damage must have been caused by another bullet which was missing.

        I would appreciate it if you would respond to my point, that later in the evening, when Humes probed the back wound, it was determined that the probe did not go through. O’Connor and Jenkins witnessed it, as did John Stringer.

      • Rob H says:

        Regarding whether Dolce conducted any experiments, he was a consultant for the Edgewood Arsenal tests.

        You have advised me to look at 399. I have… many times. Intact nose, intact jacket with some moderate flattening near the base. if you turn the flattened side out of view, it looks pristine. The Edgewood Arsenal report refers to CE 399 as pristine. I defer to their opinion.

      • Rob H says:

        With regard to your remark asking whether the bullet had penetrated the chest cavity, I’m somewhat baffled.

        Wasn’t the meaning there obvious? The metal probe inserted into back wound by Humes didn’t go through. Hence, no transiting bullet. Single bullet theory destroyed.

        And this leads to another question. Since there should have been a bullet at the bottom of that track, where did it go?

        Answer: Someone removed it.

      • Rob H says:

        John,

        Regarding the abrasion collar remark on your part, it brazenly evaded the issue of Humes determination that the back wound didn’t transit.

        And now you have the flaming audacity to state that it must have, based on conjecture.

        By the way, thanks for mentioning the penetrating power of the MC, which makes the case that it didn’t create the shallow back wound.

        It appears you have (heh heh) shot yourself in the foot.

        Answer the damned question about Burkley. Your references aren’t worth a cigar made of rolled newspaper. He prevented Humes from dissecting the back wound, which is standard operating procedure for an autopsy.

        The stakes are further raised against you given that we now know the back wound didn’t transit, meaning Burkley prevented the dissection to keep that fact hidden.

  10. Photon says:

    So Ronnie, what are the qualifications necessary to sit for the American Board of Pathology certification exam?
    Who is Dr . Finick?
    And lastly, don’t demonstrate your ignorance of the case by describing LCDR Pitzer as “Dr.” Pitzer. What Medical School did he attend? Do you know how easy it is to prove he wasn’t an M.D.?

  11. Pat Speer says:

    YIKES! Let me clear up some of the nonsense being spread about Jenkins’ appearance at the Lancer conference. I was present at both breakout sessions–the first attended by perhaps 10 people, the second attended by perhaps 30–and took some notes. I asked Jenkins a number of questions, and talked to Mantik briefly as well.

    First, as admitted in his blog post, Horne wasn’t there. Mantik attended both sessions, as I recall–although I think he came in late at the first one. Gary Aguilar came in halfway through the first one, and asked some questions. But I don’t think he attended the second one. If I recall, Josiah Thompson was present at the first one as well. But was not present at the second.

    I remember looking around at one point in the first session and thinking to myself that no one was recording Jenkins’ statements, and worrying if this would lead to problems down the road.

    The second session was much more crowded, and I’d be willing to bet someone recorded the thing, but can’t say for sure.

    Now, some observations:

    1. Jenkins was introduced by William Law. It was clear from the introduction and Jenkins’ comments that he was not an attention-seeker, and was someone who had a unique view on a moment in history, and thought it proper that he share this with those with an interest. He was not selling anything. He made it clear that this was the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s death, and that he decided that that was an appropriate time for him to attend a JFK conference for the first and (presumably) last time, and tell his story.

    2. Jenkins tried to avoid speculation. He said Humes removed the brain but that Humes made a comment while doing so that led him (Jenkins) to assume it came out really easily. Jenkins was later asked to infuse formalin into the brain. He said the brain stem appeared to have been cut more than once, from different sides. He didn’t explain what that meant. He did say that Humes’ comments and the shriveled condition of the carotids led him to believe the brain had been removed prior to autopsy, and then put back in the skull.

    3. The rest of his statements made it hard to see how this could be. He stressed–repeatedly–that the back of Kennedy’s head was INTACT at the beginning of the autopsy. I wrote down some of his words, and added them into my online book. Here’s the paragraph in which I quote Jenkins:

    “In focus group discussions at the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas he (Jenkins) told a group of people, including at one point Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and myself, that a common ‘misconception is that that there was actually skull missing’ at the back of Kennedy’s head. He explained that ‘the skull was fragmented from here (he pointed to the top of his head above his ear) to here (he pointed to the back of his head behind his ear), but it was intact.’ He later re-iterated ‘All of this back here (he pointed to the back of his head) was attached’ and still later, in a second discussion close to midnight, that ‘The only thing keeping the skull structure intact was the scalp’ and that it all collapsed when they pulled the scalp back.”

    4. Jenkins also repeated his claim he’d seen the impression on the back of the empty chest cavity pleura when Humes tried to probe the back wound with his finger. He said there was no passage into the cavity, and that the wound headed down from its entrance on the skin.

    5. Jenkins also repeated his claim he thought a bullet had entered at the temple, at a gray-smeared location on the skull later determined to be part of the exit. Here is the section from my online book in which I present some of his exact words.

    “On November 22, 2013, at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas, Jenkins shared his recollections of what happened fifty years before with a small audience. I was in that audience, actually two audiences–one in the afternoon and one late at night–and took notes. When discussing this discoloration, Jenkins said he heard Dr. Pierre Finck tell Dr. Humes ‘that may be lead from a bullet.’ And that’s not all. Jenkins also said that his impression upon viewing Kennedy’s skull and x-rays was that fractures radiated out from the temple. Jenkins said that this impression, fueled by Finck’s words, stuck with him throughout the autopsy, to such an extent that after the completion of the autopsy he ‘went home with the knowledge that the wound (he meant bullet) that killed the President entered here (he pointed to his temple) and exited here (he pointed to the top of his head).’ He said he was surprised to find out later that the doctors had concluded that this wound–the one ‘in front and a little bit above the right ear’–was actually an exit.”

    Now, I took Jenkins’ words to mean he thought the bullet entered tangentially by the ear, and blew off the top of the head. I don’t recall his saying this entrance was a separate wound from the large wound on top of the head. I look forward to reading a transcript so I can clear this up in my own mind.

    Now, let’s be clear about this.

    Mantik and Horne are trying to convince people Jenkins’ impression about Kennedy’s brain supports their theories regarding wound alteration, etc. I think this is silly in the extreme.

    If I recall, Horne proposed there was an orange-sized wound at the back of Kennedy’s head when the body arrived at Bethesda, that Dr. Humes enlarged to include the top of the head. Jenkins specified that there was a wound at the TOP of Kennedy’s head when the body arrived at Bethesda, that was expanded to include the back of the head once Humes peeled back the scalp, and the skull collapsed. Jenkins’ core statements about what he observed thereby undercut most everything Horne believes and has proposed. So WHY is he pretending Jenkins’ statements support his theory?

    Ditto for Mantik. Mantik holds that the Harper fragment was blown out the back of Kennedy’s head from the occipital region of his skull. Jenkins’ specified–repeatedly–that there was NO HOLE in this location. So WHY is Mantik pretending Jenkins’ statements support his theory?

    I mean, something just doesn’t add up. Perhaps Mantik and Horne have modified their theories to incorporate Jenkins’ statements, whereby they now believe Humes not only enlarged the hole on Kennedy’s head to pull out the brain without Jenkins’ knowledge, he sealed it back up somehow after putting the brain back in, only to undue it in front of Jenkins later on while making some comment about how the brain fell out in his hands…

    But to me, it all smacks of desperation… Jenkins said some things which fit what I already suspected. He said some other things that sounded pretty wild. This is, I suspect, what one should expect from witnesses 50 years after the fact.

    • JSA says:

      I’ve come to the idea (pay attention Photon: I’m about to admit to a mistake) that perhaps my earlier embrasure of folks like Lifton, who claimed alteration of JFK’s head wounds and brain, may not have happened. It didn’t need to. Nobody was going to stop Lyndon Johnson after JFK had been eliminated. He controlled the situation, and quite masterfully I might add. However sloppy the Oswald cover story as a lone communist, however sloppy the single bullet theory nonsense, etc.—-didn’t matter. Power had switched hands. The bottom line is, the Warren Commission got its pig storyline dressed up and smeared with lipstick. LBJ was able to get elected in the fall. As Nixon said, “I wanted very badly to be president, but I wasn’t willing to KILL for it.” Source: Roger Stone’s book. I think Nixon knew the score.

      • Rob H says:

        After Ruby shot Oswald, many began to suspect it was part of a greater plot, part of which was to have Oswald silenced. Additional rumors began to spread that Johnson was involved.

        In response, LBJ created the Warren Commission whose goal was to pin the blame on Oswald alone and put public doubt to rest. The presidentail election was only one year away and if Johnson were to be elected, it was crucial he clear the atmosphere of suspicion.

        For years, I was resistant to the idea of LBJ’s involvement. While there does not appear to be any conclusive evidence of his connection with Kennedy’s death, I suspect Johnson for a variety of reasons.

        First, it seems intuitive that for a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and not have Johnson on board would be very dangerous for the former.

        Second, at the time, Johnson was facing indictment and jail time for involvement in the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals. As president, and with the FBI and CIA standing behind him, he was far less vulnerable.

        Third, from what I’ve read, Johnson had a connection to one Malcolm Wallace, a local thug who committed at least one murder.

        I believe Johnson had both the criminal mindset and motive to have Kennedy killed. J. Edgar Hoover was not only a friend of LBJ’s, but also had motive to see Kennedy out of the way as his days at the Bureau were numbered. As did the CIA whom Kennedy strongly disliked and was intent on whittling them down to size.

        As the Bobby Baker and Billy sol Estes scandals began to unravel around LBJ, I don’t find it difficult to visualize the CIA approaching him and offering a deal. We’ll take care of Kennedy, but in return, certain favors will be expected. Hoover probably needed little coaxing to climb on board.

        I realize much of this is speculation, but it is my personal belief as to how the ball got rolling.

        At any rate, in 1963, Johnson knew his credibility was under a cloud of suspicion, and that a whitewash of the assassination was necessary to make him electable in 1964.

        • Photon says:

          As soon as JFK was buried, Johnson was assured re-election. He didn’t need to whitewash anything. Even Goldwater knew that public sentiment and sympathy made the election of any Republican impossible in 1964 and initially wanted to give up on running in 1964. He ultimately ran to promote his conservative ideas despite knowing it was a lost cause.
          Hoover’s job was secure as long as JFK was in the White House. If JFK wanted to get rid of Hoover he had 900 days to do it. He didn’t even try. Why? To begin with Hoover had a personal relationship with Joe Kennedy; the Arvad business didn’t derail JFK’s naval career probably because of that relationship. Second , the moment that Hoover showed pictures to JFK of Judy Campbell entering the White House his job was secure for the rest of JFK’s Presidency.
          Actually in 1964 the belief that Johnson was involved was non-existent.
          How about some facts instead of innuendo and inaccurate assumptions.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Mr. Speer, I’ve read many of your posts on the Education Forum and found virtually all intelligent and often insightful. I was not aware you had a blog or on-line book. It looks interesting and I want to read there in more depth. My post on this thread was based on the statement by Mr. Horne from Dr. Mantik’s notes saying “twice during his talk at JFK Lancer, Jenkins recalled that he did observe the large wound in the right rear of the head, and it’s approximate size was “somewhat larger than a silver dollar””.
      If you can find a transcript I’d like to read it too.
      I did read the review by Mr. DiEugeino linked on your site of it. A positive review by him give it and your work credence as he does not hesitate to speak his mind freely. I did notice though that one of the two points he is contentious about was “the more than 40 witnesses between Parkland and Bethesda” that saw the right rear “hole”.
      Keep up the good work sir.

      • Pat Speer says:

        Ronnie, I discuss the “back of the head” witnesses in great detail in Chapters 18c and 18d of my website. If you read it, be prepared. I’m pretty hard on some very prominent researchers.

        If Jenkins said he observed a large wound on the right rear of the head (I don’t remember his using those words), I’m fairly certain he was either 1) talking about the head after Humes peeled back the scalp and skull fell to the table, or 2) talking about the TOP of the head. As stated, he repeatedly specified that the back of the head–the occipital/parietal region where so many thought they saw a wound–was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp.

        • GaryA says:

          Hi Pat,

          Here’s what anyone can find about Jenkins, from my on-line compilation: JAMES CURTIS JENKINS: the other laboratory technologist who worked with the autopsy team on JFK, Jenkins was at that time in a Ph.D. program in pathology. ( High Treason II , p. 226) The HSCA’s Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy reported that Jenkins “said he saw a head wound in the “…middle temporal region back to the occipital.” (HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4) He told author, David Lifton, “I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head–it was a large gaping area…It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear.” (Lifton, Best Evidence “, p. 616) When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, “That’s not possible, That is totally–you know, there’s no possible way. Okay? It’s not possible.” ( Best Evidence , p. 617) Jenkins told Livingstone, “Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area….this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.” ( High Treason II , p. 228). Jenkins’ views, whether as given by the HSCA, Livingstone, or Lifton, are noteworthy by their consistency, and as Jenkins was in a Ph.D. pathology program, his anatomic specificity is of value.

          • Photon says:

            There was no Ph.D. Program in Pathology, certainly not for someone who was’t even a college graduate. Why you persist in this lie is beyond me; why don’t you describe this phantom program. From what I can see Jenkins anatomical expertise was nil and there is no evidence that he even came in contact with JFK’s corpse.

          • Pat Speer says:

            The point I was trying to make about Jenkins, Gary, was supported by the quotes you presented. While he thought there was a wound on the back of the head (which one might presume is inconsistent with the autopsy photos) he has also made it clear that he believed this wound was towards the top of the skull and was higher up on the skull than is presumed by so many CTs, who wish to believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Jenkins’ statements do not support that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the cerebellum was exposed, and researchers trying to claim as much should stop doing so, IMO.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Get real, Photon. Jenkins and O’Connor were Humes’ and Boswell’s assistants during the autopsy, so of course they touched the body. They were interviewed by the HSCA’s investigators, and by a number of others afterward. Boswell, for one, admitted he’d read Livingstone’s books in which they were interviewed. If they were hoaxers he’d have certainly called them out on it.

          • GaryA says:

            I wrote that Jenkins was in a Ph.D. program because that was what was reported in High Treason II. I have no way of independently verifying that and can’t “prove it.” Perhaps someone will ask Jenkins or have independent corroboration.

            But in the meantime, “Photon,” what do you say about what Jenkins originally said?

            And what do you say about what the professors at Parkland said on the day of the assassination?

            Notes from the Dallas doctors written on the afternoon of the assassination, as published in the Warren Report:

            P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

            p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue present with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

            p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

            p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

            p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

            P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

            Gary

  12. Nominay says:

    Wow, the deniers are pathologically in denial. The malfeasance that went down at the autopsy, based on multiple witnesses speaks for itself. The attempts to discredit all of them lacks credibility and displays full on ideology. It’s easy to make light of anything, such as the report on JFK’s arrival at Bethesda, but the deniers like Photon aggressively offer nothing in return and compulsively clutch at straws. This dismissive and disrespectful attitude is pitiful and irresponsible, not to mention defying rationality. They can pretend their take on all this is some kind of common standard for logic all they want, but saying so doesn’t make it so, and clearly it’s a bunch of odd and unpersusaive nonsense to millions of people.
    There are literally hundreds of things wrong with lone nutterism that have nothing to do with theory; the lone nutter fundamentalism is incompatible with hard facts of the case, such as the uniformity of the Parkland witnesses who saw a gaping hole blown out of JFK’s head at the right quadrant, and the bizarre deaths and the enormity in number of those closely associated with the case. To deny hundreds of instances that greatly undermine the offical case is indeed unique to the JFK case.

    • John McAdams says:

      such as the uniformity of the Parkland witnesses who saw a gaping hole blown out of JFK’s head at the right quadrant,

      The “uniformity” is something you only get in conspiracy books, but not when looking at the primary sources.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

      the enormity in number of those closely associated with the case.

      This argument doesn’t hold water.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

      The vast majority of “mystery deaths” were not of people “closely associated,” but rather not in fact associated at all.

      • GaryA says:

        There was a remarkable degree of uniformity among witnesses to JFK’s skull injuries – they noted a substantial injury that involved the right rear of JFK’s head.

        Here’s James Jenkins: JAMES CURTIS JENKINS: the other laboratory technologist who worked with the autopsy team on JFK, Jenkins was at that time in a Ph.D. program in pathology. ( High Treason II , p. 226) The HSCA’s Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy reported that Jenkins “said he saw a head wound in the “…middle temporal region back to the occipital.” (HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4) He told author, David Lifton, “I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head–it was a large gaping area…It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear.” (Lifton, Best Evidence “, p. 616) When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, “That’s not possible, That is totally–you know, there’s no possible way. Okay? It’s not possible.” ( Best Evidence , p. 617) Jenkins told Livingstone, “Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area….this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.” ( High Treason II , p. 228). Jenkins’ views, whether as given by the HSCA, Livingstone, or Lifton, are noteworthy by their consistency, and as Jenkins was in a Ph.D. pathology program, his anatomic specificity is of value.

        If past is prologue, McA will say that Jenkins’ accounts occurred long after the fact and can’t therefore be credited. But it’s worth comparing Jenkins’ accounts from the morgue with the notes taken on the day of the assassination by the experienced trauma surgeons at Parkland, three professors among them.

        Now McA will likely say that the Parkland docs didn’t actually see JFK’s wounds, but, unless they lied to the Boston Globe and others, they did indeed take a good look at JfK’s skull, as anyone who’s done that sort of trauma work knows. (I’ve done it myself, as the admitting surgeon at a well-known trauma center, UCLA-Harbor General Hospital. It’s silly to suggest experience trauma surgeons don’t look at fatal wounds, I don’t care how distinguished the victim.)

        But the problem is that the witnesses from Parkland and the autopsy describe wounds that are markedly different from the autopsy photos. So, to maintain McA’s position, he’s got to admit that the Parkland doctors are the lousiest trauma surgeons in the country, or they’re liars that they actually examined JfK’s head. And he’s also got to say it’s nothing more than a coincidence that virtually all the other witnesses at both Parkland and the autopsy described JFK’s wound in virtually the same “wrong” way. Such as:JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell’s lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, Rudnicki was interviewed by HSCA’s Mark Flanagan on 5/2/78. Flanagan reported Rudnicki said, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.” (HSCA rec # 180- 10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p.2.)He told author Harrison Livingston, “…from the ear back, the scalp was either gone or definitely destroyed in that area…..it would look more like it was an exit than an entrance.” When asked if there was any scalp left in the right rear of the head behind the ear, Rudnicki said, “That was gone.”( High Treason II , p. 207) Rudnicki’s account to the HSCA squares with Livingstone’s.

        Finally, McA’s got to explain how there is virtually no witness description that describes what we see in the photos: a blowout of the right, anterior and lateral portion of JfK’s skull.

        But let’s compare these “unreliable” witnesses, above, with the professors at Parkland who wrote down what they saw immediately, on the day of the assassination.

        From the Warren Report:

        P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

        p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue present with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

        p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

        p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

        p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

        P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

      • Rob H says:

        John,

        There may not have been uniformity with regard to the wound in the skull rear, but there’s a strong consensus. Please go check Gary A’s previous post which cites the Dallas medical witnesses on this point.

        Or go to the back of the Warren Report and read the reports of these people.

        As for the mysterious deaths, some are incredibly suspect such as those of Pfitzer and Demorenschidlt.

        • John McAdams says:

          There may not have been uniformity with regard to the wound in the skull rear, but there’s a strong consensus. Please go check Gary A’s previous post which cites the Dallas medical witnesses on this point.

          I’ve long since dealt with Aguilar’s claims.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

          Aguilar is selective in what he reports, and tendentious in how he interprets it.

          And: do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays were forged?

          As for the mysterious deaths, some are incredibly suspect such as those of Pfitzer and Demorenschidlt.

          No, they aren’t.

          http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homrecon.html

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

          When you hear of something that sounds “incredibly suspect,” you should ask how it sounds if you had more information. Information conspiracy authors will withhold from you.

          • “When you hear of something that sounds “incredibly suspect,” you should ask how it sounds if you had more information. Information conspiracy authors will withhold from you.”
            ~McAdams

            You cannot be serious here. You have “informed” us of the so-called “information” that you assert has been “withheld”. We are fully aware of your side of the story. That is the reason we are able to counter your nonsense. The old adage applies: “Know thine enemy”. You are well given much study on that account__and found lacking.
            \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            Aguilar is quoting from the Warren Commission volumes and it’s inarguable that a majority of Dallas medical witnesses saw either a wound in the rear of the head or extruding cerebellar tissue, or both. This is the reality. Live with it.

            You have considerable gall to criticize Gary A for his style.

            I’ll address the issue of the photos as valid evidence since I’m rusty on the details surrounding the X-Rays.

            First and foremost, I’m convinced that the consensus opinion of the Parkland witnesses is indisputable with regard to a wound in the skull rear. Even the official autopsy report mentions damage extending to the occipital.

            The official photographs don’t show it.

            In addition, if you read Humes’ HSCA testimony before the Forensic Panel, at one point, both he and Boswell strongly challenged the higher, revised location for the entry wound which was raised four inches higher by the Clark Panel. Without actually saying it, Humes’ testimony were the equivalent of denouncing these photos as fakes.

            As a sidenote, in his ARRB testimony, Humes stated he never retracted on that.

            Correct me if I’m mistaken, but has it not been determined at this point that the photos were developed by a different lens than the one used at the morgue? I can get back to you on that.

          • Rob H says:

            John,

            Regarding Demorenschildt, if I’m not mistaken, he was found dead of a shotgun blast to the head a very short time before he was to testify before the HSCA

          • John McAdams says:

            In addition, if you read Humes’ HSCA testimony before the Forensic Panel, at one point, both he and Boswell strongly challenged the higher, revised location for the entry wound which was raised four inches higher by the Clark Panel. Without actually saying it, Humes’ testimony were the equivalent of denouncing these photos as fakes.

            No, he wanted to move the entry down, near the EOP where he had put it in the autopsy. He never took exception to the location of the “great defect.”

            In fact, in 1967, the autopsists authenticated the materials.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt

            As for Aguilar’s claims, I suggest you read my analysis:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

            You also need to read the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays done by the HSCA:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

            has it not been determined at this point that the photos were developed by a different lens than the one used at the morgue?

            This is another Aguilar thing: when Bethesda turned the camera over to the HSCA, there was a different lens on it.

            Aguilar claims this is evidence of fakery, but the photos and x-rays were not matched to the camera. They were examined for internal evidence of fakery, and matched to the person of JFK.

          • John McAdams says:

            Regarding Demorenschildt, if I’m not mistaken, he was found dead of a shotgun blast to the head a very short time before he was to testify before the HSCA

            He put a 20 gauge shotgun in his mouth, and pulled the trigger.

            You really need to read this:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

          • John McAdams says:

            As a sidenote, in his ARRB testimony, Humes stated he never retracted on that.

            Actually, he briefly retracted the EOP entry wound before the HSCA.

            Then he went back to claiming the wound was at the EOP.

            In fact, it was in the cowlick area, as the photos and x-rays show.

            You can read about this in HSCA Volume 7.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘He put a 20 gauge shotgun in his mouth, and pulled the trigger.’ — John McAdams

            Yes RobH, and on the doorstep of the Tilton Mansion in Manalapan, FL at the moment those shots were fired was Bill O’Reilly, currently of Fox News who alleges in his book that he had flown from Dallas to attempt an interview with deM on the eve of his testimony before the HSCA. O’Reilly’s version of events decades later – timed in particular coincidence around the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy – reinforced the official version of deMohrenshildt’s death by suicide; after all, he didn’t see anyone flee the scene. However, does it not beg the questions: why didn’t Bill phone authorities to report the sound of gunfire? why didn’t he stay around until authorities arrived? His timing was otherwise impeccable when he shared with the nation these recollections on the eve of the 50th anniversary.

            Added to the mystery, according to his semi-private memoirs Sam Ballen – the close friend of deMohrenschildt for twenty years – arranged the interview with Edward Epstein that had begun earlier in the day of deM’s death. Had Ballen negotiated on behalf of his friend, had he been the conduit for Readers Digest who was underwriting the Epstein/deM interview? That is unclear. What is clear is that Ballen received a call while he was in Austin TX attending a meeting of the Texas Railroad Commission within hours of deM’s death. Whoever made the call had am immediate sense of obligation to Ballen, whether it was with the sensitivity of sharing news with a dear friend of deM or another reason, we’ll never know.

          • Rob H says:

            Regarding Humes’ HSCA “retraction” on the original placement of the rear entry wound to the skull, I simply don’t believe it. Both he and Boswell vigorously stood by the lower position when questioned by the Forensic Panel.

            After such a defense, I’m not buying the notion he suddenly reversed course, and in his ARRB testimony claimed he never did.

            In my opinion, at times the HSCA was almost as corrupt as the Warren Commission and must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, in his ARRB testimony, John Stringer denied he had ever met with the HSCA despite the existence of a written record stating otherwise.

            I regard the ARRB investigation as the only one conducted with integrity.

            In summary, I strongly believe Humes was telling the truth when he told the ARRB that he did not retract. Hence, he was effectively denouncing those photos showing the raised location for the rear skull entry point.

          • Rob H says:

            Earlier, you stated Demorenschildt placed a shotgun into his mouth and pulled the trigger.

            My response was “You weren’t there and you didn’t see it”, which is obviously true.

            The post mortem you cite may establish the cause of death, but not necessarily the who and the why.

            Before his demise, Demorenschildt mentioned being shadowed by unknown individuals he regarded as threatening. He wrote a letter to CIA Director, George Bush and received a personal response. And apparently had some knowledge of Oswald.

            Then a short time before he was to testify before the ARRB, he was found dead of a shotgun wound to the head. That is not a common means of suicide.

            We will never know for sure what happened and to simply dismiss all suspicion seems narrow-minded.

          • Rob H says:

            Correction: When I stated Demorenschildt was found dead a short time before he was to testify before the ARRB, I meant HSCA.

            As for your accusation that JFK researchers “withhold” evidence, I haven’t seen much evidence of it. On the other hand, this sort of tactic is rampant with the opposition.

          • Rob H says:

            I’ll cite a few examples of how questionable your responses are.

            When confronted with Humes probing of the back wound after the examination was over, and observing the probe wasn’t going through, your response was to bring up an abrasion collar.

            This irrelevant remark clearly evaded the question raised by the probe results and you knew it was irrelevant.

            When I mentioned how Burkley steered the examination away from the back wound, your response was, this was proof the autopsy was rushed.

            No. This is not a valid explanation because the autopsy lasted for at least four hours. Furthermore, I’m convinced you’re aware of this.

            In preventing dissection of the neck, Burkley was clearly preventing a full examination.

            Rather than concede to that obvious point, you trot what you knew to be false.

            Suffice to say, anyone who gets to know you will soon be aware of these slippery tactics.

          • John McAdams says:

            When confronted with Humes probing of the back wound after the examination was over, and observing the probe wasn’t going through, your response was to bring up an abrasion collar.

            This irrelevant remark clearly evaded the question raised by the probe results and you knew it was irrelevant.

            You were trying to prove that the bullet didn’t transit the torso of JFK.

            The fact that the back wound is an entrance wound, and the fact that no bullet was found in the torso shows that it did.

            Did I not post the link to the HSCA statement on probing a wound? The fact that a wound can’t be probed doesn’t prove a bullet did not transit.

            A human body is not a block of Styrofoam.

          • John McAdams says:

            When I mentioned how Burkley steered the examination away from the back wound, your response was, this was proof the autopsy was rushed.

            No. This is not a valid explanation because the autopsy lasted for at least four hours. Furthermore, I’m convinced you’re aware of this.

            I did post a link to the HSCA treatment of the issue, right?

            No, wait, you think they are all a bunch of liars.

            Why don’t you go to the library and get Manchester. You can read all about it there.

            He talked to the people who were on the 17th floor.

          • John McAdams says:

            The post mortem you cite may establish the cause of death, but not necessarily the who and the why.

            When shotgun pellets (and wadding) go through the roof of the mouth into the brain, it’s pretty obviously suicide.

            Did you even bother to read the Report I linked to?

          • “The fact that the back wound is an entrance wound, and the fact that no bullet was found in the torso shows that it did.”~McAdams

            “Professor” McAdams, it has been pointed out to you time and again that this assertion is conjecture. The wound was not dissected, as per necessary post mortem procedure when such an indication is presented. Meaning that one would ASSUME that as back wound is an entrance wound, and the fact that no bullet was found in the torso INDICATES the bullet had an exit point. But that assumption itself does not PROVE an exit point. Only tracking the path of the bullet from that entrance to an exit PROVES a connection between entrance and exit.

            This is Logic 101. And this brings us to Col Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial wherein he stated that the autopsy team was instructed from the gallery by a general officer to forgo the dissection.

            Further Col Finck could not identify who that officer or officers were or was.

            In a second point of pure conjecture you argue that these were “orders passed down from the Kennedy family”.

            With enough “if’s, maybe’s, and but’s”; a clever rhetorician can “prove” any point to his satisfaction. However it does not prove such points to a critical mind.– R-∞

            [Relitigation Ad Infinitum]
            \\][//

      • Rob H says:

        Regarding your remark about the abrasion collar around the back wound.

        This doesn’t seem relevant. The issue was my previous statement, that by failing to dissect the neck, the conclusion for a transiting back wound was based on conjecture.

        • Rob H,

          Again McAdam fails to realize that he must prove his “facts” in a reasonable manner. We do not need to prove his facts wrong. The defense can always be satisfied with reasonable doubt. That is the whole point of litigation. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. The defense merely produces reasonable doubt.
          — Western Jurisprudence 101
          \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            McAdams takes us to task on the basis of not using the “best evidence”. But when I cite the Army ballistics experts who denounced CE 399 as having shattered Connally’s wrist bone, what does McAdams do? He brings in Fackler and Lattimer who are complete amateurs.

            When I cite how later in the autopsy, Humes determined by probes that the back wound didn’t transit, McAdams falls back on conjecture to dispute it.

          • Photon says:

            You neglect to mention that the ballistics experts completely forgot to take into account that the bullet had significantly slowed after passing through Connolly ( and briefly JFK). The amateurs Fackler and Lattimer did reduce the speed of their rounds to that which was compatible with the true velocity of the round as it entered Connolly’s wrist and viola! Even less disruption than seen with #399.
            As usual, the CTer reluctance to tell the Rest of the Story.

    • lysias says:

      Not unique. There are similarly numerous problems with the official account of 9/11.

  13. Paul Turner says:

    Jean Davison says the idea that Tague forced the creation of the SBT is a myth. Remember, Jean, that J Edgar Hoover didn’t want to have any missed shots. The fact that there WAS one caused problems for Hoover and the Warren Commission. And of course Tague had pretty good evidence of the missed shot-it missed JFK and the fragments of the shot hit Tague.

  14. I would like an explanation for why this fellow Rob H suddenly pops into JFKfact on a thread almost three years old.

    To my thinking this is an act of provocation. And as such an act of a provocateur. As several commentators have mentioned Jenkins does NOT agree with the Horne, Lifton, Fetzer “Stolen Body” gumbo.

    Let us revisit what Pat Speer said:

    Pat Speer
    December 14, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    “Jenkins did not support Horne’s theories. Mantik and Horne have cherry-picked a few of his statements to make it appear that he does, but Jenkins was adamant that the back of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy–overlying shattered skull, but intact. If this is true, and there’s good reason to believe it is, Horne and Mantik will have to revise their theories a bit.”

    Now we have a new commentator in Rob H, revising it backward.

    Wassup?
    \\][//

    • Rob H says:

      I’ll tell you what’s up.

      Jenkins has changed his testimony. Different from what he was telling researchers for over twenty years.

      I hold him to his original position.

      • That does not explain why you suddenly popped up on a thread that is almost 3 years old here.

        Your argument has small reliance on Jenkins testimony at any rate. None of you or Lifton-Horne et al makes any sense anyway.
        It is all a tale based on supposition stretched to the point of ripping. It is utter nonsense promoted by a cabal of moles and charlatans in orbit around the Grand Poo-bah of BS, James Fetzer.

        You might as well take up knitting, you are never going to convince rational people of this garbage.
        \\][//

      • James Henry Fetzer
        January 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm
        “American Moon” should shed a great deal of light on one of the greatest hoaxes of history. For those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, consider AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which also addresses the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, the first death of Saddam Hussein, the second death of Osama bin Laden, and the Holocaust. Nothing is as we have been told. Check out moonrockbooks.com, where the more intellectually curious can also consider NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and, most recently, AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). Our government has been playing us for saps.”

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/mazzucco-american-moon/#comment-39737

        \\][//

      • Rob H says:

        I retract my previous statement on Jenkins. It was made prematurely on the basis of limited information.

  15. Tom S. says:

    Rob H.:

    When I began as comments editor on this website, there were numerous instances of name calling, nick naming, unveiled insults. If your submitted comments never appear, look within and then compare your comments to the comments of others. It is not your place, for example, to critique the educational level of others and expect that anyone else will ever read your opinion about that, here, aside from you. I moderate my own comments, but I address the man as “Dr. McAdams.”

    Who do you suppose you are, where do you suppose you are?

    • Rob H says:

      Tom,

      who am I? I’m the guy who put up a recent post taking McAdams to task for not including Ruby’s Vol. V testimony, pp. 191-198. at his anti-conspiracy website. I see it was taken down.

      I also see that the website is not allowing direct responses to many of McAdams posts because you don’t have the Reply option in place.

      So let me turn your question against you. Who the heck do you think you are?

      • Tom S. says:

        I see it was taken down.

        Is this a set up? Is your next move, “well, you “put it back up,” after I called you on it!”

        I’ll wait for an apology that may never come.:
        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jerry-hills-lies-heart-tippit-shooting/#comment-856067

        Rob H., if your role as a commenter here amounts to a crusade against Dr. McAdams, why not take it here?:
        https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.assassination.jfk

        Your opinion aside, we challenge him daily, here in Jfkfacts comments, and we also do quite a number of other things,
        so rest assured, we’ll keep Dr. McAdams in check here, while you confront him on his own turf, in each and every comment.

        • Rob H says:

          I’m not going to engage McAdams on ground of his own choosing.

          My post was taken down, so you owe me an apology.

        • Rob H says:

          Tom,

          Why don’t you go to the McAdams website you recommended?

          You won’t be missed.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Rob H.:

            I hope you reconsider what you have said to Tom S. Tom is the FINEST moderator on the web. If you are pissed at McAdams, go to his site. Please leave us Tom. Otherwise, we are left with no one to post quickly AND someone who will dig a little deeper than the standard “company line.”

          • Rob H,

            You are sorely wrong YOU are the one that won’t be missed here.

            I suggest that you bail if you don’t like the moderation here.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            “You won’t be missed.” RobH

            Presumably you mean that ‘you’ won’t miss the new moderator of jfkfacts were he to become so exasperated he wouldn’t be able to justify the time and energy required to herd buffalos.

            Correct me, but aren’t you rather new to this particular forum and in fact, didn’t you surface within a few months of Tom S. who took on the thankless task of moderating? Did you follow Tom here?

            Are you here to test the metal of the new moderator, to disrupt the dialogue, or to contribute?

            Hopefully for the health of this site, Tom S is not going anywhere. You on the other hand may need to make a personal decision … establish your own forum where you can call the shots. A number of private citizens have done so, courageously; the question is whether or not they have been effective. And remember, should you do so, your site may well require moderating.

  16. Rob H says:

    The John McAdam Statement of the Month:

    “Just because a probe didn’t go through doesn’t mean a bullet didn’t transit.”

    YES, it does John, if those watching the probe can see it making indentations against the pleura without going through.

    Don’t criticize “Best Evidence” until you read it.

    • Photon says:

      No Rob, you are totally incorrect. Standard forensic pathology technique is not to force a probe down a suspected bullet channel because it may create a false passage. It is not uncommon for bullet paths through soft tissue to collapse and obliterate the channel, particularly over time as the affected tissues become edematous . An analogous process occurs if you use H2O2 for mouthwash.Occasionally the peroxide enters and irritates the Parotid duct, causing it to close for several days and giving the individual what appears to be a unilateral case of the mumps. You can’t force a probe through that duct, even though it is usually open and drains the Parotid gland.

      • Rob H says:

        The problem here is that your argument is speculative without any supporting evidence.

        If one of the Bethesda witnesses stepped forward and said something like, “Humes was pretty rough when pushing the probe into that wound”, you’d have a good point.

        • Photon says:

          My argument reflects standard pathological and surgical practice- you never force a probe, trocar or instrument through tissue that you do not intend to perforate.
          Of course Rob, I’m sure that you have attended enough autopsies and operations to be an expert in surgical technique. And I am sure that you have experience dealing with fistulae that result from your approach.

          • Rob H says:

            Photon,

            You’ll have to prove Humes made a false channel.

            What are your credentials in pathology?

    • “Just because a probe didn’t go through doesn’t mean a bullet didn’t transit.”~McAdams

      What it means is it cannot be proven that the bullet transited the body. As shallow as the wound was the bullet may have worked its way out of the wound during the pounding on Kennedy’s chest by Dr Perry’s attempts to get Kennedy’s heart beating again.

      Regardless of any speculation, there is NO PROOF that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back transited the body. That is why the essential procedure of dissecting the wound to track the bullet was necessary.

      Which leads us again to Col Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial.
      A carousel that these disinformants lead this forum into time and again.
      \\][//

      • Rob H says:

        All of which proves your inability to comprehend what is put before you in plain English.

        It also proves you haven’t read “Best Evidence”.

        After the autopsy, Humes probed the back wound. Witnesses observed the probe made indentations against the pleura without going through. This also indicates Humes was being careful not to create a false passage. Adding to this, Humes probing of the back wound showed it went downward at a steep angle in a manner making it impossible to connect with the back wound.

        The witnesses include O’Connor, Jenkins and Stringer. That is evidence, so accept it.

        In my opinion, anyone who thinks CE 399 “worked its way out of Connally’s wound” is not a moron, but a total, lying weasel like McAdams.

        • Rob H says:

          Correction: I meant to say that Humes probing of the back wound indicated it went downward at a steep angle making it impossible to connect with the THROAT WOUND.

  17. Rob H says:

    John,

    You say when shotgun pellets and wadding go through the roof of the mouth and into the brain, it’s proof of suicide.

    NO, it isn’t.

  18. Ray Mitcham says:

    JMcA “When shotgun pellets (and wadding) go through the roof of the mouth into the brain, it’s pretty obviously suicide.”

    Assumption.

    No, it shows that he died of shotgun wounds. Whether self inflicted or not, is the question.

  19. Rob H says:

    Photon,

    With regard to your critique of the Army ballistics tests which fired rounds at a higher velocity than the actual speed of CE 399 when it hit Connally’s wrist, I offer the same rebuttals given to McAdams.

    Aware of the velocity difference, Arlen Specter asked Olivier if reducing the velocity by 400 fps would have produced the same wounds. Olivier replied that if struck by a pristine bullet, the wounds would have been greater.

    He said in plain English that he didn’t believe a pristine bullet (CE 399) caused Connally’s wrist wounds.

    Colonel Joseph Dolce wrote a letter to the HSCA stating that Connally had to have been hit by a different bullet.

    Adding further fuel to the fire, CE 399 was not found inside the body of either man it struck, but on a hallway stretcher.

    FBI expert, Robert Frazier, claimed when he examined it, CE 399 had no blood on it.

  20. Rob H says:

    John McAdams

    Didn’t Humes describe the back wound as “presumably of entry”? That indicates some uncertainty.

    Please provide citations for the abrasion collar you mention.

  21. Rob H says:

    John McAdams,

    Here are a few reasons why I hold the HSCA investigation as less than thorough.

    1. At the 1969 New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, Dr. Finck testified that the neck was not dissected at the order of an unidentified Army general. At a closed HSCA meeting, Humes gave a different version, claiming the decision to not dissect the neck was his alone. Humes was not cross-examined on that point. The Committee then interviewed Finck twice, followed by his testimony being sealed for fifty years.

    2. Humes affirmed that photos had been taken of the chest interior and bruised right lung. Photographer John Stringer confirmed the interior chest photos. But Dr. Burkley contradicted this, stating no photos of the chest were taken. The HSCA took Burkley’s word on the matter.

    3. When Humes was shown the photos featuring the revised skull entry wound (four inches higher) he disputed it vigorously. The forensic panel made no effort to resolve the contradiction and simply assumed he was wrong.

    4. After a heated closed session exchange with the Forensic Panel, it was later claimed Humes admitted locating the rear skull wound too low. But in public testimony before the HSCA, Humes again maintained his original placement stating he had a problem with the high location photos. When questioned by the ARRB, Humes said he never retracted.

    5. The Forensic Panel decided against disinterring Kennedy’s body to determine where the rear skull entry was.

    6. Admiral Burkley was not subpoenaed to testify. He had seen Kennedy’s wounds at both Dallas and Bethesda.

    7. Neither Sibert or O’Neill were subpoenaed. Instead, they were allowed to send mailed-in affadavits.

    8. The Committee addressed the issue of JFK’s backward movement in response to the fatal shot by way of Alvarez’s “jet effect”, a rather exotic theory to say the least, and which today, would not stand the test of scrutiny within the physics community. No other physicists were brought in to comment.

    9. The Committee did not put enough pressure on the CIA to release more of the Oswald-Mexicio City documents. Given the scathing rebuke of the Lopez Report, this is inexcusable.

    10. When HSCA investigators Flannigan and Purdy interviewed Jenkins and O’Connor, they limited their responses to the Osborne allegation, that a bullet had rolled out from Kennedy as he lay on the examination table at Bethesda.

    Later, it appears Jenkins and O’Connor were interviewed regarding their recollections in the autopsy room which were explosive. But the HSCA never had them testify.

  22. Rob H says:

    I ask John McAdams once more to provide a citation for his reference to a back wound abrasion collar.

  23. Rob H says:

    I see McAdams has run away, unable to cite his abrasion collar around the back wound claim. BUSTED.

    And offers no response for why he doesn’t include Ruby’s Volume V testimony, especially page 198 at his website. BUSTED.

    Regarding the SBT, neither McAdams or his supporters have superior testimony to the Army ballistics experts (Olivier and Dolce) who rejected the pristine bullet as a cause for Connally’s wrist wound. BUSTED.

    In disputing the witnesses who saw Humes probe Kennedy’s back wound without the probe going through, McAdams offers conjecture. Think about it… conjecture vs facts.

    As far as I’m concerned, Herr Professor has been trashed.

    John, y’all git back to me with abrasion collar cite, heh heh. (Won’t exactly be holding my breath on one. :) )

  24. Photon says:

    A Ph.D candidate in Pathology who didn’t know how to fix the brain?
    Believe what you want, but someone who claims to have seen a “cut in two places” in a spinal cord that was never dissected out is not credible.

  25. Jean Davison says:

    John, You ask, “So whose views should we give greater weight to — those of a person who was there or those of a person who wasn’t?”

    I think a better question might be, “Which account should we give greater weight to — Jenkins’ 1977 description of one head wound, or his 2013 description of two head wounds? Should we accept his first or second account? Paul O’Connor’s description of the condition of the brain doesn’t appear to agree with either of Jenkins’ accounts, so what now?

    During the HSCA investigation another witness who was there “remembered” a bullet falling out of JFK’s clothing when he was being placed on the autopsy table. Nobody else saw this, and it’s indisputable that JFK was unclothed.

    Just a few examples of why some people prefer photos and x-rays over testimony given years later.

  26. JSA says:

    I would agree except when the WC supporters look at the testimony or first witness statements from Parkland, they ignore the first day statements and instead choose to only hear what some of the doctors said after they were led by intense political pressure from the Secret Service and from the Warren Commission, in late 1963 and then in 1964. Don’t you think the first observations would count for more, and a year or so later would be less reliable, following that logic of memory?

    Regarding the x-rays of JFK’s skull, when shown the lead embedded in the back of the skull in one of the xrays, nobody can explain it. They ignore it. It’s discussed in “Hear No Evil” however.

    Much evidence was ignored by the WC unless pushed by attorneys to be addressed, such as the cheek hit from a stray bullet that missed and caused James Tague to get nicked on the cheek (most likely from a curb fragment from the shot that chipped the curb). Only because there was pressure did this even get addressed by the WC, reluctantly I might add. Then they flew into action, securing the curb piece (cut away) and analyzing it. Because of Tague’s minor wounding from the stray shot, Specter had to change the original FBI report that said one shot entered JFK’s back and a different shot hit Governor Connally—-to one single bullet hit both. This has always been a very weak link in the WC version of events, because the Zapruder film (also suppressed for many years) shows JFK reacting to a hit way sooner than Connally, and the Governor himself always argued that he was hit by a different shot than the fist shot that hit JFK.

  27. Jean Davison says:

    The idea that Tague forced the creation of the SBT is a myth that has been passed from one conspiracy theorist to another for decades. I wonder if you read this in “Hear No Evil”? Wherever you got it, JSA, it’s bunk.

    I agree, first-day testimony is much more likely to be accurate than memories years later, but even immediate impressions can be wrong. The throat wound was small, so it looked like an entry, but the Parkland people didn’t see the corresponding bullet wound on JFK’s back.

  28. JSA says:

    Jean,

    The fact of the matter remains that James Tague’s insistence that he was hit by a curb shot that missed meant that Arlen Specter had to have only one bullet be the one that did all the damage to JFK and to Governor Connally. That’s no myth, that is fact. It’s also a fact that Arlen Specter pressured many people into saying what they didn’t want to say, in the style of the O.J. Simpson trial. Just because someone is a good lawyer doesn’t make them right.

    You can’t cherry pick memory collection and say that the Parkland doctor first day statements are no good but others are. That looks like you are bending the data to make it conform to a pre-conceived notion.

    If I were a professional denier defending the Warren Commission today, I’d go about things in a more sophisticated way. I wouldn’t stonewall every piece of contrasting data (a la Nixon in Watergate). What really looks suspicious for example is CIA not letting the Oswald-related files go free. That just looks suspicious, like Nixon sweating under the t.v. studio lights in Chicago at his first debate with Kennedy in 1960. You’d think CIA would show a bit more finesse, but I guess they’re just a bunch of government bureaucrats, in an age when the top talent goes to corporations and not into government as it did fifty years ago. We’ve really declined as a nation since 1963, when Cornpone seized the presidency and began the Vietnam saga.

  29. Jean Davison says:

    No, it is not the “fact of the matter” that the Tague incident forced Specter to adopt the SBT. Please provide any evidence you have that this is a fact. (If you look closely, I think you’ll find that your source didn’t provide any.)

  30. jeffc says:

    The best account of the process and development of the Single Bullet Theory is found in Gerald McKnight’s “Breach Of Trust”.

  31. JSA says:

    Jean,

    Please take a look here:
    http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination

    You can scroll your mouse over the footnotes to get source information.

  32. JSA says:

    Jean,

    I quote from the above cited website, which explains how the Tague incident being raised noisily forced Specter to reconsider:

    Warren Report, p.117. James Tague’s wound demanded its own bullet because he was too far away for his injury plausibly to have been caused by a fragment of a bullet which had struck Kennedy or Connally. President Kennedy’s head wound demanded its own bullet because it clearly occurred later than at least some of his and Connally’s non–fatal wounds. That left a single bullet to create all the other wounds. The single–bullet theory had been proposed by Arlen Specter a few weeks earlier, but it was the publicity attached to Tague’s wounding that forced the Commission to adopt the theory.

  33. Jean Davison says:

    JSA, I asked for some evidence that Tague forced Specter to devise the SBT, but I’ve seen none.

    The website claims that the SBT was developed in June 1964, and that’s clearly wrong. This photo, e.g., was taken in May and a SBT is discussed in testimony even earlier than that.
    http://cbsphilly.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wc_vol18_ce903_sbt_alignement.jpg

    Not only is the timing wrong, but the Warren Report, p. 117, specifically says that Tague’s wound did *NOT* require its own bullet since it might’ve resulted from either the missed shot -OR- from a head shot fragment:

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

    Conspiracy author Josiah Thompson also theorized that Tague’s wound was probably caused by a head shot fragment.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague4.gif

    If there’s a more plausible theory to explain the ballistics and medical evidence, shouldn’t the critics have presented one by now?

  34. JSA says:

    Hmmm…Read Stone’s book and then let me know what you think. ; )

  35. Photon says:

    If credentials are not important why do folks like Ronnie inflate them like calling LCDR Pitzer “doctor” , or claiming that Jenkins was a Ph.D student, or calling a dentist a medical resident, or calling Billy Harper a medical student?

  36. If credentials are important Why doesn’t “Dr” Photon cite his own?
    \\][//

  37. Photon says:

    Which one of us do you want credentials for?

  38. Rob H says:

    Paul O’Connor claims when the body was laid on the table, there was no brain inside the craninium except for small bits of tissue. On the basis of that statement, the brain must have been removed which entails cutting the spinal cord.

    As for how the cuts were made, I think Jenkins is describing two downward slices, front and back, which met in the middle.

  39. “Which one of us do you want credentials for?”~Photon

    The entire support team that posts as Photon, of course.
    \\][//

  40. Tom S. says:

    C’mon, Willy…. he (they) probably is not authorized even to provide the credentials of the USN M.D. …
    pesky non-diclosure agreements and unanticipated polygraph testing.
    Why not settle for credentials of one cover I.D., maybe of Dept. or State., or the Postal Service?

  41. Rob H says:

    I’ll take that as a “NO, I’M NOT A PATHOLOGIST”.

    (But I play one on tv.)

  42. Well, he’s the “doctor”!! Why not ask him what the heck fingernails have to do with JFK’s back wound?
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more