Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Simkin

Paul Kelly O'Connor

Recommended Posts

Paul Kelly O'Connor appears to me to be an important witness. He was born in 1941. He graduated from high school in 1959 and soon afterwards enlisted in the United States Navy. He was based at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and was expecting to take part in the Bay of Pigs invasion before President John F. Kennedy cancelled the action.

On his return to the United States O'Connor applied for a a place at the Medical Technology School that was part of Bethesda Naval Hospital. He attended classes from 7.30 am to 5.00 pm and work duty from 5.00 pm to 6.00 am the next day. O'Connor was assigned to the pathology department. Over the next few months he assisted in around sixty autopsies.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, his body was taken to Bethesda. Along with fellow student, James C. Jenkins, Paul O'Connor was asked to assist Joseph Humes, Thornton Boswell and Pierre Finck in the autopsy of Kennedy.

In 1980 Paul O'Connor was interviewed by David Lifton for Best Evidence: The Research Video (1990). He also appeared in the television documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In the episode, The Cover-Up (1988), O'Connor told Nigel Turner that when he opened the casket, Kennedy was a body bag. This was different to the way the corpse had been prepared for removal from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas.

Paul O'Connor was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. O'Connor told Law: "We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum."

post-7-1153666522_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem I have with O'Connor's account is the chronology. He puts the arrival of a shipping casket with the body in a body bag at 8 pm. But according to David, the shipping casket arrived at the morgue several minutes before Jackie and the motorcade arrived around 7. According to Sibert and O'Neill, the Dallas casket was taken into the morgue around 7:15.

In short, O'Connor has the shipping casket arriving and being opened after the Dallas casket, which is contrary to David and makes the accounts irreconcilable. Lifton tried to figure it all out, but with so much shuffling of caskets that even the conspirators would have gotten hopelessly confused, and the game would have been obvious to all.

All I can figure is that O'Connor is incorrect about the time of arrival of the shipping casket. He says he wrote it down in a log which apparently no longer exists.

Hopefully Dennis David can give us his thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Ecker Posted Yesterday, 04:45 PM

The main problem I have with O'Connor's account is the chronology. He puts the arrival of a shipping casket with the body in a body bag at 8 pm. But according to David, the shipping casket arrived at the morgue several minutes before Jackie and the motorcade arrived around 7. According to Sibert and O'Neill, the Dallas casket was taken into the morgue around 7:15.

In short, O'Connor has the shipping casket arriving and being opened after the Dallas casket, which is contrary to David and makes the accounts irreconcilable. Lifton tried to figure it all out, but with so much shuffling of caskets that even the conspirators would have gotten hopelessly confused, and the game would have been obvious to all.

All I can figure is that O'Connor is incorrect about the time of arrival of the shipping casket. He says he wrote it down in a log which apparently no longer exists.

Hopefully Dennis David can give us his thoughts on this.

The timing as remembered by O'Connor may be wrong. However, the key issue in his recollection of the events is that the President's body was delivered in a casket and bodybag, much different to the one the body was placed in earlier that day, for shipment to the DC area.

Further, in TMWKK, O'Connor tells us that the neck wound looked like it had been cut open and mangled more than what is needed for a tracheotomy. I do not recall all the information that Mr. O'Connor tells in TMWKK but I do recall the key discrepancies compared to the "official" documentation of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PKOC's eyewitness testimony is also extremely significant in placing Gen. C. LeMay at the scene as the senior officer, smoking a cigar and giving orders - like don't probe the back wound.

We have documented LeMay's movements from a Canadian air base to Andrews AFB that day, so he was in a position to be at Bathesda during the autopsy, though no official record places him there, other than PKOC's recollection.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that according to the official record, none of the other Joint Chiefs of Staff attended the autopsy, though they were right there in DC (having supposedly attended a Pentagon meeting with West German officials all afternoon), yet LeMay rushed from Canada, cutting short his vacation, to be there in the gallery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting that according to the official record, none of the other Joint Chiefs of Staff attended the autopsy, though they were right there in DC (having supposedly attended a Pentagon meeting with West German officials all afternoon), yet LeMay rushed from Canada, cutting short his vacation, to be there in the gallery.

Hi Ron,

Keen observation. It is indeed interesting that LeMay would go out of his way to attend the autopsy. Clearly he was about as far from JFK as one could get from an ideological standpoint. If you listen to the audio tapes of the discussions about Cuba between JFK and his military advisors, LeMay stands out as angry and condescending, practically scolding Kennedy in front of his staff. He clearly did not attend because of any affection or obligation he felt toward Kennedy- he hated the man. So, what does that leave in terms of his motivation to attend?

Is there any corroboration of O'Connor's claim that LeMay attended the autopsy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Kelly O'Connor appears to me to be an important witness. He was born in 1941. He graduated from high school in 1959 and soon afterwards enlisted in the United States Navy. He was based at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and was expecting to take part in the Bay of Pigs invasion before President John F. Kennedy cancelled the action.

On his return to the United States O'Connor applied for a a place at the Medical Technology School that was part of Bethesda Naval Hospital. He attended classes from 7.30 am to 5.00 pm and work duty from 5.00 pm to 6.00 am the next day. O'Connor was assigned to the pathology department. Over the next few months he assisted in around sixty autopsies.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, his body was taken to Bethesda. Along with fellow student, James C. Jenkins, Paul O'Connor was asked to assist Joseph Humes, Thornton Boswell and Pierre Finck in the autopsy of Kennedy.

In 1980 Paul O'Connor was interviewed by David Lifton for Best Evidence: The Research Video (1990). He also appeared in the television documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In the episode, The Cover-Up (1988), O'Connor told Nigel Turner that when he opened the casket, Kennedy was a body bag. This was different to the way the corpse had been prepared for removal from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas.

Paul O'Connor was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. O'Connor told Law: "We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum."

Hi John,

O'Connor's description of the casket and body bag are highly significant. I would suggest that it would be somewhat easy to erroneously recall the timing, but much more unlikely to do so with something like the detailed descriptions he gave about the casket and slate gray rubber body bag. If true, it's yet further evidence that something covert was done with the body between Parkland and Bethesda.

Is there corroboration of O'Connor's assertion that Kennedy's body was IN the shipping casket and not the Bronze casket upon arrival at Bethesda?

Edited by Greg Wagner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest dissemblers in history. The Gordon Arnold of Bethesda Naval Hospital. Nobody else saw what he allegedly saw. Why is that? Everyone was lying save for him? Nonsense. Rest in peace, but you were not a helpful figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made O’Connor important is what he told the House Select Committee, and is recorded in the HSCA Outside Contact Report of Purdy and Flanagan, in 1977, and it comes down to 3 basic facts concerning the JFK autopsy:

1. JFK’s body arrived in a shipping casket

2. Inside, it was in a body bag

3. The cranium was empty.

O’Connor is a direct witness to these events, which is surely what was being suppressed by the “order not to talk,” which he (and the others) were placed under verbally, and then in writing, on November 26, 1963, the day after JFK’s funeral. Moreover, it was the recision of the “order not to talk” which made it possible for him (and the other) Bethesda witnesses to be interviewed by the HSCA.

Those interviews were conducted in 1977/78, and the appropriate reports written. But then Blakey didn’t like what they said and it was all locked up — and not scheduled for release until 2029.

Two things changed that schedule for the much delayed release of this information:

(1) I learned of, located, and interviewed the witnesses in 1979; and incorporated their accounts into Best Evidence, which was submitted in manuscript form by April, 1980, and was in the book stores by January, 1981..

(2) The JFK Records Act—passed as a result of Oliver Stone’s 12/91 release of JFK—led to the original HSCA documents being released in 1993/94.

Of course, the public didn’t have to wait until 1993/94; they could (and did) read Best Evidence, published in January, 1981.

The substance of what O’Connor (and the others) had to say made its first public appearance in Best Evidence, which was number one on many best seller lists by April of 1981. Further, I arranged to film his account, in October, 1980, at his home in Gainesville, Florida,, and that was broadcast nationally on several shows in the Spring of 1981 (e.g. Tom Snyder) plus in many cities across the U.S. where I went on my book tour, always carrying with me a 3/4” video of O’Connor and the other key Bethesda witnesses.

Neither the way O’Connor’s account became public nor any of the 3 key points that O’Connor made that made his account historically significant is mentioned in the obituary. The obit about Paul O’Connor should be focused on what was important about him as a witness, and the information he had which pointed to fraud in the autopsy; and how those facts became known—not on who fraternized with whom, and in what year.

When then HSCA report was released in July, 1979, and I saw the statement about the body bag, I located O’Connor (and the others), interviewed him (and the others, all in the fall of 1979) and published their accounts. (This is described in Chapter 26 of B.E.)

O’Connor’s statements that the body arrived in a body bag, inside a shipping casket; and that the cranium was empty—all that is nowhere to be found in the obituary but is spelled out in the HSCA (Purdy/Flanagan) Outside Contact Report, and it would have remained locked up until 2029, were it not for the JFK Records Act, which made it available in 1993/94. It only became available in 1981—a full 13 years earlier---because of Best Evidence.

In short, I played the major role in locating and interviewing (at length, and on camera) Paul O'Connor--and seeing to it that he was exposed, repeatedly, to a national television audience. None of that is mentioned in

the obit. Instead, the obit limits my involvement to this single sentence: "Mr. O'Connor was interviewed by David Lifton for Best Evidence”—as if events that happened in 1979-1981 can be ignored. They cannot and should not.

Starting in the Spring of 1981, Paul O’Connor’s face was all over the tv, in national broadcasts (e.g. Tom Snyder show) and in major news shows in individual cities across the country, where I was sent on tour, always carrying 3/4” video tapes of his account. Another burst of publilcity occurred on the 20th anniversary (1983), another on the 25th (1988) and still more on the 30th (1993).

As Paul himself said to me back then, “Thanks for putting me on the map, buddy.”

Of course, I realize that the obit ought to be focused on Paul O’Connor, not me; but we are inextricably linked because my book and video were the means by which Paul O’Connor’s critical information became available to the world. The obit, as currently written, misses all that entirely. Instead of being written about the events of 1977-1981, when all this occurred, its as if its focused on the year 2000, or who O’Connor was fraternizing with in the late 1990s, or what he said to William Law 22 years after I first interviewed him and filmed him.

Why in the world is there this misplaced emphasis? The role of B.E. is not just diminished, it is ignored. Further, what O’Connor had to say that was important is also ignored.

The result: that O'Connor's account, and its 3 key features (the way the body arrived--shipping casket, body bag, etc.--and the empty cranium)--is omitted.

That’s like writing an obit of Thomas Edison and omitting the fact that he discovered the electric light bulb.

For your reference, I’m attaching a chronology of my involvement with O’Connor. Perhaps what you generate in the future can be a more accurate reflection of this record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David's work with O'Connor was an extremely important break in the case.

That it is still being obscurred by someone shows its importance.

Great work, David!

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Lifton,

You don`t know this but,you Sir are someone that I have only imagined what it would be like to be able to talk to.The thought of speaking to the man who`s book had such an incredible impact on my life would be something that I would truely cherish.I do realize that what I say may seem odd and that a person such as yourself has to look out for people with "hidden agendas" or someone with "sinister intentions" but,I assure you, that I am a man of my word and have nothing to gain but, to be able to say that I have corresponded with the person that I admire and have the upmost respect for.

If you do decide to talk to me,we can do it openly on this forum,or by any method of your choice(E-mail or Phone)

My contact information is

TheDropper@yahoo.com

* I would be more then happy to communicate in anyway at no cost to you.

Respectfully

Michael Crane

*Edited for correctness

Edited by Michael Crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Lifton,

You don`t know this but,you Sir are someone that I have only imagined what it would be like to be able to talk to.The thought of speaking to the man that has had such an incredible impact on my life would be something that I would truely cherish.I do realize that what I say may seem odd and that a person such as yourself has to look out for people with "hidden agendas" or someone with "sinister intentions" but,I assure you, that I am a man of my word and have nothing to gain but, to be able to say that I have corresponded with the person that I admired and had the upmost respect for.

If you do decide to talk to me,we can do it openly on this forum,or by any method of your choice(E-mail or Phone)

My contact information is

TheDropper@yahoo.com

* I would be more then happy to communicate in anyway at no cost to you.

Respectfully

Michael Crane

Hi Mike,

You are speaking about Mr. Lifton in the past tense, i.e. admired and had, rather than admire and have.

If you want to reassure someone of your good intentions you might want to speak in the present tense.

Mr. Lifton is, after all, still very much alive.

Edited by Chuck Robbins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking in the present tense,

David your a man that I really admire.PLEASE don`t take what I said the wrong way.Just a mistake on the way I worded it.

*Thankyou for correcting me Chuck.

Edited by Michael Crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard Paul tell his story many times at many meetings in Dallas and spoke with him there also. He was a man of integrity and truth, I felt and aware of the dangers of speaking out, but willing to do so anyway. The fact that our evil and haunting spook BS tries to denegrade him only boosts his position. Sadly, another good and valuable witness dead - although I think he told all he had to tell several times and it is well documented. Anyone who met him, spent time with him, I think was impressed with his sincerity and integrety. There are good people in the world and he was, I felt, one of them.

Peter, Amen! I too spent hours talking with Paul in Dallas and on the phone. Anyone who met him was impressed with his sincerity, and he would readily admit when he didn't know something, or if he was speculating. What amazed me, was that he would remember exactly what we were last talking about months later. I know he didn't relish divulging alot of this stuff, as he told me his wife feared there might be consequences,and urged him to stop talking about this subject .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...