ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald (PART 23) (CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND VERDICT)

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points.

1. The mock trial shown on American TV was edited way down from the actual trial. We don't know what was cut, because the original has never been re-shown, and Bugliosi failed to make his transcript of the original available to others.

2. Doug Horne's spin on Jenkins' appearance at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference was misleading, to say the least. Horne did not talk to Jenkins at that conference. I did. I spoke to him again in 2015. While Jenkins' recollections do not support the official story, so to speak, neither do they support what Horne wants people to believe. Jenkins disputed his friend Paul O'Connor's claim there was very little brain in the skull. Jenkins held the brain and infused the brain. Paul did not. What Jenkins found so unnerving about the brain was the ease with which Humes removed it. This led him to speculate it was cut loose from the spine along the base. Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. I asked Jenkins, moreover, why he didn't speak up and denounce those who kept claiming his recollections prove the back of the head was missing.  He replied "Ah heck, people will say whatever they want--what you gonna do..."

[James DiEugenio]

Does anyone know the actual length of the original mock trial vs what was shown in England and then on Showtime?

What is the difference in hours?

Does anyone have the complete transcript or the complete video set?

I would be interested to see how many witnesses, if any, were cut out.

BTW, an interesting point in the show was Delagdo saying that he moved out of the USA and then was shot at abroad.  (That is from memory.)

[Andrej Stancak]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy.

Pat:

In a way, both sides could be right about whether the right occipital cortex was present or absent in President's brain. In the drawing in David Lifton's book (p. 471 in my paperback edition), which was also the part of the House Committee exhibits, there is a residual occipital cortex in the right hemisphere, just above the cerebellum. However, the largest part of the occipital cortex is certainly gone in this brain. The situation in such macerated brain may look differently while the brain is still in the skull (and the skull still support and lifts the tissue) compared to when this damaged brain is placed on the flat surface. It would be a mistake to claim that the right occipital cortex was in place (as if it would be an intact brain) but also that it was missing completely (since some residuals can indeed be seen in the drawing in David Lifton's book). 

I hope this helps. 

Late edit 1: On a different note, the shape of the brain injury in the drawing of President's brain does not make too much sense. The injury looks basically of equal width along the line crossing the frontal and occipital poles of the right hemisphere. The whole right medial wall is missing which prevents an estimate of the entry/exit of the projectile along the sagittal plane (a plane visible as if from the side view but defined by its position along the left to right axis). The brain damage after a thru-and-thru gun shot would still show a conic shape with a slightly narrower diameter of injury at the entry site and a larger diameter wound at the exit site. The brain in the drawing does not allow to determine neither the direction of the projectile nor the plane connecting the entry and exit. Was this a result of a surgery to conceal the direction of the projectile?

Late edit 2: The more I look at the drawing the more I am convinced that the whole medial wall of the right hemisphere has been excised post mortem. It is just not possible that every bit of tissue over the entire medial wall would disappear that cleanly. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Joe Bauer]

You have 4 fairly decently trained in their field witnesses  ( Jenkins, O'Conner, Robinson and Reed ) who saw JFK's body and head area up close before and during the official autopsy for substantial time periods and all of them relate incredibly conflicting observations than those reported by Dr. Humes.

Their stated observations differ to some arguable degrees, but their commonalities outweigh those differences.

What Humes, and very possibly others, who may have had contact with JFK's body before the official autopsy did to JFK's brain and cranium is mind blowing in it's sinister cover up implications.

I know so many highly researched Post Graduate members here have known all about this part of the JFK story for years and my over-enthused naive freshman interjections must seem distracting to the informed discussion flow to a point of wanting to tell me "sit down and shut up!"

And I thank you for not doing so up to this point.

But what a hugely important subject matter.

Thanks for your contributions esteemed members.

JFK truth impassioned neophytes like me are learning so much day by day because of them

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[David Von Pein]

Stuff relating to the mock trial....

Text excerpts from the '86 docu-trial:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-text-excerpts.html

And....

1986 interviews with Vincent Bugliosi, Gerry Spence, Alan Dershowitz, and more:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISVl2Uzc0T0pvdWs/view

 

[Pat Speer]

On 3/12/2017 at 6:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Does anyone know the actual length of the original mock trial vs what was shown in England and then on Showtime?

What is the difference in hours?

Does anyone have the complete transcript or the complete video set?

I would be interested to see how many witnesses, if any, were cut out.

BTW, an interesting point in the show was Delagdo saying that he moved out of the USA and then was shot at abroad.  (That is from memory.)

David Von Pein and I have discussed it several times over the years. The original broadcast was 21 hours (over four days, if I recall). It was then edited down to 5 hours over 2 days for America.

In any event, when one compares the quotes from the trial in Bugliosi's book to the American broadcast and DVD, one finds that a number of the quoted passages never appeared in the trial as broadcast in America. This leads me to suspect some good stuff--and probably a lot of good stuff--was cut out.

 

P.S. Bugliosi had access to a complete transcript for the whole she-bang. I asked Spence about this and he said he'd never seen such a thing. One can only guess then that Bugliosi's copy was created by the producers for his use, and that it remains in his family's possession.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I do remember  their summations covered a few things I hadn't seen prior in witness testimony.

[James DiEugenio]

Well Pat if that is the case, they would never give the transcript to me.

But they probably would give it to DVP.

 That is a huge difference of course. And it would be interesting to see how the excisions were handled.

So should we nudge Davey to start with Bugliosi's secretary, what was her name, Rosemary or something?

[David Von Pein]

On 3/14/2017 at 9:44 AM, James DiEugenio said:

So should we nudge Davey to start with Bugliosi's secretary, what was her name, Rosemary or something?

My last two attempts to contact Rosemary via e-mail about various matters (once in 2013 and once in 2015) went unanswered --- which is very unusual for Rosemary. (She always answered me prior to that time.)

So she either got tired of talking to me by e-mail, or she changed her e-mail address sometime in 2013 and never gave me the new address.

I hate to even consider the third possibility.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

What you have Jenkins saying at the Lancer Conference is opposed to what he told Purdy back in 1977 for the HSCA.  In an August 29. 1977 phone interview he told Purdy that he recalled a hole in the rear skull that was much bigger than the one depicted in the pics we have today.  (see p. 12)

This interview is listed as ARRB exhibit number 65 over at History Matters.

As per DVP and Rosemary, then I guess we do not have a lot of hope in getting the full transcript  That is really unfortunate as I really would have liked to have seen the whole thing.

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

What you have Jenkins saying at the Lancer Conference is opposed to what he told Purdy back in 1977 for the HSCA.  In an August 29. 1977 phone interview he told Purdy that he recalled a hole in the rear skull that was much bigger than the one depicted in the pics we have today.  (see p. 12)

This interview is listed as ARRB exhibit number 65 over at History Matters.

As per DVP and Rosemary, then I guess we do not have a lot of hope in getting the full transcript  That is really unfortunate as I really would have liked to have seen the whole thing.

I talked to Jenkins about this in both 2013 and 2015. He does indeed believe the hole on the head extended to the back of the head. But the top of the back of the head, not the bottom--where way too many CTs want to believe there was a "blow-out" wound. To be clear, in 2013 Jenkins showed me...and Aguilar, and Mantik, and Tink Thompson if I recall...where he believed the skull was shattered beneath the scalp, and where the scalp above this shattered skull was intact. And he pointed out the area behind his right ear on the back of his head. He was claiming, therefore, that there was no blow-out wound where Mantik and others claim there was a blow-out wound. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins again in 2015, with a young researcher (and writer) in attendance. He told us the same thing. When asked (I think by myself but perhaps by the young writer) why he didn't say anything when Mantik and Horne, etc, claimed him as a witness for something he insists he never witnessed, he said something along the lines of "People will believe what they want to believe...what'cha gonna do?"

P.S. I just looked and Jenkins told Purdy the head wound stretched from the middle-temporal region back to the occipital." That's pretty much what he told me.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Could someone please share their thoughts on why Jenkins and Paul O'Conner had such different recollections regards JFK's brain and perhaps other areas of the whole JFK autopsy scene?

I mean were Jenkins and O'Conner next to the president's head at similar proximities and at the same times (or separately?) during the postmortem and official autopsy?

If O'Conner and Jenkins were in the pm room at the same time, how could O'Conner not see what Jenkins recollected as far as Humes removing the brain and placing it ( whatever was left of it ) in a container?

When Humes made them leave the postmortem room for fifteen minutes, did he dismiss them together at the same time?

And when they were allowed back in, did they do so together?

What were Jenkins conclusions about why Humes told them to leave the room for 15 minutes?

What do you fellows think about Hume's statement that the brain just "fell into my hands?"

And when O'Conner described lifting JFK's body out of the casket to place on the official autopsy table, he said that he was at the head of the body and held JFK under the shoulders while doing so. Was Jenkins the other corpsman who lifted JFK by his lower extremities?

O'Conner described the autopsy scene in that amphitheater as "very histerical."  Did Jenkins see it that way?  Was Jenkins there for the entire autopsy as O'Conner was?

Just trying to understand the physical placement coordinates ( and times of these ) of the witnesses involved who were right next to JFK's body and head during all this activity.

And whether their specific physical placements and positions during these JFK  autopsy activities ( if different ) gave one or more of them a more valid and credible view versus another.

Little side story here:

Maybe 5 or 6 years ago I was standing in a long line at one of our local grocery store parking lot recycle centers

As people often do in long and slow lines, you strike up conversations.

Somehow, I got involved with a fellow behind me about the JFK assassination. He was about my age and bearded but not of a homeless looking mode of dress. More like an aging hippy. Well spoken.

I must have mentioned the JFK assassination autopsy subject and this fellow told me that his father was a pathologist ( military? ) and worked at Bethesda during the time of JFK's death.

This man said his father was extremely surprised and even upset that he was told he wasn't going to participate in the autopsy. I assume he was a decently respected Pathologist at this facility at the time.  For what it's worth.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/6/2017 at 4:18 PM, Joe Bauer said:

...The report of Ruth and her estranged husband Micheal Paine calling each other after the assassination with one them saying " we both know who's responsible" is one of the more intriguing gems in their story.

Joe,

I spoke personally with Ruth Paine at the end of 2015, and asked her point blank about that wire-tapped phone call in which Michael Paine told Ruth Paine, "we both know who's responsible."

Ruth Paine told me exactly what they meant.  Both Michael and Ruth refused to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald -- and him alone -- could have killed JFK.  Instead, they both believed that the culprits were the people who published the "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbill, and the people who bought the full-page Ad in the DMN, "Welcome, Mister Kennedy, to Dallas...WHY... are you a Communist?"

That's what Michael meant, and that's what Ruth Paine took his statement to mean.

Ruth Paine then asked me if I had any idea who wire-tapped their phone.   She said nobody in the US Government or in local Dallas Government admitted to that wire-tapping.  She is still in mystery to this very day.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Spence was not prepared for this mock trial. he made a mockery of the mock trial. A better conducted mock trial was the 1992 ABA two-day event in SF. Resulted in hung jury. so did one-day mock trial by Texas Bar Association in fall 2013. Indeed, a Yale mock trial in 1967 resulted in acquittal. Bill Simpich and I are organizing a two-day mock trial at the South Texas College of Law in Houston on Nov. 20 and 21st. We will be conducting a classic criminal trial examining the forensic evidence using 21st century technology such as 3D scans of the toolmarks and the x-rays.  

Lawrence,

I agree with this 1000%.   Bugliosi showed real cowardice by insisting upon this amateur in the JFK case, and insisting that he would never appear with Mark Lane -- who would have won the case hands down.  Bugliosi knew it, too.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Could someone please share their thoughts on why Jenkins and Paul O'Conner had such different recollections regards JFK's brain and perhaps other areas of the whole JFK autopsy scene?

I mean were Jenkins and O'Conner next to the president's head at the same times (or separately?) during the postmortem and official autopsy?

If O'Conner and Jenkins were in the pm room at the same time, how could O'Conner not see what Jenkins recollected as far as Humes removing the brain and placing it ( whatever was left of it ) in a container?

When Humes made them leave the postmortem room for fifteen minutes, did he dismiss them together at the same time?

And when they were allowed back in, did they do so together?

What were Jenkins conclusions about why Humes told them to leave the room for 15 minutes?

What do you fellows think about Hume's statement that the brain just "fell into my hands?"

And when O'Conner described lifting JFK's body out of the casket to place on the official autopsy table, he said that he was at the head of the body and held JFK under the shoulders while doing so. Was Jenkins the other corpsman who lifted JFK by his lower extremities?

O'Conner described the autopsy scene in that amphitheater as "very histerical."  Did Jenkins see it that way?  Was Jenkins there for the entire autopsy as O'Conner was?

Just trying to understand the physical placement coordinates ( and times of these ) of the witnesses involved who were right next to JFK's body and head during all this activity.

And whether their specific physical placements and positions during these JFK  autopsy activities ( if different ) gave one or more of them a more valid and credible view versus another.

Joe,

IMHO, Humes and Jenkins were under orders from LBJ and the Pentagon to produce only results that could support J. Edgar Hoover's dictum of a "Lone Nut" scenario in the shooting.   Those were Military orders during the Cold War.

The reason that Jenkins and O'Conner contradict each other is that O'Conner is telling the TRUTH.

The official story out of Bethesda is that "JFK's brain is missing," and other lame excuses why they could not share actual X-rays and Autopsy Photographs with the Warren Commission. 

The TRUTH is that the actual brain wounds showed clear proof of multiple bullets of multiple types.  The pre-autopsy autopsy (Lifton, 1980) was a failed attempt to clean up all the countless shards.  They failed, so they just removed the entire brain.  Paul O'Conner only reported what he saw -- JFK's empty skull. 

My benign explanation is that the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination was necessary for National Security.  Therefore, it was not possible for Humes or Jenkins to tell the truth.  I think 99.9999% of US Military Officers would have done the same thing then, and would do the same thing today.  You are sworn to obey orders with your very life.

O'Conner was a young man, and he came out with the Truth decades later.   He wasn't Military at the time.

The National Security aspect (to give a benign explanation) was so that the USSR couldn't have a propaganda field day with the Truth that the Radical Right in Dallas whacked JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo
couldn't