Joe Bauer

If Michael Paine told

40 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Mr. LIEBELER. What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. WALTHERS. We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

 

 In regards to Michael Paine's describing to Walthers and whoever was with him in the garage  what they were looking at after Walthers ( "we" opened one of them and seen what it was " you have to wonder how MP knew that those letters and stuff were not just Oswald's belongings but he knew the specific detail that these items were "from the people he writes to in Russia."

Oswald wasn't there. Michael Paine came to the house after Walthers and other DPD personnel had already been there.

So Paine obviously just saw those Oswald papers spur of the moment.  Either he had gone through them at some point prior or his wife Ruth had and perhaps told Michael Paine the specifics MP  just described. Oswald for sure didn't show the Paines his personal letters.

I wonder if MP  went through Oswald's "stuff" at some point when Oswald wasn't around as he seldom was.

Just some observations that beg questions about MP.

Is the phone record document as shown in the James Di narrated video a fraudulent one?

There are such huge implications riding on what day that collect call from Ruth to MIchael Paine was made, that this question is one of the most important ones in determining the credibility of the Paines testimony.

What is the true date and time of that "We both know who's responsible" telephone call?

Jeff.

Are you posting this file as some valid documentation verifying what you stated in your previous post?

If so, I am confused.

This document states that the "who's responsible" call between Ruth and Michael Paine did not take place at 1:PM 11,22,1963.

It instead states that the call took place "a day later" and the exact time of the call could not be established.

???

How could Ruth Paine ignore Oswald's incredibly public and hotly inciting political activities in New Orleans just a few months before Dallas on 11,22,1963 ( and which were so illogically removed from his last year and a half of work seeking behavior  ) as if they meant nothing in her mind regards her reasoned conclusion that Oswald did JFK  just for "notoriety?"

Was she that oblivious about them and claiming she just didn't know because Marina would not tell her of such things?

I mean Oswald was on New Orleans radio and even TV debating political ideologies and his downtown brawl with Carlos Bringuier was filmed and in the newspapers and he was arrested in that Summer ...and she wasn't aware of this?

Oswald's well publicized political activities in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 cannot be ignored as meaningless in the larger picture of Oswald's mind set and actions just 3 months later.

Ruth Paine also mentions agent Hosty as if she was on familiar and even friendly terms with him. She knew him from his visits to her home to speak to Marina for a month or two before 11,22,1963.

I can't believe that Ruth didn't ask for and get some feedback from Hosty about his reasons for keeping tabs on Marina and Lee.

One would think that Ruth kept a closer and more suspicious eye on Lee when he was around her home up until 11,22,1963 and maybe even watched for anything he may say or do because she knew he was being monitored by important government agencies. I wonder if she ever reported anything to Hosty about Lee that she thought was suspicious during the time she was housing Marina and the baby and having Lee visit reguarly on a weekly basis.

39 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Just to be clear, the "we both know who's responsible" phone call happened at 1 PM. Oswald would not be publicly ID'ed as a suspect for another 90 minutes or so. It has never been established why either of the Paine's would suspect Oswald's involvement at all, 30 minutes after the shots.

1 PM?

Gosh, great question Jeff.

Here is the real deal regards the ultimate behind the scenes power structure heirarchy.

Just reading his general brief surface Wiki you immediately see the massive influence and how things really worked in this country and globally during his reign and still today.

Notice how connected everything is through these conglomerates and the small group of selected super wealthy elitists who create and run them?

Is this the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONGRESSIONAL ( PLUS BANKING, MEDIA AND SECRET GOVERNMENT) COMPLEX Eisenhower tried to warn us about?

Or is it really simply a sincerely benevolent, humanity concerned and helping  group of individuals and families who are truly trying to do the best possible things they can to protect and save us from those on the dark side of our global societies.

David Rockefeller and his family's connections to JFK detractors were extensive and long term as one can see in the Wiki bio.

That's why I posted the suggestion of reading this.

Would be interesting to read the different takes.

Always wonder how JFK fit or didn't fit into the Rockefeller influence and world view complex.

The Albert Guy Bogard, Lincoln Mercury, wild Daytona 500 racing test drive story was the one that grabbed me somewhat in regards to possible fake Oswald's being seen in and around Dallas before 11,22,1963 .

This salesman guy Bogard seemed so sure about personally meeting, talking to and interacting with the same Lee Harvey Oswald he had seen so much in the news.

Didn't Bogard's boss somewhat verify Bogard's tale?

However, the card that Bogard wrote Oswald's name and number on is tossed away before 11,22,1963?  Really?

But still, there was just enough simple working class sincerity and mundane specifics in Bogard's tale for amateur Conan Doyle deduction minded sleuths like me to not dismiss the possible Oswald double theory out of hand.

Then there were the Ruby girls who supposedly saw Oswald in the Carousel club before 11,22,1963.  Beverly Oliver claimed this.

And Oliver says co-worker- Dolly Parton look-a-like stripper Janet Conforto ( "Jada" )  was also introduced to Oswald at the club but was too terrified to state this in public. 

And there's the account of the Carousel comedian punching a Lee Harvey Oswald look-a-like guy over his shouting that he ( the emcee )  was a commie and that Ruby came over to this look-a-like and tossed him down the stairs.

There is even a picture on the internet which shows a kind of sloshed smiling Oswald look-a-like in the Carousel. I must admit I see some decent similarities there.

Personally I know I'll never come close to knowing anything close to the truth in this area so I leave it to those who have done some decent research.

But, I still feel the possibility is there, based simply on the complex planning that must have gone into the plot itself. These planners were serious minded people thinking on so many levels. 

James, who is PT?

I just watched the entire "Living With The Oswald's" Ruth Paine talk video.

Still contemplating what I heard from Ruth Paine.

When she recounted the frequent bickering between Marina and Lee and how they put each other down constantly and how unpleasant and "not good" this was in her view, she added that Marina's input in this bickering was a bit more "facile?" than Lee?

Did I hear Mrs. Paine correctly with that word "facile?"

If it was this word, did she mean that Marina was a bit sharper tounged and more energetic and direct in this bickering with Lee?

Which she then added that Lee would often respond to with a simple "shut up."

I mention this as it does coincide ( a little ) with Pat Speer's post mentioning the hear-say that Ruth Paine and Michael Paine may have thought that Marina drove Oswald somewhat crazy with her demeaning verbal abuse of him in reference to the reported "We both know who's responsible" call.

None the less, Ruth Paine once again mentioned that she thought Oswald indeed tried to kill Walker and that she thought he was a very dangerous and mentally unstable man, inferring to my mind that she believed he was certainly capable of shooting JFK.

She did mention the anti-JFK propaganda in Dallas just before his arrival and how she felt Dallas was an extremely JFK hating hostile place and she felt some unease with his safety there.

Lot of mixed feelings about Ms. Paine and her talk here.

A few odd moments.

She mentions once ( somewhat stammering ) that she went to visit  "peoples"?...And she just skips to being at Oswald's rooming house or somewhere else where he had his bags packed and he asked her for a ride to the bus station. She mentions clearly at that time that he ( Lee ) didn't have a car or even drive.

Guess that clears up that question ( did Oswald know how to drive? ) for that time period. 

I thought this recollection was odd and purposely poorly explained and missing something. Had Oswald called her for this help? She obviously was alone when she did this and she says she advised Lee that it would be better if Marina continued staying with her and could meet him in NO at a later date.

When she recounted her weeks long vacation to visit family in Washington DC after dropping Marina and the baby off at Lee's NO cockroach crawling apartment with little furniture, I wondered how much this cost her. Sounds like money was not a problem for Ruth Paine at that time.

This note that happened to fall out of the hand book that Marina had asked her to send to her after she left Ruth's home - the one that gives instructions to Marina in case Lee didn't make it back from his Walker adventure ... how intriguingly curious is that episode?

Ruth Paine seems like she had formulated her own conclusion as to what Lee was up to and came to believe he was certainly the responsible party in the Walker shooting. And how this impacted her deeply about viewing Oswald in a much different and unstable light than before the JFK event. I think that she decided he was a scary dangerous loon with a murderous bent after those discoveries ( like the advice book note ) and from what she personally saw and read herself later on.

She concludes her talk by saying she felt Oswald shot at Walker, and killed JFK for the "notoriety."  

And did she mention the Tippit killing? Can't remember.

But again, no mention of what Paul says she told him in 2015. That she and Michael felt that the powerful extreme right wing people who created those JFK hate leaflets and DMN ad were who they were referring to in their "We both know who's responsible" telephone call that first weekend.

I don't know if Ruth Paine is still at this retirement facility up in Sonoma. Or maybe  4 years after this video that she even has the desire or even mental strength to respond to a letter asking her about Paul Trejo's post where he claims she told him about her and Michael Paine's belief of these JFK hate groups being responsible for JFK's death.

Guess it wouldn't hurt to perhaps send a letter asking her whether she actually said such a thing.

Over all Ruth Paine's Story is narrow in its scope ( relative to the entire Lee and Marina and JFK story ) as one would expect as she was supposed to be talking about just "her time" being personally involved with Lee and Marina.

But for her to state a personal belief conclusion ( beyond just her recollections of her interactions with Lee and Marina ) that Oswald committed these horribly violent acts ( Walker-JFK ) simply for notoriety...without any mention or consideration of Oswald's unusual military and Russian travel background, his connection to White Russians like George DM and his provocative political shenanigans in New Orleans and reported visits to Clinton the Summer of 1963 is just not worthy of serious and responsible consideration.

18 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks for the heads-up, Joe. I take my son to the Monterey Bay Aquarium almost every year, and have been telling myself I should stop by the Defense Language Institute to see if they have any records for Oswald, or Hidel, etc. Apparently, that would have been a waste of time. Thanks.  Next time I'll be able to head straight to Old Capitol Books and Rosine's without feeling that I should be over at DLI.

 

 Pat !

My wife and I get hot sandwiches to go from Rosines all the time!

And Old Capital Books? 

You know Monterey.

Heck, would love for you to visit me here. 

That invitation is open to any of the members of this forum.

I was a hotel concierge for years here and with some notice I could arrange lodging and dining accommodations ( I know the best restaurants ) and even be a "tour guide" of sorts for any of you.

As far as visiting the DLI ... forget it.

Security there is still on high alert ever since 9-11.

15 years!

Two city streets that ran through the facility with public access for ever, were shut down and have never been re-opened in all those 15 years.

The traffic here is horrible at rush hour due to the shutting down of those two main artery commute roads.

Well, Jim, I do live in California.

On the Monterey Peninsula. Next to Pebble Beach, Carmel and just up the Coast from Big Sur.

If you ever care to see this new TV show " Big Little Lies" starring Reese Witherspooon and Nicole Kidman, you will see many actual location shots of where I have lived all my life.

If I could get Ruth Paine's actual address and felt she might actually respond to a letter, I would send one to her.

Maybe she would agree to talk to me personally?

But my guess is she has so many inquiries like this that she either cuts them all off now or perhaps only does one every few years?

I would never just appear at her residence without first asking her permission.

Oh, and I also live very close to the Defense Language School here that some believe Lee Harvey Oswald attended.

I went all through school here with dozens of children of employees of this facility.

It's an intriguing place.

All the military facilities here including DLI closed themselves to the public with noticeable increases in physical security two days "before" 9/11.

Where I worked, same thing. You just knew something big and ominous was about to take place when this happened.

First time in my life here I had ever seen that happen.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I seem to remember reading a discussion (Was it in Mrs. Paine's Garage?)  of the "We both know who's responsible" comment in which the Paines insisted the reference was to Marina, and that they'd both felt Marina had played head games with Lee that had contributed to his instability.

That's one I have never heard before Pat.   Strangely off the wall to me.

Ruth Paine always seemed to disparage Lee "singularly" to a strong degree in her public interviews recounting her time with both he and Marina. Saying ( paraphrasing here ) that Lee was uncommunicative, unfriendly, unappreciative and thought he was smarter than others, and  "he used my typewriter without asking ... which upset me very much."

Ruth Paine hated Lee Oswald. And she never mentions anything or even hints at anything ( in her public statements that I ever heard about ) that would infer blaming Marina for any of Lee's boorish or anti-social behavior.

But, if Paul's recounting of Ruth Paine's one to one admission to him that the " we both know who's responsible " telephone call happened and that comment was truly spoken during this call and she and her estranged husband believed others were involved with JFK's killing, that means she and her husband thought there was a conspiracy from the first day!

I would love to ask Ms. Paine about this conversation with Paul and whether she actually said what Paul claims she said to him regards the call and that specific statement of responsibility and what she and Michael Paine honestly meant and believed in reference to it. 

Paul, are you telling me and the rest of the forum that Ruth Paine admitted to you (one on one ) that Michael Paine did say to her on the phone that weekend "We both know who's responsible."?

In regards to who was responsible for JFK's death?  And that she and Michael Paine suspected it was the same people who printed those "Wanted For Treason" flyers and that similarly indicting DMN ad?

That she personally verified this conversation between her and her husband on the day it was reported as truly happening?

Do you have Ruth Paine "on tape" saying this to you?

Referring back to the original Lee Oswald trial thread context, Ruth Paine in her testimony as shown in the clips on You Tube never alluded at all to this shared suspicion she and her husband had about others besides Oswald alone possibly being responsible for JFK's murder.

She instead testified that what struck her was the reality that a man so ordinary as Oswald could do something as horrible and history changing as the killing of JFK..

But you got the impression that she thought Oswald was responsible...without at all mentioning the ( others involved ) sentiment and suspicion she told Paul she shared with her husband that November weekend in 1963.

I have seen another interview clip of her from years earlier than the London trial where she also expressed this same singular take on Oswald, but again never mentioning this view she shared with Paul regards her and Michael Paine's phone call.

If Ms. Paine had told Gerry Spence what she told Paul about that phone call...one wonders where Spence would have taken that startling ( to me anyway ) statement.

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.

After reading the Carter essays and contemplating all his findings I also couldn't help but go back again to the old simple but basic logic thought and question realm of asking why Oswald would ever set up and stage such a photo taking event that seemed to make no sense in purpose except to create just about the most incriminating evidence ( as a gun loving, violence prone commie nut case ) of guilt one could imagine if one were planning to shoot and kill major political figures ... guaranteeing a conviction if he were to be caught and tried for this.  

Oswald taking these Bonnie and Clyde type showing off pictures of himself cockily holding and wearing the actual guns he supposedly used to kill JFK and Officer Tippit and take a pot shot at General Walker and not having them destroyed before the alleged deeds is an action so self incriminating illogical it is not possible in my mind that Oswald was that stupid or irrational.

Oswald frantically resisted when he was arrested in the theater.

He fled the Texas School Book Depository as quickly as he could without arousing too much notice.

He goes back to his room as quickly as he could and then after grabbing his pistol, makes a quick departure to who knows where but it certainly wasn't his plan to go to the Dallas Police and turn himself in. He was doing everything he could to "escape arrest" or who knows what other threatening and harmful actions against him he anticipated.

When Oswald is arrested and paraded in front of the gathered press, he clearly and calmly denies any part of the day's killings and is practically begging for "some, uh legal assistance" in his defense.  Oswald's total actions and words ( he sounded more intelligent than many DPD personnel ) in those brief DPD building press appearances reflect someone who is not so stupid as to create those crazy ( here I am coppers with the killing guns!) back yard pics and keep them in easily found locations to boot.

Brain damaged, lowest IQ criminals might do stupid on this level before their capers, but then I think even most of them might stop and say...uh, maybe I shouldn't take pics of me holdin the guns I'm gonna use to rob that 7-11.

The BY pics and Oswalds actions and words just hours before and after being apprehended are so contradictory in their Warren Commission and MSM "Lone Nut" promoting context that this reality forces one to strongly consider that the official finding connection of the two is an artificial one.

Coincidently ... another person of note that's former ONI is well known national radio media personality George Noory of " COAST TO COAST AM."

I see Cord Meyer's end of life comments regards his former wife's death and who was responsible for it as just another verification of our most disturbing suspicions.

Same with David Phillip's confession to his brother that he ( Phillips ) was indeed in Dallas on 11,22,1963...and E. Howard Hunt's end of life confession to his son about who he felt was responsible for JFK's demise and that he was a " bench warmer" for the team.

And how about LBJ's interview with Walter Cronkite where he states as clear as day that he was never fully relieved about others ( with international connections ) being possibly involved with JFK's death? And if you ever want to see one of the most extreme examples of body language guilt during an interview, watch LBJ's movements and eyes during this. He shifts his body forcefully from one position to another and he can't even keep his eyes open when he stammers out with the last comments of his feelings about who really whacked JFK.

And wasn't it Angleton who said in his life summation book that he and others like him would all meet in Hell for their common sinful acts and behaviors?

How many end of life confessions from major figures like these fellows does it take to realize the truth of JFK's murder as indeed a conspiracy?

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

Bart Kamp, yes, this Oswald trial segment showing Harold Norman was just cringing to watch, as were almost all the other ones.

Before I share my take on this particular segment let me first give Harold Norman some sympathetic slack regards his appearance.

I too would be highly nervous, anxious and probably uncomfortable in that setting. In a far away city in a court room filled with suit and tie types ( when you are not ) and cameras rolling and knowing you were going to be confronted by the likes of Gerry Spence.

And give Norman his due in the fashion department. He was flashier dressed than anyone in the whole courtroom with his white suit, tie and red dress shirt. 

I also couldn't help thinking of the King Of Soul James Brown ( who I liked as a kid ) when hearing Norman's almost identical raspy voice. Norman even looked like Brown except for his unkempt hair and uneven beard.  In these ways Norman seemed more working class, down to Earth and unpretentious real to me versus most of the other witnesses.

Now, regards the questioning.

Bugliosi was shameless in his leading the witness.

And when it got so ridiculous that Spence had to finally state an objection that good ole boy Judge just shut that down with an "over ruled" 

If I were in the audience I think I might have impulsively jumped up and shouted "WHAT A FARCE" myself!

Harold Norman seemed flummoxed at best with most of Spence's questions. He just couldn't admit his ignorance in the areas Spence brought up.

Spence walked away from his questioning of Norman after just a few minutes ( maybe he simply figured Norman was a waste of his time ) but whatever Spence's reason, you were forced to wonder about the appalling lack of integrity of it all.

But I also could never figure Norman and his 5th floor buddies Jr. Jarman and Bonnie Ray Williams actions of remaining where they were ( for what 10 to 15 or more minutes? ) after hearing and seeing what they described and the incredible implications of the scene above and below them.

Wouldn't even a half-way rational reaction to what they described be to run down to the lower floors and immediately report the  booming shots, bolt action and cartridge casing dropping sounds they heard just above them? They even reported plaster dust falling on them from directly above their heads!

Sitting put for so long on that 5th floor of the TSBD building after hearing all those ominous sounds just above them, seems almost crazy under the high energy chaos circumstances unfolding just below them.

These guys Norman, Jarman and Williams weren't involved, but their testimonies are so weak in the area of implication Oswald as the shooter above them simply because they could not at all see who was doing this shooting.

Brad, yes, your story about Groden does make one cringe somewhat.

I've never been to Dealey Plaza let alone Texas, so anything I know about the more current day doings and characters there is through what I read through various venues like this forum.

So when I read about someone's personal experience with Groden that was unpleasant with an apparent desperate for a buck pushing of his books at 5X their retail sale price, I do feel bad to a degree.  

From my distant, limited and probably over simplified view of Groden I want to see him as a hero standing up to the forces of false truths.

I still feel this admiration for Groden and always will.  No one can deny his past efforts in the JFK truth cause.

However, your personal experience with Groden ( which I trust as true ) does remind me that even people who do things that are heroic have flaws as much as everyone else.

And I can certainly relate to the desperateness one sometimes feels when they are stressed financially.

More and more this is the biggest and most common stress for middle class and poorer Americans.

Just a short note regards M. Walton's post;

I don't see the "borderline crazy lunatic fringe" in this forum as distinctly as Walton.

There was a time when a member posted so often with his obsessive views of the Clinton's sex lives and those of other prominent figures that I would agree this qualified as such.  

Oh, and Douglas, I know this is off this thread's topic but because I share your views on other subjects like the ET presence,

I assume you saw the interview of George Bush on Jimmy Kimmel's show?

As Kimmel had done with Clinton and Obama, he asked Bush about the E. T. & U.F.O. secrets subject.

All Bush would say is ... yes, there are important secrets he knows but he can't and will never talk about these ...ever !

And he didn't dismiss or laugh off the E.T. one like Obama did.

Like I have stated before, whoever holds and controls the complete truth folders of these secrets has more power than anyone in elective office.

Even presidents are beholden to them and their higher authority.

But how anyone can see and hear Bush's responses to the ultimate secret questions Kimmel asked of him and still think that there isn't anything to these 

is beyond my sense of common rationality.

James, what do you make of Cheramie's claim that Ruby swung both ways?

She also shared with Fruge that she knew of Ruby by a nick-name of "Pinky?"

Did anyone else "ever" state this nick-name "Pinky" of Ruby?

And did Cheramie know of Ruby's index finger tip being chewed off by a person Ruby was beating and if so, by any other means than reading about it after 11,22,1963?

The last paragraph in that article sums up Groden's motivations for his incredibly committed adult life mission and never giving up efforts (against a mind blowing onslaught of long term illegal abuse of power ) in regards to keeping the JFK truth search alive.  

Groden is an heroic inspiration to me and others who have always felt this truth is one of the most important ones ever in our always on-going struggle to keep us in a constitutional rights - democracy principled society ( versus the opposite for the non-truth ) and also felt JFK gave his life for all Americans in this vein versus just the privileged and often corrupt few.

Thanks for the review James Di.

As always interesting and informative.

And you express a thoughtful kind sympathy for both mother and son.

Melba's story was tragically heart wrenching and yet quite common back in those days and even today.

Young girls falling victim to the dark side of American life and the vampires that create and inhabit it and just destroyed by this.

And your mentioning about Jack Ruby being involved in so much more illegal doings and being connected to more nefarious others than is commonly known is always important also.

I know Paul O'Conner was only 21 or 22 on November 22,1963 while performing his duties at Bethesda that evening.

But, from his recollection of his work experience removing brains, don't you think that he would have noticed any saw cutting work on JFK's upper skull when he lifted JFK's body out of his casket and then a body bag "by the shoulders" to then lift JFK onto the autopsy table and had a good look directly at this area?

The following essay suggest that Dr. Humes had done this cutting earlier ( to get to JFK's brain and then cut it out ) in the morge after he had dismissed Jenkins and O'Conner from there for 85 minutes.

The James Curtis Jenkins Revelations at JFK Lancer Confirm a Massive Medical Cover-up in 1963

insidethearrb

November 26th, 2013

by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board
(former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board)

[Please scroll down to begin article]




















 

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. It was now 50 years later, and I was pleased to see Mr. Jenkins alive, and looking so good---and yet surprised to see him attending a JFK research conference. I introduced myself, and found that he was attending the conference with William Law, one of the very few people in the JFK research community he trusts. William Law interviewed many of the autopsy witnesses and published his oral history of their interviews, In the Eye of History, in 2003.

James Jenkins had a reputation for being reticent to discuss the JFK autopsy, and with good reason. He did not have a good experience when interviewed by two hostile and disbelieving HSCA staff members, and so didn’t trust any Federal authorities, particularly since---because of what he himself witnessed at President Kennedy’s autopsy---he did not concur with the Warren Commission’s conclusions about a lone gunman firing from behind, and no shots hitting JFK from the right front. After the HSCA published its own report in 1979, confirming the Warren Commission’s conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald had done all the wounding of the limousine’s occupants with shots from above and behind, he was even less well disposed toward the organs of authority in this country. Over the years, since the HSCA’s report was issued in 1979, Jim had agreed to appear on video before three different researcher-organized panels consisting largely of Navy autopsy witnesses, but none of this footage has yet been aired in the format of a completed documentary. I had seen some of the raw footage from one of these interviews (in which Jim was interviewed along with Paul O’Connor and some of the Parkland treatment staff, including Dr. Robert McClelland), and I knew, therefore, that Mr. Jenkins had significant things to say about what transpired at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. In the interview footage I had seen of him along with some members of Parkland treatment staff, he seemed sober, responsible, and most credible. When we spoke on the 21st, Jim stated that he was not seeking any notoriety at all, and that his sole wish was to sit quietly in the back of the room at selected presentations and just take it all in, and observe. I told him I would honor his request and would not reveal that he was present during any of the presentations he decided to attend.

On the afternoon of November 22nd, William Law moderated a “breakout” event called: “Special Guest: Jim Jenkins.” I was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. As it turned out, James Jenkins began to open up at this session and had quite a lot to say about his recollections of the autopsy; and the audience was so interested in what he had to say, that a special session (unbeknownst to me) was organized for later that night, in which Mr. Jenkins continued to discuss his recollections of JFK’s autopsy. Fortunately for me, and for history, Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., PhD., attended both sessions at which Jenkins spoke, and took copious notes, something he has been doing for decades now whenever an autopsy participant takes the floor. All of my information in this article about what James Jenkins said at the Adolphus Hotel on 11/22/2013 is derived from Dr. Mantik’s notes, which I trust explicitly and without reservation to represent what Jenkins had to say, without any embellishment or changes of any kind.

I will be discussing a few key areas of Jim Jenkins’ 50th anniversary recollections in this essay, and will then explain why they are so significant to our understanding of what happened at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63.

THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’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. 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 recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes. Jenkins recalled that the total brain volume seemed too small, i.e., smaller than the skull cavity. He recalled that the right anterior brain was damaged, and some brain tissue was missing there, but recalled no damage to the left brain. He said about two thirds of the brain was present (which of course means that about one third of its mass was missing). He recalled that a large amount of posterior tissue---cerebral tissue---was also missing.

Jenkins stated that after Dr. Boswell put the brain upside down in a sling in a formalin bucket, he noticed both carotid arteries (at the Circle of Willis) leading into the brain were retracted, which made it very difficult to insert needles for infusion. Jenkins interpreted this retraction as meaning that the carotids had been cut some time before the autopsy.  

When asked how he interpreted all of this data about the condition of the brain, Jenkins said he had concluded that the brain had already been removed before the autopsy began. In response to a question as to why this might have occurred, he stated quite clearly that the purpose would have been to remove bullet fragments.

Jenkins also stated that he never saw any bullet or bullet fragment fall from JFK’s body during the autopsy, as others had recalled.

Analysis: James Curtis Jenkins, in these discussions on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, has confirmed my hypothesis of clandestine, post-mortem surgery on JFK’s cranium at Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove evidence of frontal shots before the “official autopsy” began at 8:00 PM.   Here is why I say this:

(1) It was normally Jenkins’ job (and also Paul K. O’Connor’s job) to remove the brain at Navy autopsies, by performing the post-mortem surgery called a craniotomy, or “skull cap.” Neither Paul O’Connor (who gave many interviews prior to his death) nor James Jenkins, either performed---or witnessed---a craniotomy.   HOWEVER, we know that a craniotomy was indeed performed, because both Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home, and Navy x-ray technician Ed Reed, confirmed that they witnessed a pathologist sawing into President Kennedy’s cranium to “get the brain out” (in the words of Tom Robinson). In a 1996 interview with the ARRB staff, Tom Robinson recalled that “the doctors” did extensive sawing on the rear of the skull to get to the brain; and under oath at his 1997 ARRB deposition, Ed Reed specifically recalled seeing Dr. Humes (by name) make a long incision with a scalpel in the frontal bone above the forehead, just behind the hairline, and follow-up with a bone saw in that same region. At this point Reed and his colleague, fellow x-ray technician Jerrol Custer, were summarily dismissed from the morgue. Fifteen minutes after being dismissed, they were recalled and began taking the skull x-rays.

(2) The above evidence provided by Robinson and Reed proves that Dr. Humes perjured himself before both the Warren Commission and the ARRB, by claiming that he did not have to perform a craniotomy to remove JFK’s brain. Furthermore, the observations of Robinson and Reed indicate that autopsy technicians O’Connor and Jenkins were simply not in the morgue when that post-mortem surgery was performed by Humes. Since JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and body bag at 6:35 PM (per the Boyajian report of November 26, 1963, and the combined observations of Dennis David and Paul O’Connor), and then re-entered the morgue at 8:00 PM in the ceremonial bronze Dallas casket (per numerous witnesses, and the Joint Casket Team Report), I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum---a period of almost an hour and a half---that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did.

(3) The modified craniotomy performed by Dr. Humes was necessary to gain access to the brain for one obvious purpose---to remove bullet fragments and entry wounds, evidence of shots from the front, prior to the formal start of the autopsy. We know it was necessary to perform a craniotomy of sorts, to get the brain out, because the wound descriptions of the avulsed posterior head wound (the blowout) provided by Dr. Carrico at Parkland (5 x 7 cm), and by Tom Robinson (see his ARRB sketch) and Navy Captain R. O. Canada at Bethesda (per Kurtz, 2006), all indicate that the avulsed wound in JFK’s right posterior skull was the same at Bethesda upon arrival as it had been when observed at Parkland, and was therefore too small to permit removal of the brain without performing surgery to remove significant portions of the cranium.

(4) It is clear that the first round of skull x-rays and the majority of the autopsy photos in the official collection today were taken immediately following this post-mortem surgery that so dramatically opened up the skull. The damage seen today in the surviving skull x-rays, and in all of the autopsy photos showing the top and right side of JFK’s head, with the head resting in a metal brace, were taken immediately after this post-mortem surgery. The surgery was done in a hurried manner, and once completed, President Kennedy’s head wound (the posterior blowout) had been expanded to almost five times its original size.(Simply compare the Carrico wound dimensions, from Dallas, of 5 x7 centimeters, with the Boswell dimensions of missing bone in the cranium (in his autopsy sketch) from Bethesda, of 10 x 17 centimeters; the ratios are 35 sq. cm vs. 170 sq. cm.)

(5) Furthermore, the bright red incision high in JFK’s forehead, seen in various autopsy photographs above the right eye in the frontal bone, just beneath the hairline, is additional evidence of post-mortem surgery, for that striking wound was not seen by anyone at Parkland Hospital.

(6) The proof of this cover-up is the fact that Humes and Boswell lied about the nature of these photographs to the ARRB during their depositions, saying that the photos were taken before any incisions, and represented the condition of the body immediately after it arrived at Bethesda. We know from the Parkland observations, and from the statements of Robinson and Reed, that this was perjury.

(7) Additionally, the removal of bullet fragments from the brain (and the body)---which never made it into the official record---by autopsy doctors at Bethesda is damning proof that clandestine surgery to alter the crime scene (the body of JFK) took place prior to the start of the official autopsy, which ran from 8:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff in 1996 that he was shown a vial or test tube containing about 10 small metallic fragments; Dennis David has consistently stated ever since 1979 that he held in his hand, and typed a receipt for, 4 bullet fragments that night, which constituted more mass than one bullet, but less total mass than two bullets; and the infamous Belmont FBI memo from 11/22/63 stated that there was a bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear, which the FBI was going to obtain. Furthermore, it is crucial to understanding the true sequence of events at Bethesda to understand the implications of Jenkins’ statement at Lancer that he did not see any bullet falling from the body---whereas x-ray technician Jerrol Custer did see a bullet fragment fall from the thorax onto the examining table. In corroboration of Custer’s claim, Paul O’Connor told the HSCA staff that after he returned to the morgue after some period of time, after being ordered to leave, he was informed by one of his Navy colleagues that an intercostal bullet (i.e., a bullet taken from the tissue between two ribs) had been found and removed. This all indicates that some Navy personnel were banned from the morgue during certain procedures performed early that night: namely, post-mortem surgery to sanitize the crime scene. That the crime scene---the President’s body---was sanitized, we can be sure of, for the only two pieces of metal removed from JFK’s body, according to the official record, were two tiny fragments, 1 x 3, and 2x 7 mm in size, taken from the cranium and handed over to the 2 FBI agents, Sibert and O’Neill.

(8) The two FBI agents---like Paul O’Connor and James Jenkins---were likewise barred from the morgue after carrying the (empty) bronze Dallas casket into the morgue anteroom, at about 7:17 PM---with the help of two Secret Service agents, Kellerman and Greer. AFTER they were finally allowed into the morgue about 8:00 PM, they recorded in their notes that the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes, made the following statement: “…it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull.” The two FBI agents confirmed in the mid 1960s to their superiors that this statement in their report (dated November 26, 1963) was a direct quotation of Dr. Humes. James Sibert (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy) confirmed that Humes made this statement at his own (Sibert’s) ARRB deposition in 1997. When asked under oath at his ARRB deposition whether he had seen any evidence of surgery on JFK’s body, Humes committed perjury and said, “No.” Humes’ denial was significant, because it indicates he was hiding something. In 1980 David Lifton interpreted Humes’ remark as meaning he had discovered surgery performed by someone else, before the body got to Bethesda. I respectfully disagree, because my rigorous timeline analysis (see my July 2013 essay on this blogsite) has revealed that there was barely enough time to get JFK’s body from Andrews AFB to Bethesda by helicopter, and for it to arrive at the Bethesda morgue loading dock at 6:35 PM---and therefore, I conclude that the surgery could not have happened anywhere else but at Bethesda. Remember, Canada and Robinson confirmed that the head wound, when first seen at Bethesda, was the same as it looked in Dallas. [Significantly, this eliminates any possibility that the post-mortem surgery occurred anywhere in Dallas, Texas.] My own, differing psychological interpretation of Humes’ remarks about surgery, in view of the severe timeline restrictions on the body’s transportation, are that Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery himself at Bethesda, and then panicked before a large, disbelieving audience inside the morgue shortly after 8:00 PM, and made his intentionally deflective oral utterance about “surgery of the head area” (mimicked by Bowell in the form of a rhetorical question, according to James Jenkins). I view Dr. Humes’ excited oral utterance as a defensive reaction to the overwhelming skepticism of his audience, as recalled by Paul O’Connor in many interviews, when that audience was confronted with the enormous amount of missing bone in the cranium shortly after 8:00 PM; psychologists call this defensive reaction dissociation. The implication of Humes’ statement, as I see it, was that he was attempting to create an escape route for himself, attempting to distance himself from what he had just done, to wit: “I see the surgery just like all of you do, but I didn’t do it---someone else did.” If there had been a benign explanation for the “surgery of the head area” statement made by Humes, or for the post-mortem surgery itself, then both Humes and Boswell would have provided that explanation at their ARRB depositions. Instead, they stonewalled and denied (unconvincingly) that they had even seen any evidence of surgery.

(9) It is no wonder, then, that once he was allowed back into the morgue to witness and assist with the “sham” autopsy---nothing more than a charade enacted before the 2 FBI agents and about 35 witnesses in the morgue gallery---that James Jenkins noticed that Kennedy’s brain stem had already been cut by two incisions (one on each side), and had the opinion that the brain had previously been removed from the cranium. It had been, about 75 to 90 minutes previously. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel at the ARRB, during a discussion with me about the medical evidence, sharply interrupted me once when I used the word “autopsy,” saying: “President Kennedy never had an autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital---that was not an autopsy.” He was correct. It is vital to understand that the illicit, clandestine surgery performed at Bethesda prior to the autopsy---obviously done to remove bullet fragments and evidence of frontal shots from the body prior to the “official procedure” performed before witnesses---invalidates the official autopsy report and all subsequent testimony about JFK’s wounds by the autopsy pathologists. As a result, the recollections of the Parkland treatment staff then inevitably become the “best evidence” of how President Kennedy was killed; and their two universal observations were of an entrance wound in the throat (made by a shot from the front), and an exit wound in the right posterior skull (necessarily implying a shot from the front).

(10)               Dr. Pierre Finck, who had been called by the defense team in the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw (the Garrison trial) in 1969, told the defense team (per William J. Wegman’s interview notes) that President Kennedy’s brain had been severed from his spinal cord, and that this had been described in the autopsy report. This is consistent with James Jenkins’ account of what he witnessed (surely after 8:00 PM) when Humes removed the brain (for the second time) before a large morgue audience: namely, that the brain stem had previously been severed by incisions on both sides, in different planes. [Incidentally, Finck’s statement to the Clay Shaw defense team is a further proof that the extant autopsy report is not the original---the subject of chapter 11 in my book---since the autopsy report in the Archives today does not mention the brain stem being severed.]   Now, Finck did not arrive at the morgue until 8:30 PM, after the brain, heart, and lungs had been removed. Therefore, Dr. Humes must have informed Finck about the severance of the spinal cord. Humes really had no choice, since according to Jenkins, the brain had literally fallen out in his hands before a large audience, and there had to be an explanation provided for that bizarre occurrence. Similarly, I believe the reason Humes took a tissue section from the area where the spinal cord had been transected, at the subsequent brain exam on 11/25/63, was to “cover his ass.” It was all theater. For him not to have taken a section from the line of transection, after announcing “surgery of the head area,” and after the brain falling out in his hands without his large audience witnessing any cutting to dislodge it from the cranium at its attachment points, would have been most suspicious. By taking a tissue section from this area, I believe Humes was cleverly attempting to distance himself from “whoever did the surgery,” should it become an issue later on. In 1996, Dr. Humes stated under oath to Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB that the brain stem was damaged before he removed the brain, but told Gunn that he had transected it himself. Humes denied that it was disconnected or transected when the body was received. No doubt this was true; what Humes did not tell the ARRB at his deposition was that he had done so while James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM, when he was removing evidence of frontal shots from the body of the slain Commander-in-Chief.

(11)               Jenkins’ observation that the damage to the cranium was much larger than the damage to the underlying brain seems consistent with the surgery hypothesis, and not with damage caused by a bullet.

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 50^th 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. It was now 50 years later, and I was pleased to see Mr. Jenkins alive, and looking so good---and yet surprised to see him attending a JFK research conference. I introduced myself, and found that he was attending the conference with William Law, one of the very few people in the JFK research community he trusts. William Law interviewed many of the autopsy witnesses and published his oral history of their interviews, In the Eye of History, in 2003.

James Jenkins had a reputation for being reticent to discuss the JFK autopsy, and with good reason. He did not have a good experience when interviewed by two hostile and disbelieving HSCA staff members, and so didn’t trust any Federal authorities, particularly since---because of what he himself witnessed at President Kennedy’s autopsy---he did not concur with the Warren Commission’s conclusions about a lone gunman firing from behind, and no shots hitting JFK from the right front. After the HSCA published its own report in 1979, confirming the Warren Commission’s conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald had done all the wounding of the limousine’s occupants with shots from above and behind, he was even less well disposed toward the organs of authority in this country. Over the years, since the HSCA’s report was issued in 1979, Jim had agreed to appear on video before three different researcher-organized panels consisting largely of Navy autopsy witnesses, but none of this footage has yet been aired in the format of a completed documentary. I had seen some of the raw footage from one of these interviews (in which Jim was interviewed along with Paul O’Connor and some of the Parkland treatment staff, including Dr. Robert McClelland), and I knew, therefore, that Mr. Jenkins had significant things to say about what transpired at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63. In the interview footage I had seen of him along with some members of Parkland treatment staff, he seemed sober, responsible, and most credible. When we spoke on the 21^st, Jim stated that he was not seeking any notoriety at all, and that his sole wish was to sit quietly in the back of the room at selected presentations and just take it all in, and observe. I told him I would honor his request and would not reveal that he was present during any of the presentations he decided to attend.

On the afternoon of November 22^nd, William Law moderated a “breakout” event called: “Special Guest: Jim Jenkins.” I was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. As it turned out, James Jenkins began to open up at this session and had quite a lot to say about his recollections of the autopsy; and the audience was so interested in what he had to say, that a special session (unbeknownst to me) was organized for later that night, in which Mr. Jenkins continued to discuss his recollections of JFK’s autopsy. Fortunately for me, and for history, Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., PhD., attended both sessions at which Jenkins spoke, and took copious notes, something he has been doing for decades now whenever an autopsy participant takes the floor. All of my information in this article about what James Jenkins said at the Adolphus Hotel on 11/22/2013 is derived from Dr. Mantik’s notes, which I trust explicitly and without reservation to represent what Jenkins had to say, without any embellishment or changes of any kind.

I will be discussing a few key areas of Jim Jenkins’ 50^th anniversary recollections in this essay, and will then explain why they are so significant to our understanding of what happened at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63.

THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’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. 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 recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes. Jenkins recalled that the total brain volume seemed too small, i.e., smaller than the skull cavity. He recalled that the right anterior brain was damaged, and some brain tissue was missing there, but recalled no damage to the left brain. He said about two thirds of the brain was present (which of course means that about one third of its mass was missing). He recalled that a large amount of posterior tissue---cerebral tissue---was also missing.

Jenkins stated that after Dr. Boswell put the brain upside down in a sling in a formalin bucket, he noticed both carotid arteries (at the Circle of Willis) leading into the brain were retracted, which made it very difficult to insert needles for infusion. Jenkins interpreted this retraction as meaning that the carotids had been cut some time before the autopsy.  

When asked how he interpreted all of this data about the condition of the brain, Jenkins said he had concluded that the brain had already been removed before the autopsy began. In response to a question as to why this might have occurred, he stated quite clearly that the purpose would have been to remove bullet fragments.

Jenkins also stated that he never saw any bullet or bullet fragment fall from JFK’s body during the autopsy, as others had recalled.

Am I reading correctly?

It was claimed that Humes removed JFK's brain "before" the official autopsy?

And that this was illegal?

So, this would explain Bethesda Corpsman Paul O'Conner seeing ni brain inside what was left of JFK's head?

And if this is true, did Humes simply grab and pull and cut JFK"s brain out of his skull like gutting an animal?

Because if Humes had used the SOP as described by Paul O'Conner at the London mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald he would have had to cut diagnoally across on the top of the skull and then pull down and then remove the heavier tissue lining the skull.

This is all incredibly confusing.

And was James Jenkins next to Paul O'Conner during the full autopsy as O'Conner says he ( O'Conner ) was present for this himself?