Jump to content
The Education Forum

James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It's appropriate that you use the word trump in that sentence, seeing as it is an alternative fact made up to support an untenable position.

What alternative fact?

What untenable position?

Your rhetoric is as toothless as your assumptions.

Quote

It is a fact fact that doctors as a rule defer to the findings of pathologists, and that pathologists as a rule rely upon autopsy photos, and that autopsy photos are considered legit if the man ordering them (Humes) and/or the man taking them (Stringer) say they represent the body as they recall seeing it.

It is also a fact fact that no court of law in the history of the country has ever held up a report written by a sometimes observer of an autopsy (such as Burkley) over that of the doctors actually performing the autopsy.

There has never been an autopsy in history like JFK's. 

Even with that, the doctors performing the autopsy filled out the face sheet in pencil depicting a back wound consistent with the holes in the clothes.  The face sheet was signed off as "verified."

You cherry pick medical evidence not prepared according to autopsy protocol and ignore everything else inconvenient to your pet assumption: the clothing defects, the FBI report on the autopsy, and the consensus witness testimony. 

You cling to the fraudulent autopsy material with all the tenacity of the lone nutters.

Quote

As far as my "assumptions"

I read Rush to Judgment in the 80's, and became a "conspiracy theorist".

So?

Quote

I watched Stone's JFK a few times when it came out, and pretty much believed it.

So?

Quote

I bought The Killing of the President in '93 or so.

So?

Quote

Years passed. I then stumbled across a CD-Rom with the Zapruder film, the Warren Report and Crossfire on it. This re-ignited my interest.

So?

Quote

This led me, then, to read High Treason 1 and 2, and Best Evidence.

So?

Quote

I was at this time (2003 or so) a dyed-in-the-wool CT, who thought a lot of the evidence was fake.rred mer to oppose your work.

You indicated to me in 2003 that you subscribe to the Big Lie of a high back wound, which spurred my continuing opposition to your work on this matter.

Quote

But which evidence? Groden thought the photos were faked. Lifton thought the body had been altered.

There was no consensus. I then read Case Closed and spent a few weeks wondering if it was really just Oswald, after all.

I started spending a lot of time online, reading articles on McAdams site and following the arguments on websites such as aaj, Lancer, and this one.

I had a strong feeling there was something wrong with the official story, but was uncertain whether the medical evidence was fake or not.

This led me then--after being a CT for the better part of 20 years or more--to take a step back, and wonder..."supposin' the evidence is legit--what does it actually show--NOT what people claim it shows? What does it actually truly show? According to the textbooks and medical journals? I then spent roughly three years FULL TIME and another five years or so part-time reading every bit of testimony related to the medical evidence, and every relevant article I could find online, or at the UCLA Bio-med Library that could help shed a light on what happened.

And you still haven't figured it out.

I don't know what you're bragging about, Pat.

In order to square your assumptions with the clothing evidence you posit a scenario requiring 2 inches of JFK 's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket to elevate entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on his jacket collar.

Your True Belief in baseless assumptions prevents you from realizing how moronic this claim is.

Quote

And this led me to conclude...that it's not really that complicated. The eyewitness evidence, medical evidence and photographic evidence clearly suggests there was more than one shooter. Proves it, even.

So?

Proving conspiracy in the murder of JFK is child's play. 

You don';t get a gold star when you're obfuscating the location and nature of JFK's wounds.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Baloney, Cliff. No one on this forum has done more to expose the "location and nature of JFK's wounds" than I. I have long agreed with you that the clothing evidence disproves the single-bullet theory. But that's not enough for you. You insist that I also agree with you that the autopsy photos are fakes.

This makes no sense to me. The photos are both consistent with the wounds described in the autopsy protocol, and proof of more than one shooter. While it's theoretically possible "they" would fake the photos in such a manner, it doesn't really make much sense that they would do so.

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Baloney, Cliff. No one on this forum has done more to expose the "location and nature of JFK's wounds" than I.

No one has done more to obfuscate the location and nature of JFK's wounds than Pat Speer.

No one!

Quote

I have long agreed with you that the clothing evidence disproves the single-bullet theory. But that's not enough for you.

In and of itself that means very little.  The clothing evidence, the properly prepared documents and the consensus witness testimony put the back wound at T3 -- too low to have caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which could only have been caused by a shot to the throat from the front.

You have spent a career obfuscating the T3 back wound and throat entrance wound -- egregious academic malpractice.

Quote

You insist that I also agree with you that the autopsy photos are fakes.

The Fox 5 photo is a fake.  I don't care what you do with the rest of them.

It's possible to fake a photo but it's impossible to elevate 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches of jacket entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Why do you insist on pretending this isn't true?

Why do you insist on ignoring the overwhelming consensus eyewitness statements putting the back wound at T3?

Quote

This makes no sense to me. The photos are both consistent with the wounds described in the autopsy protocol,

The wound descriptions to which you refer violated autopsy protocol.  Using a pen to record measurements on the face sheet is a violation of autopsy protocol.  Using a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound is a violation of autopsy protocol.  Using moveable landmarks is a violation of autopsy protocol.

But this is the crap you expect us to swallow!

Quote

and proof of more than one shooter. While it's theoretically possible "they" would fake the photos in such a manner, it doesn't really make much sense that they would do so.

It's bad enough that you make this assumption, but to make it the centerpiece of your "argument" is the height of academic malpractice.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Baloney, Cliff. No one on this forum has done more to expose the "location and nature of JFK's wounds" than I. I have long agreed with you that the clothing evidence disproves the single-bullet theory. But that's not enough for you. You insist that I also agree with you that the autopsy photos are fakes.

No, I'm asking you to agree with James C. Jenkins that the "Fox" autopsy photos are highly suspect.

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This makes no sense to me. The photos are both consistent with the wounds described in the autopsy protocol, and proof of more than one shooter. While it's theoretically possible "they" would fake the photos in such a manner, it doesn't really make much sense that they would do so.

Fox 5 was faked to show a wound consistent with the "mastoid/acromion" measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet and recorded in the final autopsy report.

Kinda obvious, ain't it?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenkins takes me from thinking the medical evidence other than the statements of Perry, McClelland and Crenshaw is junk science to maybe, possibly understanding some of the advances in interpreting the information now available.  I read Best Evidence only 20 years or so ago.  Seemed too incredible to me at the time, at least two caskets, the body switched, arriving at different times.  Body "alteration" (later learning of possible removal of bullet's, fragments?).  How, when, where?  Maybe we now have a better idea of what happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back on topic, pretty much the only thing Jenkins has been consistent about over the years is that he saw the body brought in and that there was no "pre-autopsy" performed by Humes or anyone else.

In this new book, moreover, he makes it clear that he thinks the back wound photo Cliff claims is fake is probably legit, but that the location of the wound is distorted by the position of the body.

So that's two pet theories he puts out in the rain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

To get back on topic, pretty much the only thing Jenkins has been consistent about over the years is that he saw the body brought in and that there was no "pre-autopsy" performed by Humes or anyone else.

In this new book, moreover, he makes it clear that he thinks the back wound photo Cliff claims is fake is probably legit, but that the location of the wound is distorted by the position of the body.

So that's two pet theories he puts out in the rain...

Jenkins made it clear that the FBI men misquoted him for the HSCA.  So much for his lack of "consistency."

Jenkins puts the back wound at T2-T3 --"at the top of the right scapula midway between the scapula and the vertebral column." (pg 41)

The Fox 5 photo shows an artifact in that exact area, a couple of inches below the "wound" the CT Pet Theorists are desperate to sell.

The Big Lie of the high back wound goes down in flames again.

When are you going to demonstrate that 2 inch elevation of shirt and jacket, Pat?

Yeah, never...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basic question ( I know it's been asked 1,000 times already-sorry ) about the more plain casket that O'Conner and Jenkins say they lifted JFK's body out of versus the heavy and ornate bronze one loaded onto Air Force 1 back in Dallas.

Was the switch made on Air Force one before the plane landed back at Andrews?

Or was JFK's body simply lifted out of the bronze casket and placed into the plain one after the bronze one was already at Bethesda Naval hospital?

If the switch was made on Air Force 1, how grotesquely disrespectful it was to Jackie Kennedy to let her think she was actually lovingly accompanying her husband's body to Bethesda. However, it seems logical that the switch was made at Bethesda for practical reasons such as the cumbersome weight and size of the bronze casket.

Jenkins definitely feels that LBJ and Hoover were involved with the assassination.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

In the book Jenkins states more than once that he did not help take JFK's body put of the shipping casket.  He was still busy setting up for the autopsy.  He does say Paul O'Connor helped the sailors who brought the casket in and set it on the floor by the wall do so.  That they carried him to the autopsy table as opposed to normal procedure of putting a body on a gurney and rolling it to the table.

Regarding when the body was taken from the Dallas casket he refuses to speculate.  But he does imply that this happened in that he observed a series of apparent cuts in the scalp straight across the top of the head, front to back which allowed the right side of the scalp to detach when the towel wrapping it was removed as it was stuck to it.  Supporting the implication that pre autopsy surgery occurred he remembers Dr. Hume's asking if the Doctors in Dallas had done any surgery to the head.  Someone in the gallery answered "no".  Further, he does not remember Humes having to cut the brain loose to remove it nor using a saw to do a craniotomy to do so but does remember him saying "it pretty much fell out in my hands".  Then he talks about trying to do a normal insertion of needles or tubes into the carotid arteries to initiate a formalin drip to fixate the brain for future dissection for analysis of shots/angle.  He states that as far as he knows the brain that came out of JFK's head was JFK's.  But wonders about the relative lack of damage to it (it was essentially whole) as opposed to Dallas doctors statements of 1/3 - 1/2 of it being missing, and, in relation to the damage he did see to the back of the head 2' -2 1/2" X 3" - 3 1/2" blowout.  Covered by the mortician with a piece of rubber after filling JFK's head with plaster of Paris.

Mr. Jenkins asked Dr. Michael Chesser to write chapter 15 for his expertise as a neurologist who has analyzed the autopsy photographs and x-ray "originals" and digitally enhanced copies of those used by the HSCA housed in the National Archives under (highly) restricted access.  He mentions the possibility, that I read elsewhere some years back, of JFK's body being taken out of the casket shortly after it was loaded on Airforce 1 and stowed in a luggage area accessible from but beneath the passenger area.  This has part been discussed in depth on this forum or another.  Jackie, Powers, O'Donnell or others were supposedly with the casket from the time it left Parkland until it arrived at Bethesda.  We know Jackie was away from it for the swearing in of LBJ.  If true about someone being with it about the only other possibilities would be at Parkland after being put in it.  A possibility given the fight the Secret Service put up taking the body back to Washington to prevent a Dallas autopsy.  Pulling a gun on the coroner or his assistant.  It was asked, wherever it was discussed, were they defending an empty casket, that the world couldn't know was empty?  The only other possibility I've read of was after landing in Washington, on the plane, before the casket was removed to the scissor lift.

In an unsuccessful attempt to visit the Bethesda morgue with William Law he and Jenkins traced the route from a Walter Reed Army hospital facility some suspect as a possible location for pre autopsy, removal of bullets implicating frontal shot(s).  8 minutes to the back gate.  Ambulance driver of the first casket received mentioned to the lead sailor on the back dock receiving it that they came through the back gate.

 

Need to ink this before I loose it.  Important reading, more in depth tomorrow.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/forum/126-jfk-assassination-debate/ 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, thanks for correcting my misstatement regarding Jenkin's helping O'Conner lift JFK's body out of the plain casket.

If Jenkin's book comments about someone other than Humes doing brain removal procedures before hand, so that JFK's brain fell out in Hume's hands without Humes having to do these procedures are true...how can anyone doubt a cover up?

I thought I  heard Jenkins say in the interview that he held JFK's brain in his hand before putting it into a sling and that he stated " less than a 3rd of the total brain was missing?"

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2018 at 1:47 AM, Pat Speer said:

To get back on topic, pretty much the only thing Jenkins has been consistent about over the years is that he saw the body brought in and that there was no "pre-autopsy" performed by Humes or anyone else.

 

Jenkins says in the video that there was an incision along the top of the head and some sutures attaching some pieces of scalp together. Sounds like surgery to me... just as reported by Humes.

I'm not sure he used the word "incision." But it didn't sound natural the way he described it.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Ron, thanks for correcting my misstatement regarding Jenkin's helping O'Conner lift JFK's body out of the plain casket.

If Jenkin's book comments about someone other than Humes doing brain removal procedures before hand, so that JFK's brain fell out in Hume's hands without Humes having to do these procedures are true...how can anyone doubt a cover up?

I thought I  heard Jenkins say in the interview that he held JFK's brain in his hand before putting it into a sling and that he stated " less than a 3rd of the total brain was missing?"

 

Joe,

Throughout this book, he goes into an incredible level of medical detail on the wounds and medical evidence, to the point of needing a medical terminology specialist to interpret many passages.  This isn't a criticism, just my perception.

Having said that, it was very interesting about the difficulty he had in infusing the brain they took out since the arteries were not freshly cut and not easy to get the needles properly inserted.  He said the condition of the arteries and the brain itself looked to him as having been removed a significant amount of time before they took it out of JFK's head at the official autopsy.  

Finally, he described the differences between the wounds in the head that they saw, the x-rays and photographs and the brain they removed.  He repeatedly states that the brain he removed could not have been the one that the wounds represented.

If what Jenkins documents in this book is accurate, it is groundbreaking and devastating to those who do not believe in a conspiracy.

Did you get some of those impressions from the book too?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Researcher Matt Douthit has been writing about Jenkins on Facebook.

Here are some of the problems noted by Douthit

The Impersistence of Memory - James Jenkins Part 2:

1977: Couldn’t recall whether or not the brain was removed

1979: Was given a brain to infuse with formaldehyde

1980: Was given a brain to infuse with formaldehyde

1991-present: Said Dr. Humes made a verbal exclamation: “This brain fell out in my hands. The brain stem has been surgically cut.”/Said the brain was a small brain/Said his first impression was that it was a female brain/Said the damage to the brain did not match the damage to the skull or to the wound/Said a large portion of the back of the brain was jelled like jelly/Said he saw the vessels were retracted as if they had been cut at some previous time/Said the brain was so damaged on the underside that it was hard to introduce needles for perfusion with formalin/Said he believes the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced.

The Impersistence of Memory - James Jenkins Part 3:

1979: “Jenkins did not see an entry wound on the front of the head...Since Jenkins didn’t see a frontal entry wound, he assumed that it had been blown away when the bullet struck...“ (Best Evidence, pp. 609-610)

1980: Did not see an entry wound on the front of the head

1991: Saw graying areas on the bone above the right ear that looked like lead, wondered if it could have been from a bullet

1998-present: Saw an entry wound on the front of the head!!

 

 

I noted a big one of my own. Here is where Jenkins claimed he saw the "open hole" when speaking to William Law in 1990.

jenkinshole.png?height=211&width=400

And here is where he now claims he saw the wound.

Screen%20Shot%202018-11-27%20at%205.45.5

 

"They" --and by "they" I mean a parade of "researchers" desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head--got to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...