Joe Bauer

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 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.

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?

The JFK assassination and truth seeking historical realm is also one of 100's of really interesting human experience side stories. Melba Marcades tale is one of these. And to think that the Dallas PD didn't even want to know about her and her claims when offered this from officer Francis Fruge and the LA state police. What a disturbing act of negligence.

DVP, I just read as best I could the two pages of medical findings you posted. It's really beyond me. But, did I miss where this report mentioned the final weight of JFK's brain as recorded in the autopsy? The average Human adult brain weighs about 3 lbs or between 1,300 and 1,400 grams. O'Conner mentions that what he saw of JFK's brain amounted to "maybe a handful." That's a shocking less weight amount than 3 lbs. Why would you paint O'Conner's testimony as not believable when we know for a fact that so much of JFK's brain was exploded out in Dealey Plaza. Of course O'Conner saw a huge reduction in brain matter. Are you saying that O'Conner's "maybe a handful" description of what was left of JFK"s brain was an exaggeration? And is that one of the main reasons why you substantially discount O'Conner's testimony?

We already know that a certain amount of JFK's brain matter ( along with a lot of blood and other fluid ) exploded upward and outward upon the bullet's initial impact. Agent Sam Kinney and others also reported seeing actual brain matter in the back seat interior of the limo car as they were trying to clean up at least some of the blood. That suggests that beyond the part of JFK's brain that was instantly turned into and ejected as a liquefied spray, that even more eviscerated brain matter was falling out of his shattered skull from simple gravity. The limo following motorcycle officers ( one ? ) said they were hit with matter and describe it's force which indicates it wasn't just a blood spray. So, the fact that at least some of JFK's brain was already exploded up, out and back when he was hit gives some logical weight to O'Conner's claim that there was only a handful of JFK's brain left when he examined this. And maybe I am wrong, but didn't at least two of the Parkland doctors who worked on JFK in their ER state that there was a large hole ( hole meaning an empty space ?) in the back of JFK's broken up skull? Again I ask, is what happened to JFK"s head and brains upon the bullet's impact typical of similar rifle shots to the brains of other human victims or animals such as deer? Is this something a bullet from the Manlicher Carcano can do without doubt? The complete destruction of the skull? JFK's head disintegrated as if hit by an exploding on impact mini-missile. Like being hit with a 50 caliber round.

I absolutely believe Paul O'Conner's testimony regards what he saw of JFK's brain.

Bugliosi was always as shamelessly self-promoting as Spence. And Bugliosi milked his Manson trial performance to an almost desperate degree knowing full well this was his lucky "once-in-a-lifetime" spring board to fame and personal wealth gain. Regards the Lee Oswald London trial and the critics reviews of it, he cites the quote " Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence do battle in a fashion that puts Perry Mason and the entire firm of "L.A. Law" to shame." from the San Jose Mercury newspaper. Ha! I have watched almost every Perry Mason episode on "Me TV" and let me tell you, I sure disagree with that S.J. Mercury review. I've also watched every segment of the London Oswald trial on You Tube many, many times. It's main appeal to me was that the witnesses called to testify were some of the actual participants in the JFK/Oswald/Ruby story. But I always feel a cringe when I watch how Spence missed SO MANY opportunities to , as Jim Di says, "impale" many of these witnesses and Bugliosi himself. Which he could have easily done...but he simply didn't. Why? You are too often left with the unsettling question - could Spence actually be that unprepared or uninformed or unmotivated or just plain lazy...or even compromised in some way? His effort in this way was that lacking imo. All of us in this forum ( and how many of us outside of Doug Caddy are even half way familiar with courtroom and cross examination procedure? ) could still easily see these missed opportunities. They were that obvious. I agree with every point that Jim Di makes in this regards. Bethesda Corpsman Paul O'Conner was "right there" working on JFK's body from beginning to the end of the autopsy. His description of there being "no brain to remove" from JFK when asked if he removed this ( as this was one of his main and specific job duties ) was so incredibly provocative it begged (screamed) for a deeper line of questions such as how this could physically be? What could cause the brain to be almost entirely missing before O'Conner had a chance to remove it himself? When Spence asked O'Conner how much brain was left in the cranium, O'Conner held out his hand and indicated it was maybe a "handful?' A handfull? Maybe even "half" a handful? So much for the autopsy report that said the brain was removed and put into preservation fluid. It wasn't O'Conner who removed JFK's brain using the usual involved skull sawing and nerve and connective tissue cutting procedure as he outlined it. With admitted medical and gun shot injury ignorance, it sounds to me as if JFK's brain was blown into mush to a point that it fell out of his brain cavity from simple gravity. What could turn JFK"s brain into gelatinous mush like that? One old Carcano bullet?

Sandy, if Oswald was getting two hundred dollars a month ( which you say was equivalent to $1,600 today and this on top of his earnings when he worked ) from the FBI, why would he allow his baby daughter June to have no better bed than an old suitcase? The white Russians bought the Oswald's a basic child's bed for June. There seems to have been many other examples like this of unprovided basic needs from Marina's teeth to clothing. If Oswald had enough earning monies to provide for these ( and $1,600 a month certainly would ) and instead held back using his monies for them, are we to believe that he did so out of simple tight-fisted selfish frugality? If so, it borders on sadistic. And if he could provide these basics including rent for pregnant Marina and baby June, why would he go along with allowing Ruth Paine to take his wife and baby from him and going through the humiliation of having to inform Ruth Paine of his visits to Marina for permission to do so? Just asking what to me are basic logic questions.

Spence was like other famous defense attorney's who, for whatever reasons, were into theatrics. Some could pull this off while still maintaining professional respect. Some were very talented and had much success. Most court room trials are at times so boring the jurors can even fall asleep, such as when the O.J. attorneys were discussing technical aspects of DNA. So in that vein I think jurors occasionally enjoy these overly-dramatic performances. And I just happened to like seeing these myself from time to time. However, with a subject as important as the JFK/Oswald/Ruby truth, I don't want to infer that I took this Bugliosi favoring-Spence shamefully unprepared theatrics mock trial show lightly.

I wish the Judge in the Yale Law School mock trial would have allowed the newsman's cameras. Jeff Greenfield's summary was okay, but nothing compared to seeing this drama in the flesh. Come on Judge...this wasn't a real trial.

Oh, Mr. Schnapf, are any of those other Lee Harvey Oswald mock trials on video? Something we can access?

Yes, Spence did a lousy job. The "trial" itself was exactly like Mr. Schnapf described... a " mockery of the mock trial." But, I do like dramatic court room closing arguments as shown in historical videos and even in the movies. Paul Newman's in "The Verdict" was great.

I think that if the Dealey Plaza plan messed up, and JFK survived and got back to Washington with less than totally disabling injuries, there may have been a general military take over. Otherwise LBJ's corruption investigation may have not been stopped as it was on 11,22,1963 and he and all those connected to and dependent on him might have seen themselves destroyed. The film "Seven Days In May" might have become our reality. Incredibly frightening stuff. But not totally unimaginable. Look at how close a coup became reality with Franklin Roosevelt and that was preemptively exposed by his loyal soldier guardian General Smedley Butler.

So Hemming claims they had a car bomb ready in case the shooting didn't work? Hemming seemed to exaggerate at times, but if this were true and actually happened, can you imagine? The confused outrage felt in this country was bad enough with just JFK being slaughtered. If the jackal plotters and killers went so far as to tear Jackie's body apart ( and Nellie Connelly's too ) at the same time, I think the outrage level would have escalated to unimaginable degrees. As it was millions of people across the country instantly hated Dallas and those they perceived owned, controlled and policed that city starting on 11,22,1963. Even at 12 years old, I was made aware right away through general newspaper stories that Dallas was home to very wealthy, powerful and super extreme right wingers who hated JFK. That JFK mug shot "WANTED FOR TREASON" flyer distribution stunt just highlighted for the rest of the country the extreme level of hate towards JFK in that city and even state. JFK himself reportedly told Jackie that they were now in " nut country" after arriving in Texas. He knew that he was in General Edwin Walker and big oil's back yard.

Sandy I believe almost all of these Marina stories as you relate them. As she herself has mentioned in some public interviews, she had her own flaws and made many mistakes. I do think she treated Lee badly at times with disparaging words and poor provider and even manhood insulting ones? I feel Marina married Lee for reasons other than love for him as who he was. More selfish reasons. Their marriage was a bad match and doomed from the start because of so many unmet psychological and emotional need reasons beyond their understanding and control. On balance, in comparing their behaviors toward each other, most everyone will always condemn Lee more because he physically assaulted Marina and any harmful things she may have done to him were just words. And a growing rejection of him personally.

For all that this mock trial lacks (which we all acknowledge is an enormous body of evidence, testimony and research information ) , Gerry Spence's closing argument is still compelling.to watch and it does hit on still really important and weighty points of Oswald's innocence versus guilt. Spence's take on all the coincidences involving Ruth Paine including the draft of a letter Oswald just happened to have left for her to find and her finding ( or steering? ) Oswald to the perfect work place location on the Presidential motorcade route to carry out his supposed deed... still bring strong suspicion toward her possible involvement in some part of this affair. If Spence had the information that is now available I think he may have won that case. As ridiculous as it was in it's staging and presentation. The report of Ruth and her estranged husband Micheal Paine calling each other after the assassination with one them saying " we both know who's responsible" is one of the more intriguing gems in their story.

Back in those early 60's times, slapping and more serious physical abuse of spouses ( almost always husbands against wives ) was much more prevalent and even tolerated versus the last 20 to 30 years in our society. This situation was similar in prevalence to many more people driving drunk and without seat belts ( causing great injury to hundreds of thousands of innocent victims ) back in those times versus now also. It wasn't until hugely increased severity penalties of fines and imprisonment were created, mandated and strictly enforced on perpetrators of these two crimes, along with increased societal shunning and condemning of them such as job loss, insurance denying etc, that these behaviors have been curtailed in any significant numbers. Oswald's possible physical abuse of Marina in that era ( although viewed as despicable by most who saw or heard of it ) would not be given the consideration it would be today in suggesting that this behavior made him and others like him more likely to attack and even kill other people ( especially men ) outside of their regular victim wives or girlfriends, However, it appears that with increased modern day research and knowledge into the life behavior patterns of wife ( or husband ) and kid abusers, that they are involved in more violent and self destructive behavior ( even suicides ) than those who do not engage in these types of abuses. I speculate that if was not for the many physical separation and basic needs financial stress relief help efforts provided to both Marina and Lee that his physical abuse of her may have been substantially worse and longer term than it was. Those separations where Marina and the baby's needs were met with help from others provided Lee with some stress relief also. And thank God Oswald wasn't a drinker! Alcohol has always been proven to increase the frequency and severity of spousal abuse. I know first hand about such things. My boozing step-father beat our mother several times week and abused my brothers and I for years from the time my mother married him in 1960 until I barely survived this nightmare by basically begging to stay with other families as much as I could starting around 1966 until I graduated high school in 1969. I actually have a stronger, even extreme bias against wife beaters than most people because of my childhood past. But that deep bias still hasn't made me consider Oswald's limited spousal abuse behavior as making him more psychologically prone to going to the almost suicidal lengths ( on his own and without more than say a week's knowledge of the motorcade route ) of planning and then carrying out the blasting of JFK's head into a massive spray of brain and blood and bone matter, 12 inches from his wife's face and in front of hundreds of on-lookers in broad daylight and pumping Tippit's body with an over-kill 4 shots, with a last one in the head. These are the traits of psychotic Mafia hit men. And Oswald doesn't seem to fit that bill imo. One last observation, which I have mentioned before; If Oswald was working for others in any way regarding all the intrigue in especially N.O., why would his handlers allow him and his family to suffer so much in the area of financial stress? Oswald's life with his family was so desperate at times, you'd think he would have asked anyone he worked for to help him take care of at least the most basic family needs such as food, shelter and medical costs.

Noticed this thread and read the postings. I then clicked on the You Tube link to hear Vince Palamara and Sam Kinney conversing by phone. With Kinney in Florida and Palamara in Pittsburg. This conversation is accompanied by still photos of JFK in various motorcades and other subjects. This is probably nothing but at the 1 minute and 24 seconds point into this Palamara / Kinney interview video there is a still picture of a Dallas policeman and a person not in uniform ( described in the caption as a "Selective Service " person ) lifting the hard cover of the presidential limo back onto the car to preserve evidence. I assume this photo was taken on 11,22,1963 and while the limo is located at Parkland hospital? Now, I see in this photo something anomalous on the right back trunk lid. On the upper "back" side of the trunk top on the very right side is what looks like a small but obvious indentation and two more anomalies just below that one. Of course my conspiracy inclined mind sees these as something bullets would cause. Could others take a look and share their take on this anomaly in that photo? Could this just be a film degeneration or image reflection thing? Apologies if this is nothing.

I am sure all of us here have enough life experience to know a stressed marital relationship when we see it. The Oswalds were so stressed in so many ways and especially financially as they had to rely on others for basic needs assistance time and time again, off and on most of their entire time in Texas and even coming to and leaving NO. When the only bedding you can provide your baby is an old suitcase - I mean please, that is poor to a pitifully sad degree. That's depression era poor. It's exhausting just reading about how many financial struggles and stresses Lee and Marina went through in their time here in the states. Of how many times they had to rely on others just to get by. With all that embarrassment, humiliation and frustration, one could imagine how emotionally, physically and even spirit exhausting it all was for Marina and Lee. Those kinds of long term stresses almost always just devastate young marriages, especially if the marriage partners also have deeper neglected or abused childhood born emotional issues themselves like Lee and perhaps Marina too? People in marriages like this often break down even worse themselves. They eventually start blaming each other and losing their love and respect for each other. Sometimes they even abuse each other verbally or even physically. One of the couple may turn to other persons for emotional needs ( including intimacy ) reasons. That often is the final straw that breaks the marriage camel's back. I only mention this common knowledge stuff to explain why it makes perfect sense to believe that Lee Oswald had descended into such a state personally and that he eventually began verbally and physically abusing Marina. And it seems almost everyone in this debate acknowledges at least some of these abuses on Oswald's part whether they be occasionally over only a few month period or more over a longer period. The debate seems to be mainly about "the degree" of this behavior on Oswald's part. And in this context, I find it hard to stay with it and it's suggested importance regarding the White Russians and Lee's possible motivation for exploding into an almost suicidal mission of violence on 11,22,1963 to perhaps release all of his pain onto as many people as he could.

Obviously I think Jim Garrison was indeed a hero. The average Amercan however doesn't seem to understand why. Or, even know much about Jim Garrison at all.

Did Jim Garrison say the above in the interview as printed? I wonder what percentage of Garrison critics could ever compare to, understand or let alone even imagine anything close to the full measure of Garrison's intellect, his grasp and perceptions of the realities of the real world around us including the precariousness of the individual versus the state, the powerful versus the powerless and the abuse of these rights and tenents and where it is taking us. And the courage and integrity to risk his life in exposing these abuses as much as the national media would allow him coverage to do so? I doubt if it's 1%.

The Oswald dishonorable discharge subject is very interesting and worthy of factoring into speculation regards some of Oswald's possible inner feelings of resentment, anger and frustration. A dishonorable discharge could ruin someone's career opportunity life for sure, especially if they are just starting out and from the lowest economic ladder rung already and with a young family to support, and would need help finding and securing decent paying and benefited jobs and maybe even going to college. Clearly Oswald knew this and seriously tried to reverse the DD. But, in regards to Oswald possibly wanting revenge on Connally, if Oswald was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD building on 11,22,1963 with the intent of exacting this upon John Connally, what a pitifully incompetent effort as JFK's back and head got in the way with two shots and a third missing everyone ( except James Tague? ) and even the limo itself! Has anyone ever investigated whether there was some bad blood between Oswald and James Tague? In the film "JFK" when Kevin Costner's Jim Garrison is actually in the TSBD 6th floor snipers lair and crouched down looking out the window and directly at the JFK shooting site on Elm, his chief investigator Lou Ivon (Jay. O. Sanders ) who is standing right next to Garrison and also looking out that window, spontaneously makes an observation comment of how much easier and accurate it would have been for Oswald to have shot at JFK ( and/or Connally? ) when he was coming down Houston street straight towards him and at a much closer distance and direct line of fire range. Whether this "JFK" film scene and dialogue was made up or not, the Ivon question was and still is perfectly valid from a shooter's point of view. Illogically Oswald waits until JFK's limo and body target is farther away and getting smaller by the second than it was on Houston coming toward him, not to mention the limo is now going down an incline. But, despite those facts of more difficult target alignment decisions, non-marksmen - cheap rifle with misaligned scope firing Oswald then makes two direct hits on JFK with the second one being a perfect "bulls-eye" into JFK's moving head at 265 feet. Considering the question of Oswald choosing the more difficult and risky shooting task on Elm versus Houston, it makes more sense in the context of there being a designated triangular shooting zone and that was in the more open area of Elm where the heavy tree, shadows and picket fence could help obscure another hidden shooter.

M. Clark, I didn't read all of the postings in that thread ( have to get on with my day ) but did any of them ask the question, how a man blinded in one eye was accepted into the Air Force as an AP?

Thank you Tom Hume. Sometimes I feel a need to step back and view the story in it's larger total picture and with simpler basic rational thinking parameters. While still firmly acknowledging microscopic inspection is extremely necessary, important and reverently appreciated.