Greg Doudna

"Abraham, Martin, and John", by Dion

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

This book is simply a must read. The transcripts of the White House meetings held during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It shows just what certain elements of President Kennedys government were advocating for to deal with the Cuban problem in 1962. Terrifyingly if it wasn’t for the humanity and leadership of The President, The Attorney General and Ted Sorensen to name a few, this world would have effectively ended during October 1962. It also proves quite clearly that we will never see the likes of men like Jack and Bobby Kennedy again, and we are all the lesser for it. 
 

Agree.

The Story simplified:

1. JFK, against the counsel of the military establishment, saved the world from nuclear holocaust in 1962.

Including me in the 3rd grade at the time, wide-eyed and scared to death when my Dad said after JFK's Cuban missile crisis speech on the radio to my mother and brother and me: "we just don't know what will happen." And at Portage Path Elementary School in Akron, Ohio, where we had what were called "disaster drills" or "air raid drills" in which the school children were led orderly by teachers to large rooms or gymnasiums to practice lining up on the floor, kneeled forward face down, foreheads almost touching the floor, one arm behind the neck, the other in front over the eyes, spinal column exposed but everything else protected. 

2. JFK's refusal to be a team player with prevailing military establishment counsel caused him to be removed extrajudicially from power, with the collateral effect of his being dead. Not only from where JFK had crossed lines already, but the sense of where that might go, a popular president no longer taking direction from the best strategic minds in America's interests, as regarded.  

End Of Story (other than the historical question of interest of how it happened in the specifics).

Storybook christ-figure story: he gave his life that others may live.

Of course all mythifying--the dreams of dreamers--the folk legends and songs--the timeless stories of the past--the imagery of the MLK Jr. "I Have a Dream" speech--poetry--are part-fact and part-lyrical story built up out of it. 

But it is the essential story "truth" in these stories become timeless that take traction in universal appeal, underneath the historians' labors to get at excavation of facts and true narrative truth. 

Thanks Jeremy, also Tom, I'm satisfied re your explanation of the Melanson 1984 argument (of the possibility that the Secret Service took the original, not a copy, from Zapruder, the evening of Nov 22) as not being convincing. I can add one more point on that from my own further reflection.

Melanson saw (a) motive--due to the importance of a film of the actual assassination, Secret Service for its CIA lab analysis would want the original, not simply a less-ideal copy for technical analysis, and (b) the analogy of the Secret Service taking the body of JFK by force over the objections of coroner Rose at Parkland, as how the Secret Service might override any objection Zapruder might raise to giving up his original.

But "b" fails as I see it, as the analogy not holding. At Parkland, I believe the Secret Service had the backing of the new President himself, LBJ, to take the body. And the Texas state law consideration aside, the "owner" of the body, if anyone, would be Jacqueline, and according to the accounts, Jackie wasn't leaving Parkland without it, which was the justification LBJ gave for ordering the Secret Service to take the body. So the only thing at issue there from the Secret Service's point of view was a clash of conflicting orders or claims--LBJ orders on the one hand, Rose asserting a Texas state law on the other. The Secret Service carried out LBJ's orders. 

As for Zapruder's film, Zapruder was formidable, a savvy successful businessman, with lawyers, and the property was clearly, unambiguously, his. Without a court order, the Secret Service had no right to take it, and if they did could be sued big-time. Meaning, it is not reasonable Secret Service would take the original by force from Zapruder without authorization coming from the top, and a mere head of the Secret Service order would also not be high enough but would have to come from LBJ, and there is no evidence of that. At the ground level, if Secret Service had sought the original (no evidence it did, but if so), Zapruder would 100 percent be predicted to say nor or resist. If Secret Service persisted, there would either be exposure by Zapruder that that happened and legal consequences from his side, or else a secret covert payoff or deal for his silence (also no evidence).

But this is all a nonstarter in terms of motive, because the obvious motive for requesting the copy was to examine it for what it showed--to see what happened--including the timing and the shots analysis. And that could be done from a copy. There was no advance motive to plan to alter a film before having seen it (I think before having seen it, not sure of that detail, of if it had been viewed, not examined in detail closely by expert analysis). 

Therefore the story hangs together of a request to borrow a copy, which was then studied and analyzed for interpretation of its content, and the original remained with Zapruder as was 100 percent his legal property, and no evidence otherwise. 

And without either access to the original or a theory of a later substitution of the original, the case becomes more difficult to make for means and opportunity for successful alteration to have been done, though my narrow question here concerns solely the issue of the whereabouts of the original.

That Zapruder retained the original the weekend of the assassination seems to stand, as best as I can see.

I would be interested in comment, especially from Jeremy and Tom Gram, on an article which I do not believe has been even mentioned in this thread: Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and intrigue in the CIA's secret possession of the Zapruder film", Third Decade 1/1 (Nov 1984), 13-21, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48721#relPageId=15.

The author (Melanson) makes an argument that the NPIC assessment occurred the same night of the assassination, Fri night Nov 22, and claims there are good grounds to suppose the Secret Service obtaining the film from Zapruder (and having CIA do analytical work on that film for the Secret Service since Secret Service did not have its own labs of that calibre), would have taken the original--not a copy as has been claimed--from Zapruder, for the purpose of the analysis wanted to be done. Yes, it is an argument that Zapruder dissembled concerning what actually was loaned by him to and then returned to him by the Secret Service (the original, not a copy as Zapruder claimed). 

Melanson's primary arguments for that are (a) the Secret Service wanting to analyze that film would have wanted and demanded the original not a mere copy (and Melanson cites the Secret Service overriding of pathologist Rose at Parkland on custody of the JFK body as example that the Secret Service was capable of overriding any initial objections from a mere owner of the film in light of the importance considered at stake); and (b) Zapruder had financial motive to claim wrongly that it was only the copy that he gave, rather than lent the original, because of potential catastrophic financial consequences on sale of untouched exclusivity of an original no one else had seen, to potential buyers of the film. 

Melanson also makes an argument that the Secret Service may have obtained Zapruder's camera as well--this before the FBI obtained the camera. Melanson notes that a CIA account referring to studying the Z film "late in 1963" instead of giving an exact date, is a way the night of Nov 22 could have been "hidden" from disclosure. 

The conclusion of Melanson is that while he claims no proof or evidence anything was altered, there was means and opportunity for alteration of film and camera if CIA people had decided or wanted to do so. What he does claim is that there was secretive and not entirely truthful (on the part of Zapruder) accounting of the chain of custody of the original.

Melanson says "Between Zapruder and the Secret Service, they had possession of all three of the Dallas-made copies for nearly twenty-four hours. With the original at NPIC and with three copies made there, it is possible that if the film was doctored, the three NPIC copies of the doctored film were substituted for the three Dallas-made copies... We have only Zapruder and the Secret Service's assertions as to where the copies were for twenty-four hours."

Melanson also says the NPIC data on the timings, in which 9 timing scenarios were found by NPIC as possibilities based on interpretations of the shots in the film, some of which would mean conspiracy (more than one shooter) were wrongly claimed to have been given over to the Warren Commission, but the Warren Commission never received them (i.e. never received the possible interpretations of the Z film according to NPIC that would be consistent with conspiracy). 

Since the article is from 1984, and I have not read up to date on this topic, I always consider the possibility some of this could be obsolete in the light of later information, which if so I am hoping someone might explain, thanks.

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

Here's what Myers wrote about the coup de grace:

There is no reason to believe that paraphrasing quotes when rendering comments was not Myers' standard procedure, tainting every direct quote that appears in WM. I have no idea what impelled him to come clean in this instance.

Well, a wider practice of paraphrasing quotes if a general practice is troubling if true (and with Myers not having produced tapes or verbatim full transcripts to my knowledge).

But to split a hair here, that is a different charge than that he wilfully planted a dishonest, malicious fabrication, intentionally made up something he knew at the time was not true. 

So while the second charge is troubling, it is not your first one. Are you retracting your first one of wilful dishonesty, or are you adding a second different charge to the first one on the theory that two incompatible accusations in explanation of the same thing will make the person look even worse! 

Like the defense counsel who argued that his client was innocent of the murder because he was 75 miles away at the time, and besides it was self-defense. Except in reverse. 

I'm not here to defend Myers. Tom Gram has in the past called on Myers to make tapes of his interviews available. Its a little difficult for me to imagine that Myers did all his interviews without recording them, though I cannot recall Myers specifically addressing that point.  

Unfortunately probably 90 percent of published witness interviews do rely upon the good faith of the reporter--good faith that there is not knowing wilful fabrication of content in those interview reports by the reporter, that there is attempt at accuracy. Same with the interviews in Joseph McBride and many, many other authors. 

Its an honor system at work, which semi-works because wilful bad actors are in fact a minority of reporters. Also, I suspect probably a good chunk of reported interview quotations inside quote marks in books and magazine articles are not from tape recordings, but reconstructed from notes or memory. All the FBI interview reports on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site reporting what witnesses told the FBI agents are paraphrases, though most of those interview reports do present them as paraphrases, not verbatim quotes. All the accounts of what Oswald said under interrogation, etc.

Bottom line: you have a point re the paraphrase issue. Not in my opinion on your accusation that Myers intentionally fabricated quotation content knowing the person to whom it is attributed never said it. But on the paraphrase issue, yes that is an issue. 

I wrote a book with storytelling from long ago ("Showdown at Big Sandy"). I put lots of reconstructed conversations from memory inside quote marks in that true storytelling, reflecting the sense if not exact words. (In fairness to myself, I think a reasonable reader knows that reading my book.) No doubt the vagaries of memory and all that goes into human error had some mistakes, just as in any witness telling hearsay. But if so it wasn't intentional fabrication of what a person didn't say attributed to them. I wasn't doing that. I doubt Myers was either in his interview reports. That's where your and my perception differs.

I have been told by small-town newspaper type friends about the common problem in local news of people complaining they were misquoted in the newspaper. How it happens is the reporter has a certain storyline in mind, interviews the relevant people. Then in the story writeup the reporter fills in what they think the person would have or should have said if they can't recall the exact words. But, since the reporter is not as expert on the matter as the person, gets it wrong. Not by intention, but because that is how humans screw up. Apparently, happens all the time.

Here is Myers' statement on the matter, from his blog of Nov. 22, 2018 on Tatum (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=740402724246726837&postID=2553597346260411854&bpli=1&pli=1)

<start clip from Myers' blog, comments>

 Anonymous said...

Why in the almighty universe did you write here that “Tatum never said that the final shot was fired into Tippit’s skull”??? IN YOUR VERY BOOK, you quote him telling you: “He didn’t walk back, he hurried back, and cautiously approached him, and then shot him again—in the head.” (WM, p. 71) So what’s going on here?

November 6, 2020 at 1:08 AM

 

 Dale K. Myers said...

The paraphrased quote attributed to Tatum in my book, "With Malice" [page 71 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] is inaccurate, having survived an early draft of the book in which John Moriarty's speculation about the Tippit head wound influenced my rendering of Tatum's comments about the same. The phrase " - in the head" should have been in brackets or outside the quotation, as it was a qualifier to what Tatum actually said. Same for the phrase: "After shooting the officer in the head..." In addition, I also wrote in my book: "The bullet fired into Officer Tippit's skull at point blank range..." [page 72 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] The phrase "point blank range" is also inaccurate as as there is no medical evidence that specifies the distance at which the head shot (or any of the shots that struck Tippit) were fired. The autopsy report shows that none of the bullet wounds were contact wounds (i.e., the muzzle of the firearm was in contact with the skin at the time the firearm was discharged), nor is there any evidence that the muzzle of the firearm had deposited gunpowder residue, which would have indicated that the muzzle was within approximately 4-5 feet at the time it was discharged. Thus, the evidence (or lack thereof in this case) demonstrates that the muzzle was in excess of 4-5 feet at the time Tippit were struck. All of the above citations are on my list of errata for "With Malice". By contrast, the information contained in the article above is correct.

November 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM

<end clip from Myers' blog, comments>

4 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The manufactured Tatum quotation is not a typo. The related sham forensic analysis proves it was injected with malicious intent to deceive.

I don’t think so, because if so it went against interest (ie no motive) and also because Myers so vigorously later attacked and exposed as wrong what you are saying was his own malicious fabrication. 

It’s on p 123 of his 2013. The point-blank coup de grace head shot which Myers there defends in his interpretation agreed with Moriarty of HSCA who argued for that possibility as consistent with or suggestive of the mob execution idea. Here Myers is agreeing with that which adds nothing to any argument for Oswald’s guilt so if that is what you think was motivating Myers to fabricate a quotation it makes no sense that this is what he would pick to do it. 

In the preceding quote from Tatum are the words where Myers has Tatum saying he saw Oswald “shot him in the head” (twice). 

The interpretive paragraph of Myers following that (in agreement with Moriarty/HSCA’s coup de grace idea) only means Myers believed his own preceding quotation was accurate at the time he wrote that analysis or interpretive paragraph. It does not prove malicious or willful intent in fabricating the previous quote, as you reason.

Then years later on his blog Myers ripped to pieces the Moriarty coup de grace idea, blasting to pieces what you say was his own prior deliberate attempt to deceive. What kind of sense does that make. Whereas before, in his book, Myers had argued somewhat favorably though without certainty in favor of Tatum’s story, Myers’ later blog argument argued against the accuracy of Tatum’s story.

As part of that argument as I recall he criticized the Moriarty/HSCA coup de grace idea as being without evidence. Then one of his readers pointed out the quote in Tatum’s own words published by Myers “shot him again in the head”, a contradiction, whereupon Myers said “in the head” should have been in brackets identified as an interpretive or explanatory comment of Myers, not words said by Tatum, but the brackets had been left out by mistake. (I am going from memory on this.) 

Here is what I think is a better theory on what could have happened there, if it wasn’t simply the straight accidental typo (twice), of a nature unknown in any of Myers’ other witness quotations: another possibility might be Tatum actually did say that to Myers; Myers original quotation of Tatum there was accurate; Myers later knew the coup de grace was wrong and gave his argument, then when the reader pointed out his own published Tatum quotation, rather than withdrawing his entire argument, he might have explained it as the missing brackets/typo. I don’t know. The fact that Myers’ other witness quotations are not known inaccurate like that, and that this one occurs twice not simply once (same error same words in the Tatum quotation), plus motive (caught in an inadvertent but clear contradiction) could—could—produce something like that response. Which if so would again not have anything to do with an original intent to willfully fabricate a quotation at the outset as you leap to conclude.

Could that quotation of Tatum have been real? Sure why not, doesn’t mean it actually happened that way in that detail even if Tatum in a later interview might have said so (if he did). 

On the fact at issue itself, the bullet hole directly in Tippit’s right temple easily looks like the result of a coup de grace. But it can be known—KNOWN—that that is NOT what happened—a point blank shot from the gun into the temple—no matter ANY dispute over Tatum’s or any other witness’s words, for one simple basic reason: the autopsy found no powder burns on that bullet hole, and that means that shot was not from point blank, but from farther away. 

(I too used to think the temple shot looked like a coup de grace, in agreement with Moriarty/HSCA and Myers in his book. But credit here to Steve Roe for calling my attention to the powder burn detail in the autopsy which excludes that it could have been a coup de grace execution shot. It was a shot from the revolver farther away which hit that perfect right temple hit either by accident or by the shooter being skilled from farther away, but not from point blank or contact range. Just the simple conclusive fact there.) 

So you can go on for your remaining years convinced Myers maliciously and deliberately fabricated at the outset a false witness quotation to serve an argument against interest, then later attacked and exposed his own interpretation and alleged-malicious-fabrication (as if Myers was taking stupid pills that day). 

I think it was either the typo Myers says it was, or the quote from Tatum really was real (ie no typo), one or the other. I think there is ca zero probability Myers started it at the outset as a willful or malicious misquotation. 

33 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

The SBT's got nothing to do with my contempt for WM. The book's gross dishonesty is the problem. A few logical examples follow.

1) A sham timestamp analysis (discussed this thread).

2) Delaying Markham's stated time of departure from her house for the sole reason that his scenario required it. ("Reliable evidence, which is discussed later in this chapter, pins the shooting time to about 1:14:30 p.m. -- which means that Markham probably didn't leave the washateria before 1:11 p.m.")  Hint: the radio tape does not have mike keying sounds at the alleged time which is bogus anyway.

3) Injecting false content into the Tatum interview for the sake of promoting the red herring Galaxie jockey into an eyewitness of a coup de grace that never occurred ("shot him again -- in the head"). This is followed by a sham forensic analysis, too tedious to type out. It's the next paragraph.

McBride's Into the Nightmare is a much better book, certainly far more honest. I'm sorry to hear it may be out of print.

The 1:18 benchmark isn't sham, its the published time, if its not been doctored. Tom Gram may have a point that fixing the times of transmissions in between the time-checks could have more float to it than Myers states by an unknown number of minutes, I don't know, nothing is stopping you from researching and publishing an alternative interpretation of the data and proposed timings if you think you can do better.

On Markham, that's called a difference in interpretation or judgment, not dishonesty. You're not charging him with not quoting or disclosing Helen Markham's testimony accurately, but for not believing a witness on a particular detail. What a crime! To pick and choose testimony from an admittedly somewhat dicey witness on the basis of what one thinks is other evidence! That's a difference in interpretation, not grounds for calling Myers a liar ("gross dishonesty"). And its not as if you believe every jot and tittle of every witness that you seem to consider grounds for condemnation of Myers. 

On the Tatum interview, I doubt Myers intentionally altered a quotation on purpose wilfully. If there were an accumulation of several such instances that might tilt perception the other way, but in a massive tome like Myers' with ten million details with what fairly must be characterized as general consistently high level of accuracy in quotations from documents and reporting of data otherwise, I don't know how Myers made that particular mistake but I would give the benefit of the doubt to Myers' explanation as essentially a typo in genre in its origin, especially on a one-off instance. 

Michael that link you give to Dan O’Meara is very interesting and new to me. Assuming his analysis is right, there is some new information on the table there not entered into previous discussions: that the time Earlene turned on her TV and was fiddling with it when Oswald burst in in a hurry was some time AFTER 12:48 (can be no earlier than) but NOT LATER THAN 1:00. 

That is, an arrival of Oswald at say 1:03 or 1:05 is excluded. It was sometime between 12:48 and 1:00.

It’s difficult for me to believe your trash talking of Myers’ Tippit book is based on firsthand familiarity with it. My copy is dogeared and extensively annotated. The book has just about all of the primary data there in one volume, it’s written clearly and well edited, it’s got great photos, a ton of original research and analysis, lots of firsthand interviews. One of the better minds in the CT camp, Alaric Rosman, praised Myers’ Tippit book prior to saying where he disagreed with Myers conclusions on specific key points (and gave his reasons and said why). That’s a better response than yours. When you can edit together a concise voice and argument of your own on some point and present a specific clear argument with reasons and conclusions in one set of connected paragraphs then that’s worth discussing. I have heard people trash Myers’ Tippit book based on Myers advocacy of the Single Bullet Theory when that has nothing to do with and no relevance to the Tippit book or specifics re the Tippit case… sigh (illogical). 

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

OP must backup his claims with evidence. Unless this happens they are subject to dismissal out of hand, imposing no burden of falsification on anyone.

Which would be a fair observation, and no you don't have a burden of falsification--except you claimed the OP was falsified (impossible, you claimed, due to a proven 1:06 timing). If that isn't what you meant, thanks for clarifying. I wasted my time responding to your claim that Bill's timing was proven impossible, asking you your basis for that claim of falsification, when (I think) you are saying now that isn't what you mean (now). OK.

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The reason for "60 years of tons of argument" is the interminable succession of bogus overlays, submerging the event under an ocean of red herrings. It started with Leavelle's framing of LHO. If progress is ever to be made the mise en scene must be drained of the dreck that pollutes it.

Do you have a link to the Garrison article by Gavan McMahon?

 I thought I did give the link, at www.lulu.com, why are you asking a second time? Here is a more direct link at that site: https://www.lulu.com/shop/midnight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-015/paperback/product-5776wvr.html?q=garrison&page=1&pageSize=4 . No there is no link to the article itself apart from inside the e-book of the journal issue where the article is found.

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

See the link provided in my first comment.

Per CE1974 there are grave difficulties with the timestamps. One factor verges on hilarious: the dispatchers' heights! An assertion of a deduced accuracy to a second is subject to Hitchens Razor: It states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Consider it dismissed.

News to me that James Markham's career as gang leader rose again -- shades of the Bonnie & Clyde theory featuring the master thief who got busted for stealing cigarettes from a blind news vendor. Do you have a link to the Garrison article?

Not responsive to the specific request to defend your claim that Bill’s timeline calibrated to a time of ca 1:15 for the Tippit killing is positively excluded or falsified. That is a different claim than what you are now saying that the 1:15 is not proven or established (your present point of Hitchens’ Razor: the burden of proof is on the one who makes an assertion). I hope you can realize the difference. Your first claim was of positive proof for a ca 1:06 time of Tippits death. You asserted it, you must prove it (not just say the 1:15 isn’t proven), or else Bill’s reconstruction isn’t falsified (which was your claim). The issue of whether 1:06 is proven and certain (your claim to which I responded) matters because if so Oswald is exonerated from both walking there and being the Tippit killer (for timeline reason). Showing the ca 1:15 time isn’t proven (if so) is necessary but not sufficient to accomplish the assertion of proof of the ca 1:06 time. 

Following your cryptic allusions and leads (I tried) is like boxing air. It’s not that there is not necessarily anything there, it’s just not straightforward and too frustrating. You throw out allusions as if giving clues to a Mystery Theatre enjoying the riddle and expect the reader to reconstruct the argument and arrive at the solution for themselves. Is it not possible for you to prepare a single coherent article or link to one? Maybe not. As for your question on the McMahan article on the Tippit case, it is in Garrison issue 15, fall 2023, you can find at Lulu.com (no link to a free access online for that article that I know of). I disagree with nearly all of the analysis of the article but the reporting of hearsay from the Markham family has some items of interest underneath the interpretations given in the article. 

On 6/15/2024 at 12:46 PM, Michael Kalin said:

 

I will not discuss matters in the subjunctive. Oswald's arrival "at Tenth and Patton (from the rooming house on his way to the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson) at 1:11," five minutes after the murder occurred, invalidates the entire chronology.

Could you say what you regard as hard evidence Tippit was killed at ca 1:06 (and not ca 1:14-15)? 

I’m familiar with Bowley’s 1:10 on his watch but I understand that claim is first attested from Bowley Saturday morning Nov 23 making an error in memory (not on the setting of his watch) possible. And I am familiar with Helen Markham’s time of leaving her apartment which would suggest an earlier time of the Tippit killing EXCEPT for the recent lengthy article of Gavan McMahon in Garrison magazine which says a lot of things but he reports from Markham family members a claim that Helen had been asked to be there by her son or his gang as a witness of something. (Her son was the leader of a gang of which Jimmy Burt was a member, I think, whose car may have been there when Tippit pulled up.) According to this, Helen Markham had for that reason purposely got there earlier, such that Markhams time of arrival to Tenth and Patton might not necessarily have been when Tippit was killed, but may have preceded it by an unknown number of minutes.

I am not taking a position on these things other than to suggest neither Bowley nor Markham may be unequivocal foundations for an earlier timing. 

There has also been an argument published (posted on this site and on his website in article form) by Gil Jesus arguing for tampering in a police radio 1:18 time-check tied to a Bowley or Callaway transmission. Do you regard that argument of Gil Jesus, or alternatively some other published article making a police radio alteration case, as hard evidence removing the 1:18 time-check as a fact in the Tippit timeline? If so, which published, on-the-shelf argument do you believe best makes that argument? 

Then there is a 1:15 time of death of Tippit written at Methodist Hospital on a death certificate, where Tippit was taken by the ambulance a few minutes after he was killed. Is that hard evidence Tippit was killed earlier than 1:14 or 1:15? (I don’t know.) 

I have just named four possible arguments and there are surely others, but my question is what are you considering hard evidence for the earlier time of death of Tippit? 

To me, I think it comes down to whether that 1:18 police radio time check is valid on the police tape. I believe those were Bowley’s and then Callaway’s voices on the police tape and I believe that those transmissions occurred within a couple minutes, not much more, of the shots. I agree there might be a motive to doctor the police radio tape timing to allow time for Oswald to have walked there. But what can be known on the basis of hard, as opposed to equivocal, evidence is the question. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Ha! You give no quarter to anyone when it comes to turning a phrase. I'm hoping a stiff breeze blows through this thread soon. It's like waiting for Godot.

And also devoid of much actual content, as distinguished from sounding very profound.

On the matter of the question of the calibration of Bill's walk-through timings data to the ca. 1:18 pm radio call timing as opposed to moving that calibration benchmark earlier by some minutes for reasons otherwise argued elsewhere, obviously Bill as he explicitly makes clear is arguing from the 1:18 pm basis. If that premise can be shown wrong, that will affect the interpretation part of his analysis, but does not affect the data reporting itself. Why not at least thank him for the data production and reporting. Here it has been 60 years of tons of argument and debate and this is the first time someone made a serious attempt at measurements, of obtaining of primary data, on the matters Bill did. And you just come on with sneers and literary flourishes. (I agree with Matt Cloud on one point, you are good with language as Matt is too. But I'm looking underneath admiration of wordsmithing and artistry to substance of argument.)

You call names of the work of others who have published serious, years-long labors of their research. Where is your data production or single-article published analysis or argument? You have a scattering of Education Forum posts, none comprehensive and not consistent with one another--why not prepare a single, edited article with your own voice and your own argument in one piece, to be put out there for debate as others have done? If you think Bill's time-counts are inaccurate or flawed data (as distinguished from disagreement over interpretation), why not somebody do a controlled replication of the same walk-throughs as Bill's with timings and publish their data too?

Bill, a couple more comments on the data/analysis, to return to topic: 

On the 9 minutes estimate of unaccounted-for time of the Tippit killer from scene of the killing to in front of Brewer’s store and into the balcony of the Theatre, I recall a missing time gap has been noticed before but to my knowledge no one has attempted to quantify that as you and Frank did, which is where I see you advancing knowledge here with your data. (I do not agree with the brickbats thrown at your reporting of your data instead of thanking you for it). 

I recall estimates as high as 20 minutes unaccounted-for time, but no prior report of anyone actually trying to replicate and time movements on those city blocks as you have for that part of the timeline. The 9 minutes estimate, as you conclude, means the person did not go directly without letup to the Theatre but delayed ca 9 minutes somewhere. You interpret (plausibly) that as Oswald thinking or uncertain what to do. There could be other possible explanations but that is certainly an obvious and plausible one. It might be imagined he is behind a building or tree or whatever to minimize being seen while thinking what to do. Do you have an opinion on a story, I don’t recall specifics, I recall it may be from Markham family hearsay/Brownlow, of a witness claim of “Oswald” hiding out in the Life church building before leaving there? Is that a possibility of being true in your opinion? (Since there are 9 minutes needing to be accounted for in some way)

It seems you do not have in your timeline allowance for “Oswald” to have run up the back stairs of the house next to Dean’s Dairy, of Myers’ endorsement of the Mrs. Dean’ family story on that. Which is OK because it makes no sense that the killer of Tippit would have done that, and the Mrs Dean family story is better understood as reflecting a misunderstanding of the known persons who did noisily run up those stairs and banged on the door, namely the police, which would be what Mrs. Dean actually heard.

In your opinion, does your timing data exclude or permit, on timing grounds alone (never mind other issues for purpose of the question), the story of the funeral home ambulance sighting of “Oswald” running across a street around Jefferson or Crawford? 

Final comment: on Jimmy Burt, your timing data concludes there is plausibility to the timing of Jimmy Burt looking down the alley from Patton and seeing “Oswald” farther down the alley near Crawford, a point which has been questioned on timing grounds. 

However while that may be true it also could be coincidence, founded as it is on the premise that Jimmy Burt went on foot from the front yard a block away to the Tippit patrol car location. Although that is what Jimmy Burt said he did, unexplained is why Jimmy Burt told the FBI a different story, that he drove there in his car which he said he parked oddly (facing the wrong direction) next to Tippit’s. One of those two stories is untrue, and the magnitude of the discrepancy rules out error in memory, meaning one of the two stories was knowingly false, but which?

Well there is independent witness testimony of Frank Wright to seeing a similar-appearing car as Jimmy Burt’s parked the same wrong way direction, next to Tippit’s patrol car. That to me reads as of smoking-gun weight favoring that Jimmy Burt did have his car there as he told the FBI was so, which means he did not walk the route he said on other occasions and which you timed in reconstruction.

Of course in any case of a witness caught in a significant lie at a crime scene—which I think Jimmy Burt’s qualifies as—the question is why. And actually I don’t have a truly satisfying answer to propose to that. For several reasons I doubt Jimmy Burt was involved in a witting killing of a police officer, but, his being parked so oddly next to where Tippit pulled next to him (the Frank Wright account has Burt’s car there already when Tippit pulled over) is a piece of the story that I believe still calls for explanation, even if I don’t know what that explanation is. 

On your earlier on possibly Oswald had a fresh shirt from Irving rather than the same shirt two days old, fair point. Against it is Buell Frazier said Oswald was wearing the light red shirt on Thu before arriving in Irving, which is a description of the same dress shirt that was found at the rooming house which Oswald said he changed out of during his stop there. I realize witnesses can be mistaken etc so your suggestion is still possible. 

Anyway these are some further comments that come to mind re the timing data and analysis.

Bill, it is just odd the idea that Tippit would pull over to the side of Tenth and call out to Oswald (after rolling down his passenger door window to be heard calling out to someone walking on a sidewalk? Or maybe he tapped his horn and hand-motioned him to come over? But no witness spoke of hearing a horn tap…and the window was rolled up again if so before Tippit left his car…).

Why would Tippit call over Oswald walking on a sidewalk over to his car? What cause? 

Then the utter brutality of the shooting of Tippit.

Then the lack of running from the scene, but the controlled walk/slow lope seen by the witnesses of the killer moving away from the scene. Like someone who had done that before. Like a professional. 

All three of these items seem to agree better on the assumption that a contract killer flagged down Tippit to draw him over to talk to him, then executed him.

You have given a scenario to account for Oswald walking west on Tenth—that he saw a police car near the Marsalis and Jefferson bus stop so backtracked on foot the other direction (now west) on Tenth.

But another scenario is a killer who witnesses mistook for Oswald coming from Ruby’s apartment walking west on Tenth.  

Two possibilities accounting for the same fact (the killer arriving on foot to the scene of the Tippit killing). 

That it was Oswald has witness identifications, the shell hulls match to Oswald’s revolver, and the fibers in the jacket agreement with Oswald’s brown shirt, plus Oswald is in Oak Cliff at that time and is spooked and evasive whether or not he shot JFK. 

But that it was someone else who resembled but wasn’t Oswald has: the factors just named on the stopping of Tippit’s patrol car; there is a serious argument that the killer’s CE 162 jacket was not Oswald’s gray jacket; there is weak chain of custody on the shell hulls; there is a known police coverup for no known good reason of another revolver which can be argued to have been the Tippit murder weapon if Oswald’s revolver wasn’t; the witnesses in the closest position to see the killer (Benavides, Markham) gave descriptions of the killer’s hair different from Oswald’s; the recent story of the grandson of Scoggins saying his grandfather had been asked to park his cab on Patton around the corner, in advance that day, by someone close to Ruby (as if lining up a getaway vehicle in advance); and the argument for another candidate for the killer who checks many if not all of the major boxes for a plausible killer of Tippit (Craford). 

What is the true truth here? It seems it is possible to see this both ways. 

It doesn’t tie him to the shooting at Walker, strictly speaking, even as a conjecture. It’s a statement on the illogic of him shooting JFK, which he was tied to at that point. it doesn’t even raise the question of whether Oswald shot at Walker, strictly speaking. 

If Zapruder’s personal copy from the original still exists today and that copy’s creation and existence precedes the Hawkeye New York business involving another copy, then the answer to my question is “yes”, it can be excluded—would that be an accurate way of putting it Jeremy? OK. Fine by me, just wanted to know, thanks. 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If, as the existing documentary evidence indicates, the film which turned up at NPIC on the Saturday was not the original film but a copy, the case for alteration collapses. There appears to be no other scenario in which the original film could have been altered before numerous copies, and copies of copies, had been made and widely distributed.

Jeremy, thanks for the detailed summary and the references for further and I follow your logic to this point. But a quick question: can it be ruled out that alteration was done at Hawkeye on a copy, and that the broken seams or splices of the two places in the original that happened at Chicago could be replicated in the doctored Hawkeye copy, and the original and other copies never seen again, i.e. can it be excluded that all known iterations of Zapruder in the public domain stem from a doctored copy (not a doctored original)?  

Bill thank you for reporting this research and data. 

Distinguishing data from interpretation, sticking with the data for the moment, one quibble: you allow ca 0 minutes time for Oswald in the rooming house. Agree Earlene saw him acting like he was in a hurry, but it is not only the grab of a jacket. There was digging out the revolver, taking it out of its holster (since the holster also was out in the room but not on LHO’s person). There was the grabbing of all available bullets (since none remaining were found in the room), and stuffing them into a pants pocket. 

You cut out any change of shirt and pants which I suppose is possible but the weight of witness testimony seems to weigh in favor that he did change clothes, which is what he said he did in interrogation. And think about it—whatever shirt he wore that morning he had had on for two days straight. And Oswald had a reputation (per Marina) for being a very clean person. A few additional seconds to change shirts would be expected unless there was such extreme urgency that not even 10-15 seconds for that could be spared.

As a guess, if he did not change clothes, maybe 1-2 minutes in the house minimum. If he did change shirt and pants, maybe 3-4 minutes minimum. 

You also allow ca. 0 minutes from exit of the rooming house to beginning his walk from the northbound bus stop on N Beckley in the direction of the Marsalis and Jefferson bus stop hypothesized destination. 

A first question is why did Earlene say she saw him standing at that bus stop (as if waiting for a bus going in a direction he was not headed)? What is your interpretation of that? Mine is he knows Earlene will look and wants her to see him there, to mislead pursuers if she is asked which direction was he headed when he left. That would add at least a minute or so to allow for that.

Moving to interpretation of the data, on planning to take the Marsalis and Jefferson bus to another bus to Mexico (I believe Burt Griffin said something about that idea also in his recent book), do you have a comment on how he could plan to do that on less than $15 in his pocket and taking no extra clothing or supplies with him of any kind, not even soap or comb or toothbrush or spare underwear or socks or a razor to shave?

But that aside, thank you for the work you and Frank B. put into compiling the data, and reporting and publishing it (meaning as you did here), as well as some good quality analysis argument (whether or not agreement in every particular). Much appreciated.

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Author Dale Myers (With Malice - Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit) puts forth the idea that Lee Oswald was walking east on Tenth Street toward the area of Marsalis and Jefferson.  Oswald had a bus transfer in his pocket and the only bus stop in the entire Oak Cliff area which this transfer was good for was the bus stop at the intersection of Jefferson and Marsalis.  The transfer was stamped for 1:00 making it good until 1:15 (or the next available bus).

Myers asks: "Had Oswald already been to the bus stop but was scared off?"

I have now come to believe that Oswald, when he left the rooming house on North Beckley (after grabbing his revolver and jacket), had the destination of the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson in his mind.  From the rooming house on North Beckley, walking east on Tenth Street toward Marsalis, Oswald was walking the most direct line to the bus stop.  Again, his transfer was good at that particular bus stop until 1:15, or the next available bus.  In With Malice, Myers states that the Lancaster Road bus was scheduled to arrive at the stop at Jefferson and Marsalis at 1:30 and "would have taken Oswald to Greyhound bus connections through Laredo, TX and on to Mexico".

According to Myers, it was at 1:17:41 when passerby T.F. Bowley got on Tippit's patrol car radio to report to the police dispatcher that a police officer had been shot and killed.  The Dallas County Sheriff's Department (no doubt monitoring the city police radio) put out the same information over their airwaves.  Shortly after Bowley's report, a Sheriff's Deputy (unit 109) reported to his dispatcher that he was at the intersection of Tenth and Jefferson, just one block east of the bus stop located at Marsalis and Jefferson; the same stop which for Oswald's transfer was good.

Back to the question put forth by Myers.  "Had Oswald already been to the bus stop but was scared off?"

Myers' point is that if a Deputy patrol car was near that bus stop shortly AFTER Tippit was shot, then maybe he was there BEFORE the shooting, as well.

Perhaps Oswald first arrived at Tenth and Patton (from the rooming house on his way to the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson) at 1:11.

The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of bus driver Cecil McWatters and cab driver William Whaley) in an attempt to determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house.

Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting.

"So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and as she was going out, the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did.  It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters

They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus).

So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44.

Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab.  This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48.

They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely).  They concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds.

So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54.

Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house.

I think Oswald got to the rooming house at 12:59 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket (per housekeeper Earlene Roberts) before hurrying out the front door, zipping up the jacket as he went out the door.

In March of 2020, along with Frank Badalson, Fred Litwin, Scott Maudsley and FJ James, I walked from the bus stop outside the rooming house on North Beckley to the intersection of Tenth and Patton and did it in twelve minutes.  Therefore, I believe Oswald first arrived at that intersection at 1:11.

About two blocks east of Tenth and Patton, Tenth Street curves drastically to the right before intersecting first with Marsalis and then with Jefferson.  If one is walking east on Tenth Street from the spot where Tippit was gunned down, one cannot see any point east of Tenth Street's curve until one actually arrives at that curve.  Point being, I believe Sheriff's Deputy unit 109 was near Tenth and Jefferson (remember, unit 109 did report from that location shortly after Tippit was shot) and Oswald, walking east along Tenth with the goal of reaching the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson, only notices this patrol car once he reaches the curve on Tenth Street.  Before reaching the curve on Tenth Street, Oswald cold not have seen anything east of that curve.  I believe Oswald's goal was to walk east on Tenth to Marsalis and then south on Marsalis to Jefferson where the bus stop was located.  I believe he reached this curve on Tenth and once he was able to see several blocks to the east, he sees unit 109 in the area three short blocks down on Tenth.

Oswald has been on foot, bus and taxi for the past forty plus minutes.  He has no idea if his face has been plastered all over television or if his name was put out over the police radio airwaves by this point (after all, he did leave his rifle behind and was missing from the building from where the President was shot).  Oswald has now reached the curve along Tenth and sees unit 109 a few blocks down.  Not wanting to chance walking any closer to this Deputy patrol car and having his face recognized, Oswald simply reverses direction, now walking west on Tenth and back to where he had just came from.  Incidentally, Oswald being worried that his face and/or name has already been put out there for the world to see most likely had a lot to do with why he was so quick to gun down Tippit once Tippit got out of the patrol car.

The first intersection Oswald would then come to is Tenth and Denver.  Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt were out in the front yard of the house on the northeast corner of that intersection.  Burt said he saw a man walking west along Tenth, cross over Denver and continue along Tenth (Al Chapman interview with Jimmy Burt, 1968).  Shortly after seeing this man walking, Burt said he and Smith noticed a police car pull alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk almost down to the next intersection (Tenth and Patton).  Burt said this was the same man he had seen moments earlier walking west on Tenth.  Burt stated that they were about to go inside the house when they heard the gun shots.  Smith testified to the Warren Commission that he saw Tippit fall.

On Saturday May 4, 2024, I was in Oak Cliff, TX with Frank Badalson and Dave Ledbetter.  The purpose of this particular visit to Oak Cliff was to perform time trials of the movements of Lee Oswald (as well as Burt and Smith).  We wanted to try to get into Oswald's head as to where he was heading both before encountering Patrolman J.D. Tippit and after murdering Tippit.

With a digital stopwatch, Frank Badalson timed me walking from the spot where Oswald stood as he shot Tippit, east along Tenth Street, crossing over Denver and stopping at the point where Tenth Street makes it's drastic curve.  Walking at a pretty good clip (after all, I assume Oswald was walking with a purpose) but not running, I reached the curve in two minutes and eight seconds.  Therefore, it would take four minutes and sixteen seconds to get from the spot where Oswald was standing when he fired the shots to the curve and then back to encounter Tippit.  So, as noted earlier, if Oswald originally arrived at Tenth and Patton at 1:11:00, then he encounters Tippit at 1:15:16.

This explains how Oswald comes to be seen walking WEST on Tenth Street, being at the shooting scene in time to shoot Tippit without having to actually have come from Marsalis (coming from Marsalis would have made it nearly impossible to get to the shooting scene in time).

Allowing for a brief fifteen second conversation between Tippit and Oswald, I walked and then trotted (per Domingo Benavides' Warren Commission testimony) from the spot Oswald was standing when he fired the shots to the corner of Tenth and Patton.  This took a fraction over nineteen seconds.  So we have Oswald cutting through the front yard of the Davis house on the corner at 1:15:50.

From the corner, I then did a slow run down Patton (per Ted Callaway's 11/22/63 affidavit) to Jefferson.  This took fifty-nine seconds (after also noting the spot where Oswald was when Callaway hollered out to him, which took me thirty seconds to reach).  So we have Oswald reaching Patton and Jefferson at 1:16:49.

Next, I walked west along Jefferson (per Warren Reynolds' Warren Commission testimony) to the location of the Ballew's Texaco Station (now Santos Muffler).  It took me one minute and eleven seconds from the corner of Patton and Jefferson to the Texaco.  I went around to the back of the Texaco to the site where Oswald ditched his jacket.  This took twenty-two seconds.  So we have Oswald in the parking lot behind the Texaco ditching his jacket at 1:18:22.

Bowley has already reported the shooting on the patrol car radio to the police dispatcher (Murray Jackson) and the ambulance would be dispatched from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home directly across the street from the Texaco station in another thirty-seven seconds (1:18:59).

From the spot of the jacket dump, I walked west to where the alley meets Crawford.  This took nine seconds.  So Oswald is in the alley where it meets Crawford at 1:18:31.

Oswald is last seen in the alley behind the Texaco station by Burt and Smith.  So Badalson, Ledbetter and myself decided to do a time trial for Burt and Smith.  In the 1968 interview, Burt told Chapman that after the shooting, from the front yard of the house at Tenth and Denver, they went to the scene of the shooting, stayed momentarily (he never said just how long exactly) and then took off on foot in search of the killer.  They had seen him go to the corner of Tenth and Patton and turn south down Patton.  Burt told Chapman that they had it in their minds to go all the way down to Jefferson but when they got halfway down Patton, they looked west along the alley and noticed the man in the alley "almost down to the next street".  This puts the killer in the alley behind the Texaco at the point where the alley meets Crawford.

I wanted to see how the Burt/Smith timeline (which has them going from their front yard almost one block east of the shooting scene to the shooting scene and then halfway down Patton to the alley where they would see the killer in the alley almost down to the next block) compares to the Oswald timeline at the point when Oswald is in the alley behind the Texaco.

Remember, our time trials have Oswald behind the Texaco where the alley meets Crawford at 1:18:31.

From the Burt/Smith front yard at Tenth and Denver, I did a fast walk/slow trot to the spot where Tippit fell on the street.  Trying to get into the minds of Burt and Smith, I would definitely walk very fast, even trot, to the spot where the police officer was lying in the street (once I saw the killer disappear around the corner).  I continued on the Burt/Smith route to the corner of Tenth and Patton and then halfway down Patton to the alley.  Total time from the Burt/Smith front yard to where the alley meets Patton was two minutes and fourteen seconds.  Recall, our timeline has Oswald disappearing around the corner after firing the shots at 1:15:50.  If Burt and Smith left the front yard immediately, with no "hanging around time" near the shooting scene, they reach the point where the alley meets Patton at 1:18:04.  Recall, we have Oswald in the alley behind the Texaco at 1:18:31.  For this to fit, Burt and Smith hang around the shooting scene for about twenty-seven seconds before taking off after the killer.  It makes sense that they wouldn't have hung around the shooting scene for long, for once you've hung around too long, there's no sense in taking off on foot in search of the killer.

Next, we wanted to get into the mind of Oswald and where he would go after ditching the jacket behind the Texaco station (and how long it would take him to get there).  The point where the alley meets Crawford is halfway up Crawford between Jefferson and Tenth.  To orient ourselves, Oswald is on the sidewalk where the alley meets Crawford and he can go in three directions; up Crawford to Tenth, down Crawford to Jefferson, or west through the alley on the other side of Crawford.  We concluded that he certainly would not go back up to Tenth Street.  He had just shot a police officer on Tenth Street less than one and a half blocks back to the east.  We also decided that he wouldn't have went down to Jefferson.  It was a very busy street (certainly one of the busiest in Oak Cliff) and both Robert Brock (a mechanic) and Mary Brock (Robert's wife) had seen him run past them in front of the Texaco station right there on Jefferson moments earlier.  Also, Oswald was followed along Jefferson by both Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson, who were at the Johnnie Reynolds Motor Co. at the corner of Jefferson and Patton.  Was Oswald aware that the two men were following him from a safe distance?  Why chance it?  So we were left to conclude that Oswald fled west through the alley that runs parallel between Jefferson and Tenth.

Next, from the alley's entrance with Crawford (after ditching the jacket), going west in the alley (assuming Oswald was walking fast but not running so as to not draw attention to himself), it took us one minute and forty-two seconds through the alley to reach Storey Street.  This has Oswald in the alley at Storey at 1:20:13.

We stayed in the alley walking west toward Cumberland Street.  It took us one minute and thirty-five seconds to reach Cumberland.  So Oswald has reached the alley's entrance with Cumberland at 1:21:48.

Proceeding further west along the alley for another block, we came to Beckley Avenue.  It took us forty-eight seconds to reach Beckley from Cumberland.  So we have Oswald at the alley's entrance with Beckley at 1:22:36.

Now, we know that at some point Oswald has to get down to Jefferson to be seen by Johnny Brewer out in front of Hardy's Shoes.  Who knows when Oswald decided to hide inside the Texas Theater.  My personal theory is that he didn't really know where he was going (more on this in a moment) as long as it was west, west and more west (further and further away from the Tippit shooting scene).  You just shot a police officer.  You headed west immediately after shooting him.  Obviously then, you're going to keep going west.  Right?

From the alley's entrance with Beckley, still walking west through the alley, we reached Zang Boulevard in one minute and fifty-seven seconds.  This would have Oswald at the alley's entrance with Zang at 1:24:33.

I don't believe Oswald considered the theater until he reached Zang.  My own personal opinion is that Oswald arrived at Zang and remembered that the theater is just a half block from Zang and Jefferson.  From the alley's entrance with Zang, we turned left (south) onto Zang to Jefferson and then right (west) onto Jefferson and then to the recessed entrance of 213 West Jefferson Boulevard, what used to be Hardy's Shoe Store.  This trek (from the alley's entrance on Zang to Hardy's Shoe Store) took us one minute and thirty-nine seconds.  This has Oswald standing in the recessed area of Hardy's Shoe Store at 1:26:12.

Johnny Brewer testified that Oswald ducked into the shoe store's "lobby" when one of the police cars, sirens blaring, was on Jefferson coming from the east heading west (toward the shoe store).  Brewer testified that the police car made a U-turn at Zang (before ever reaching the shoe store).  This is when Oswald left the shoe store lobby and proceeded west along Jefferson toward the theater.  Brewer said he could still hear the sirens as the police car was heading away.

We lingered in the shoe store "lobby" for what we considered a reasonable amount of time (to account for Oswald stepping inside to avoid the approaching police car) and then we walked from the lobby entrance of 213 West Jefferson (the shoe store, now a quinceañera/bridal dress shop) to the Texas Theater's entrance and turned off of the sidewalk into the theater's entrance.  This took us one minute and fifty-one seconds.  So, according to our time trials, Oswald enters the Texas Theater at 1:28:03.

Now....

Again, Brewer told the Warren Commission that once the police car made it's U-turn on Jefferson at Zang, that is when Oswald left the shoe store lobby to head toward the theater.  The patrol car was now heading away from Oswald's location.  So what would make the police car, with sirens blaring, make a sudden U-turn on Jefferson?  You have to remember, the Dallas Police were frantically searching for the cop-killer.  Many were about to enter the Abundant Life Temple (the backside of the building butted up against the alley located behind the Texaco Station where the killer was last seen headed; per Robert and Mary Brock).  At 1:35, the police dispatcher puts out that the suspect is cornered at the Jefferson Branch Library.  The law enforcement personnel who were about to enter the Abundant Life Temple made a beeline for the library.  This certainly would cause a patrol car cruising west on Jefferson toward Zang (the opposite direction as the library) to make an immediate U-turn and head directly to the library located on Jefferson back to the east.

The patrol car, cruising at a normal clip west on Jefferson, was undoubtedly looking for the cop-killer walking the streets.  This officer probably crossed the intersection with Beckley with the sirens off; he had no reason for the sirens to be blaring at this point.  It is only after he crossed Beckley that the call comes through over the police radio that the suspect is cornered at the library.  This is when the officer, having not yet reached Jefferson's intersection with Zang, turns on the sirens in order to make his U-turn at the next intersection (Zang).  Oswald, about three-quarters of a block down, suddenly hears the loud sirens and steps into the nearest store entrance, which happened to be the shoe store that Brewer was working.

Also, the 1:35 dispatch call to the library synchronizes up with Julia Postal (the ticket lady at the Texas Theater) hearing the announcement of JFK's death made over KLIF radio at 1:35, stepping out from the ticket booth and seeing Oswald approaching from the east.

It's these TWO events (the library dispatch call and the KLIF radio announcement) that pin down the time Oswald leaves Hardy's Shoe Store.

Getting back to my opinion that Oswald really did not have any idea where he was going as he proceeded west through the alleys.  I believe Oswald stopped at least once or twice (while in the alleys) to gather his thoughts, to think about where to go and what to do next, taking nine minutes total of "hiding out" time in the alleys.  The reason I believe this to be true is because he was in no hurry; he was not heading straight to the theater.  If Oswald headed straight for the theater (from the Tippit shooting scene) without stopping, then he would have arrived at the shoe store on Jefferson well before 1:35 when a police car, sirens blaring, had reason to make it's sudden U-turn on Jefferson just a half block from the shoe store.

I believe Oswald entered the Texas Theater at 1:37.  Sergeant Gerald Hill reported to the dispatcher that Oswald was arrested and they were en route to the police station at 1:52.

Recall that our time trials have Oswald ducking into the lobby of the shoe store at 1:26:12.  However, at 1:35/1:36, the police begin racing to the library on Jefferson.  This discrepancy suggests (to me anyway) that Oswald hid out in the alleys for nine minutes total and in reality, arrived at the shoe store "lobby" at 1:35/1:36.  Because of these time trials performed by myself, Frank Badalson and Dave Ledbetter, along with the information provided by Dale Myers regarding the 1:35 dispatch broadcast, I wholeheartedly believe that Oswald hid out in the alleys for nine minutes.

On 6/2/2024 at 8:25 AM, Keven Hofeling said:

@Sandy Larsen @Greg Doudna @Jean Ceulemans @Pat Speer

 

The following is a history of Pat Speer's posts about James Jenkins on the Education Forum spanning the last fourteen years which demonstrates both that Speer has relentlessly made false representations on this forum about the historical claims of James Jenkins concerning the JFKA medical evidence, and has repeatedly, mercilessly and falsely accused James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. I had promised several forum members that I would substantiate my claims with this, so here it is...

 

The added emphasis to Mr. Speer's posts was added by me in bold black.

And my commentary is in bold red.

 

1-15-2010 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15238-why-tink-and-i-love-jim-and-jack/?do=findComment&comment=179038

...BTW, Humes and Boswell would not do this themselves; they'd have an assistant or "diener" do it. In this case, I believe it would have been Jenkins, who, as I recall, told either Lifton or Livingstone that he had indeed washed Kennedy's hair.

Pat Speer began commenting about James Jenkins on the EdForum in 2010, in this case claiming that Jenkins had told David Lifton or Harrison Livingstone that he had washed JFK's hair; something that I have been unable to find in Lifton and Livingstone's chapters devoted to Jenkins. In fact, Jenkins specifically told William Law that the hair wasn't washed (Is Spear telling "the hair was washed tale to attempt to explain why the hair in the back of the head autopsy photograph looks washed instead of bloody?).

Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 238). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. 

___________

8-12-2010 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16388-clint-hill/?do=findComment&comment=201324

...From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:...

...Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple….

In his earliest comments about James Jenkins, Speer seemed to be in agreement with Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple.

___________

10-08-2010 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16717-eye-hand-witnesses-to-the-back-of-jfks-head-wound/?do=findComment&comment=208136

...Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so.

Speer again makes the claim that James Jenkins washed JFK's hair at the autopsy.

___________

1-14-2012 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18602-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/?do=findComment&comment=243833

Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up...

OfABCsandxrays.jpg

When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location.

Speer again asserting Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple(something about which in later years Speer will take the opposite position in the context of questioning Jenkins's credibility).

___________

8-17-2012 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19338-lifton-and-morningstar-nice-but-no-cigar/?do=findComment&comment=258504

Oh pleez is right. You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last. If someone says something that is inconsistent with what someone else said, or with photographic evidence, and this is made known to them, they should be given the chance to either withdraw their original statement, or double down. In this case, all the key Parkland witnesses either withdrew their original statements, or tried to find some middle ground whereby their statements could be consistent with the photographic evidence. Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered).

And yet many CTs are not aware of this. Why? Because a certain element tries to shout anyone down who tries to point out the simple fact that, thanks largely to your efforts, the key Parkland witnesses were indeed given a chance to clarify the record...and did so...by admitting they were wrong....

This isn't about James Jenkins, but I couldn't resist including it because of the degree of its absurdity (it is axiomatic in the law that the earliest statements carry the most probative value and evidentiary weight), and because it demonstrates how Speer's bias motivates him to take absurd positions...

___________

12-9-2013 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282451

I was present at both of the focus groups led by Jenkins, and asked Jenkins a number of questions. It was the equivalent of having a two-hour plus talk with him. And one thing was clear: he was telling the truth as he knew it and had no agenda.

Sure, his recollections helped fuel some long-held conspiracy beliefs. As I recall, some of his recollections regarding the casket etc, supported Lifton's theories.

But you can't say he supported Z-film alteration and autopsy photo alteration etc, when his main point--the point he repeated over and over again--was that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT. He, in fact, defended the authenticity of the photos and x-rays by repeating--over and over again to make sure those in the audience understood what he was saying--that the back of the head was smashed but intact, and fell to pieces when they peeled the scalp back.

Jenkins is not a back of the head witness, nor an alterationist, and trying to claim him as one is just desperate.

P.S. Jenkins' observation about the brain and skull was not supportive of the wound's being a large blow-out, but of it's being a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, precisely as I've been claiming for years.

A transcript of the presentation given by James Jenkins and William Law at the "November in Dallas" 'JFK Lancer Conference' at the Adolphus Hotel on Friday, November 22, 2013 does not support the claims Mr. Speer made in the above post, namely that Jenkins had "repeated over and over again...that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT," and that Jenkins had repeated "over and over again...that the back of the head was smashed but intact." What the transcript of the presentation itself indicates is that Jenkins referenced the head wounds as follows:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."

The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612

Speer says that he heard Jenkins make these statements in "both of the focus groups led by Jenkins," during which he asked Jenkins questions, so one or both of said groups may have been different events than the presentation that is transcribed, but for Jenkins to have made the statements about the back of the head being "intact" as Speer claimed he would have had to have departed from everything he had told David Lifton in 1979, Harrison Livingstone in 1990 and 1991 and William Law in 1998, and it makes no sense that Jenkins would do so.

By making these claims in this post, Speer was establishing a baseline for James Jenkins from which Speer will later claim Jenkins deviates post 2015 with subsequent descriptions of JFK's head wounds when Jenkins was actually being consistent with all of his pre-2016 claims. Note that Speer's tendency to claim that Jenkins "repeated over and over again" something that Speer cannot prove Jenkins actually said surfaced again in his responses to me and Sandy Larsen in recent days.

___________

12-10-2013 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282477

Jenkins was consistent with his previous statements in that he got the impression from Humes that the brain just fell out in his hands. He personally infused the brain, and thought the carotids looked atrophied, as if they'd been severed for some time. So, yeah, his recollections are consistent with the brain having been removed and then replaced.

This seems to be at odds with his other statements, however. He repeatedly claimed the back of the head was intact but shattered, and that it all fell apart when they peeled back the scalp. (Humes, Boswell, and Custer said essentially the same thing.) So it's hard to envision how anyone could have removed the brain and then put it back.

I suspect instead that the brain stem was damaged by a bullet heading down the neck, but who knows? Jenkins repeated over and over again that he was there to tell us what he recalled, and not engage in speculation. He had an IMPRESSION the brain had already been removed. That's interesting. But not definitive.

What we do know is that Jenkins does not support those claiming

1) the back of the head was blown out a la the McClelland drawing. He started his talk by describing a conversation he had with McClelland, and acknowledging that their recollections are greatly at odds. His recollection is that the back of the skull was in place, and that there was no major damage to the cerebellum.

2) the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Jenkins said there was NO wound low on the back of the skull. Period.

3) Humes expanded the head wound prior to the autopsy a la Horne. Jenkins' statements are totally at odds with the suspicion Humes expanded the wound prior to the autopsy. Jenkins saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy that grew in size when Humes peeled back the scalp during the autopsy. Aguilar showed him a number of photos and I don't recall his saying he thought any of them were fake. He pointed out the meninges on the top of the head photo, and seemed convinced that that photo was 100% authentic.

Here we have Speer making the twin claims that he has been unable to substantiate in 2024, that Jenkins had said that the back of JFK's head was "intact," and that Jenkins "saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy." It causes me to wonder whether Speer had at this time already posted the screenshot from William Law's video in which Jenkins is touching the upper portion of the top of his head with his fingertips (but which cannot be distinguished in the screenshot on Speer's website because the screenshot has been darkened to make it look like Jenkins is instead touching the top of his head presumably by Speer), in which case, Speer's EdForum comments might be motivated by his desire to buttress the misinformation published on his website.

Also of concern is Speer's claim that Jenkins had said that his description of the large head wound was "greatly at odds" with that of Dr. Robert McClelland: It seems much more likely that Jenkins had actually said something along the lines of what he said about the comparison of his head wound description with that of Dr. McClelland at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference: "The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist, or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland states in his drawing, but a little higher" (Here Jenkins say this himself in the video below):

___________

12-12-2013 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20872-james-jenkins-recounts-what-he-saw-at-bethesda/?do=findComment&comment=282552

...3. Horne and Mantik's theories hold that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out in Dallas. Horne's theory is that Humes expanded THIS wound--the one on the back of the head--in a pre-autopsy. Jenkins specified that the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp. THIS WAS HUMES' TESTIMONY. It's ludicrous, then, to pretend Jenkins' statements are strong support for Horne or Mantik's theories, when they are, in fact, a significant challenge.

I won't say they are an insurmountable challenge, however. Heck, even I can dream up a scenario in which Humes sutures the back of the head back together so he can peel back the scalp and have the skull collapse in front of an audience.

If Jenkins "specified" that "the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp," then it was supposedly only to Pat Speer himself, because James Jenkins said nothing like that to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law

___________

2-20-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=284846

...Jenkins--probably a CT, but not an alterationist. I spoke with him this past November in Dallas, and his words suggested that he believed that the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit. He was adamant, in fact, that there was NO blow-out wound low on the back of the head....

James Jenkins expressed concerns about the authenticity of the autopsy photographs to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone and William Law, particularly about the back of the head and top of the head autopsy photographs, but Jenkins may have been adamant that there was no blow out wound low on the back of the head because Jenkins has always described the rear blow out wound as being a little bit higher than what Dr. McClelland described, but the Pat Speer of 2024 will not admit that.

___________

3-13-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285617

I talked to James Jenkins about this in November. I'd thought maybe they'd rinsed some of the brain from the hair. He said that the brain soaked hair was draped down to the left side of Kennedy's head. No surprise, I think he's correct, and that the two photos are both of Kennedy.

This looks like something else that James Jenkins supposedly said to Mr. Speer, but to nobody else.

___________

3-30-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285962

I spent a couple of hours listening to Jenkins talk this past November 22, and talked with him a bit myself, and your recollections of his recollections are not quite accurate, IMO. Jenkins said he heard Finck mention a possible entrance at the supposed exit (above the ear) and saw some discoloration of the bone in this location (suggesting an entrance). He took from this that there was an entrance in this location, which led him to be confused when the doctors concluded the bullet entered by the EOP. He never saw this entrance by the EOP, but did note that the skull was intact in that location, and that there was no blow-out wound low on the back of the skull, as claimed by so many CTs.

As far as the brain, Jenkins was ADAMANT that his brother-in-law O'Connor was wrong, and that the brain was in the skull at the beginning of the autopsy. He said he heard Humes say something about the brain coming off in his hands when he peeled back the scalp and started to remove the brain, which led him (Jenkins) to wonder if the brain hadn't somehow been removed before the autopsy and placed back in the skull. (He had no explanation how or why this would have been done.) Still, he was clear that the brain was in the skull, and that he personally infused it with formalin.

Speer constantly attributes this language to James Jenkins which Jenkins never used during any of his interviews. Jenkins has never said anything about the scalp being "peeled back," or about the skull "collapsing" when the scalp was "peeled back."  James Jenkins has consistently told his interviewers that a skull cap was unnecessary because the brain fell out in prosector Humes's hands when the wound was expanded. 

Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. 

___________

4-3-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=286033

  On 4/3/2014 at 7:05 AM, David Andrews said:

I've read of herniated brain stems, where the impact of a bullet has pushed the brain stem through the foramen magnum and out of the skull. It seems possible, then, that the impact of the bullet on Kennedy's skull pushed the brain downward to such an extent that the brain stem got cut by the foramen magnum...

If this had actually occurred, how was it even possible that JFK had minimal vital signs and respiration in the Parkland ER?

-----------------------------

Based on Jenkins' statements, there were two cuts, one on each side. It seems possible, then, that an incomplete cut had damaged one side of the brain stem, and that Humes completed the cut with ease. He thereby made a remark about how easy this was. Which Jenkins recalled more or less correctly...

This is just speculation on my part, of course. If you have information that even a partial cut of the brain stem will put an immediate stop to all vital signs, I'll be forced to reconsider.

This is one of the rare examples when Speer actually admits he is just speculating rather than reciting facts.

___________

12-4-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=292606

...I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy....

It's true that James Jenkins places the blow out wound slightly higher than the occiput on the back of the head, but in recent years this has evolved into Speer saying that the large gaping head wound was on the top and not the back of JFK's head.

___________

12-14-2014 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=293180

...You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair....

Here, Speer is misstating both Dr. William Zedlitz's and James Jenkins's positions about the back of the head wound.

Courtesy of @Vince Palamara

___________

10-9-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22096-the-eop-entrance-revealed/?do=findComment&comment=315978

Many if not most of the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses described a large defect on the back of the head. A number of them specified that this large defect became apparent after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Well, guess what? That's what the doctors said from day one. That's the official story. And yes, in this instance I have some hands-on experience on this issue. James Jenkins showed up at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference to take questions and relate what he observed during the autopsy. I spoke to him several times, and observed him speak to crowds on three separate occasions. He was crystal clear on this point: the back of the head appeared to be intact, but the skull was like a shattered egg beneath the skin. Well, this confirmed my impression. A few days later, however, Doug Horne pumped out an article telling everyone Jenkins had said there was a big hole on the back of the head. It's like a religion, I suppose.

James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact."

___________

10-13-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22327-back-of-head-wound-again/?do=findComment&comment=316117

Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing...

...When pushed, he explained it at the end. He said "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

He had thereby supported the statements of the autopsy doctors, and James Jenkins, etc, and the authenticity of the x-rays. The scalp at the back of the head was intact but the bone was shattered beneath the scalp.

Mr. Speer is here explicitly misrepresenting Dr. William Zedlitz's testimony about the large head wound.

Courtesy of Vince Palamara

___________

12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319965

Jenkins tries to be very careful, and consistent. But he's only human, and sometimes reverses himself, or at least appears to reverse himself. One attendee at the conference tried to play "gotcha" with him, and pointed out to him that Livingstone had claimed he'd said one thing, and that he was now saying something else entirely. To which Jenkins responded by claiming that Livingstone sometimes had trouble understanding what he'd been telling him.

Jenkins doesn't have a "theory" per se, or one he cares to share. From what I can gather, and I've read his interviews and talked to him several times now, he suspects there was more to it than Oswald, and that at least one shot impacted on the side of the head. He also believes the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that the bullet creating this wound didn't even enter the body. And then there's his recollection regarding the brain. He says his impression was that the brain stem was at least partially cut before Humes went to cut it, and that when he transfused the brain it was apparent to him that the cut along the brain stem was uneven, like it had been cut, and then cut again. So, yes, it would SEEM like Jenkins would readily accept that the head had been reconstructed before he saw the body.

And he has never ruled that out, as far as I am aware. He is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)

James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that there was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head upon the arrival of the body at Bethesda. Jenkins consistently stated that there was.

___________

12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319957

...4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there.

5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound....

James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact".... 

___________

12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320032

Yikes. Let's be clear. Jenkins' recollections do not support the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He doesn't flat out say they are fakes but he readily acknowledges they don't reflect what he remembers. His recollection is of a head wound further back on the head. But he is also adamant that the back of the head between the ears was intact, and that the cerebellum was basically intact and not exposed by a hole on the back of the head. Now, he was the guy who handled the brain. If there was a gaping hole through the cerebellum one would think he would have noticed....

Speer is here being unusually candid.

___________

12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320030

I think they joked about it. Jenkins was involved in two presentations in Dallas. The first was promoting a new blu-ray comprising the interviews conducted by William Law for In the Eye of History. Well, I have the book, and saw several of these interviews at the 2005 Lancer conference, so I flinched at the prospect of paying 35 bucks for a blu-ray, when I don't even own a blu-ray player. But the blu-ray has an extra which aroused my curiosity, so I gave in. The extra? A three-hour interview where O'Connor, Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Jim Sibert pass around the autopsy photos, and compare what is shown to what they remembered. The snippet shown was fascinating. They were all obviously doing their best--but their memories were obviously at odds on a number of points. I hope to watch it within a few days. I'll let you know if there's anything ground-breaking.

___________

12-14-2015 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=320201

Oops. As far as Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole, they all signed off on autopsy photos in which the scalp at the back of the head is intact, and never retreated from that position. Now, they said from the first that the back of the head was fractured, and that when the scalp was peeled back bone fell to the table, and this revealed a large defect stretching into the occiput. And this has allowed some to pretend they claimed or suggested or supported that there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. So, let's be clear. Mantik is not only claiming the back of the head was fractured beneath the scalp, but that it was MISSING, with a huge hole in the scalp. That the doctors thought this was bunkum is revealed both in the drawing they made during the autopsy (which is credible due to its placement of a back wound at a location too low to support the single shooter scenario), and in the drawing they made for the Warren Commission (which is credible due to its placement of the head wound in the middle of the top of the head, whereby it could be an exit from the front or the rear).

As far as Jenkins, he was most certainly pointing out a hole observed after the scalp was reflected, and not a hole on the back of the head observed upon the body's arrival. In 2013, and then again in 2015, in front of multiple witnesses, he explained that the bone at the back of the head between the ears (where Mantik claims a large hole of scalp and skull was located) was fractured, a la an eggshell, but still extant beneath the scalp.

Jenkins has been crystal clear in all of his interviews that he saw the large gaping head wound in the back of the head when he first saw the body, and not when the scalp was reflected (Jenkins says nothing about the scalp being reflected).  Jenkins also never claimed that the back of JFK's head was extant or intact.

___________

12-10-2016 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17203-the-trach-incision/?do=findComment&comment=338872

The doctors always acknowledged that essentially the whole right side of the brain case was fractured beneath the scalp, and that skull fell to the table when they refracted the scalp. This was confirmed to me personally by James Jenkins. And Jerrol Custer said much the same. This allowed the doctors to remove the brain with minimal sawing. When the skull was reconstructed, mortician Ed Stroble was pretty much starting from scratch, under orders to make the president presentable for an open casket viewing.

So, of course, the hole at the end of the reconstruction was on the back of the head. Where else could he put it where it wouldn't be seen at the funeral?

P.S. The majority of the Parkland witnesses described and pointed out a wound location at the top of the back of the head, along the right side. This is not where the hole was at the end of the reconstruction. That hole, according to Tom Robinson, was centered in the middle of the back of the head, and not visible when the head was resting on a pillow. So, whether or not you think the Parkland witnesses were correct or not in their original statements, the evidence strongly suggests that the hole at the end of the reconstruction was not where the hole was at the start of the autopsy....

So James Jenkins said this to Pat Speer, but not to any of his interviewers? How credible is that?

___________

3-12-2017 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=346814

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

James Jenkins repeatedly referred to the head wound as being occipital-parietal throughout his various interviews.

___________

3-17-2017 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=347290

  On 3/16/2017 at 7:22 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

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

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

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

---------------------------------

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

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

Here, in response to @James DiEugenio, Speer is being unusually candid. One gets the feeling that the version of "the truth" that Speer tells often has much more to do with who his audience is than what "the truth" actually is.

___________

12-1-2017 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24456-chessermantik-cut-from-mock-trial/?do=findComment&comment=365427

Jenkins was a no-show. They claimed he'd had transportation problems. But I'm not so sure. I spoke to him in 2013, and then again in 2015. He was clear on two points that some might find surprising. One is that there was no pre-autopsy or whatever performed by Humes. And two is that the low back of the head was shattered but held together by the scalp. i.e. there was no occipital blow-out wound where all too many claim there was an occipital blow-out wound.

___________

12-2-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388827

McClelland did not fill out a death certificate. But he has said an awful lot of stuff at odds with what most CTs presume he has said. And in this regard, he's not unlike Jenkins, who moved the large head wound to the back of the head for his book....

And this is the first instance of Mr. Speer implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming, when the fact is that James Jenkins has always maintained that the large gaping wound was on the back of JFK's head.

___________

12-3-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388862

...To bring this back to topic, moreover, it should be noted that, with his new book, James Jenkins has changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists.

And by stating that "James Jenkins changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists," Pat Speer was accusing James Jenkins of telling falsehoods.

___________

12-10-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389226

...Here is where Jenkins claimed he saw the "open hole" when speaking to William Law in 1990.

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

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

And by saying that the researchers "desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head" got to him, Pat Speer is in addition to alleging that Jenkins changed his story -- when he actually never did -- implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming.

Secondly, note above the screenshot of James Jenkins that Speer took from William Law's video interview of James Jenkins and darkened to make it appear like Jenkins is touching the top of his head to indicate there was a hole on the top of JFK's head. That screenshot was cherry picked out of the entire sequence of Jenkins demonstrating the head wound which included the movements shown in the following screenshots from William Law's book (and note that in the clear version of the screenshot that Mr. Speer used it is clear that Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingertips rather than the top of his head):

___________

12-11-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389242

Read those words carefully. There's some deception involved. For decades, certain CTs--including the CTs helping Jenkins with his book--have been claiming the head wound was on the back of the head at Parkland, and is accurately depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing (which was not actually drawn by McClelland). Jenkins, however, has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head, and that the skull on the back of the head in the location of the wound in this drawing was present., but shattered beneath the scalp.

Jenkins was thereby a huge obstacle for those claiming the witnesses suggest the photos are fake and that the head wound was really on the back of the head.

So Jenkins has thrown them a bone, and is now claiming the wound he saw resembled the wound in the drawing AFTER the scalp was reflected. Well, think about it. This is as much as admitting that the wound he saw before the scalp was reflected did not resemble this wound.

It's all gobbledy-gook designed to sell that the wound was on the back of the head, and that witnesses (such as Jenkins and McClelland) share the same recollection.

But it's all smoke and mirrors. I mean, think about it. Jenkins says the hole he saw was 2.5-3 by 1.5 to 2  in (3.75 to 6 sq in), while McClelland says the hole he saw was 4 by 5 in (20 sq in)...

So...yes... the hole as described by McClelland was 3 1/3 to 5 1/3 times as large as the hole described by Jenkins.

The wounds they describe are not remotely similar, and it's foolish to pretend that they are...

In this post, Mr. Speer in SIX separate instances implies that James Jenkins has changed his story. This is also the first post in which Speer claims that Jenkis "has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head" after eight years of posting about Jenkins. Speer evidently felt confident posting this because of the deceptive darkened screenshot on his website which, according to Speer, and only to Speer, shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head as the location of JFK's head wound.

___________

12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389393

...I have witnessed Jenkins discussing this with others. When asked how he could explain the brain's being placed into the skull, when the hole he saw at the beginning of the autopsy was too small for the brain to pass through, he said he had no explanation, but that that was his impression--that the brain removed by Humes had been placed back in the skull. In his new book, written with the help of body-alteration theorists, however, he makes out that he saw incisions along the head which marked where scalp and skull could have been pulled back to facilitate the replacement of the brain.

I'm fairly certain this is a new addition to his story.

Mr. Speer is being disingenuous in this post. He knows full well that in 1998 James Jenkins told William Law about the incisions he saw on JFK's head that he had come to believe had been used to remove and replace the brain, yet he is here pretending that this is some new development in Jenkins's 2018 book.

Speer's insinuation that this "is a new addition to his story" is yet another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of falsely amending his claims about the medical evidence.

Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.

___________

12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389359

Nope. As demonstrated on the images above, Jenkins has routinely pointed to the top of his head above his ear as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy. He has long-claimed as well that the back of the head--meaning the far back of the head at the level of the ears--was shattered but intact beneath the scalp, but that it fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp. This is, for that matter, the official story, and is backed up by, among others, Jerrol Custer.

There was no gaping hole on the far back of the head at the level of the ears. Very few witnesses claimed to see as much, It is a CT myth, that, apparently, was recently sold to Jenkins.

Jenkins not only has not "routinely" pointed to the top of his head as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy, he has NEVER once done so. And Jenkins has never indicated that the back of JFK's head was "intact beneath the scalp," or that the shattered back of the head "fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp."

Secondly, Speer's claim that the existence of the gaping back of the head wound "was recently sold to Jenkins" is another example of Speer questioning Jenkins's veracity.

___________

12-19-2018 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25386-pre-autopsy-surgery/?do=findComment&comment=390385

A little food for thought...

Lifton and Horne et al have long claimed the body was altered, and that the wound as seen at Bethesda was 4-5 times larger than the wound seen at Parkland.

Now Jenkins comes along and says no, the wound he saw was small, about 1/5 the size of the wound Dr. McClelland says he saw at Parkland. And he says as well that the large hole seen at Bethesda was seen after the scalp was pulled back and skull fell to the table. And that, furthermore, he was with the body from the beginning, and no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda.

So now, Horne, who claims the body was altered at Bethesda, and Jenkins are totally at odds. But Lifton and Jenkins are also at odds. While Jenkins has a feeling the brain he saw was not Kennedy's actual brain, and had surreptitiously been placed back in the skull before the autopsy, his statements force those believing the body was altered into a corner. If they find Jenkins credible, Lifton and Horne's theory is finito, and there was no pre-autopsy surgery performed to disguise the nature of the skull wounds. (Jenkins, after all, now claims he saw an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear). And if they find Jenkins not credible, well, then, that shoots down the alterationist argument we need to listen to the witnesses and ignore the photos and x-rays.

So...which is it?

That Speer insinuates that Jenkins "now claims" that there was an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear is another example of Speer accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. And when Speer alleges that these claims of Jenkins's are new, it is Speer who is lying. 

___________

6-3-2019 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25809-11221991-jerrol-custer-tom-wilson-and-harry-livingstone/?do=findComment&comment=401403

…P.S. I don't think Custer saw the "chat" as friendly. Few realize that after being subjected to a number of such chats with men like Wilson and Mantik, Custer turned his back and told the ARRB the x-rays were the genuine article, and that the back of the head was not missing at the beginning of the autopsy, but broken like an egg shell. Strikingly, this is exactly what James Jenkins told me a number of times, before someone (almost certainly Michael Chesser) convinced him to "change" his impressions for his book.

Mr. Speer again alleges Jenkins changed his story by insinuating that Dr. Michael Chesser convinced him "to change his impressions for his book," and Speer's contention that Jenkins told him that there was not a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head but not any of his interviewers is just not credible.

___________

10-2-2021 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26802-a-little-factoid-about-parkland-doctor-marion-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=447954

…There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back….

___________

1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453341

...Within the hour of my conversation with these men, I had talks with William Newman and James Jenkins. They also claimed the large wound they saw was on the top right side of the head where it is shown in the autopsy photos.... 

James Jenkins has never said to any of his interviewers that the autopsy photographs show the back of the head blow out, so why would he have made such a claim to Pat Speer?

___________

1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453308

...What a lot of researchers miss is that many witnesses have succumbed to pressure from the research community. I personally witnessed people try to bully James Jenkins into saying the back of the head was missing, which he vehemently denied, only to later publish a book in which he succumbed to their pressure and wrote that the back of the head was missing....

And yet another example of Mr. Speer insinuating that James Jenkins changed his story.

___________

4-9-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27693-rare-hsca-testimony-of-jfk-autopsy-dr-james-j-humes-1978/?do=findComment&comment=457468

...Humes, Boswell, Jenkins and Custer, at the very least, were in agreement that the skull on the back of the head was badly shattered, but intact, at the beginning of the autopsy, and that it fell apart when Humes peeled back the scalp....

James Jenkins has never made such a claim...

___________

7-5-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27861-message-from-david-von-pein/?do=findComment&comment=463419

...I once asked James Jenkins how it was that so many people think he said the back of the head was blown out when he had repeatedly told them it was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp. And he told me with a world-weary voice... "People will believe what they want to believe." He then put out a book in which he moved the wound he said was on top of the head to the back of the head... And received tons of praise for sticking to his story, and telling the truth, when he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe.

This is an example of Pat Speer getting sloppy with his anecdotes in that it differs from all the previous versions of this story told in his previous posts, and is falsified by the fact that James Jenkins had never claimed that the back of JFK's head was intact.

Secondly, this is another example of Speer alleging that Jenkins changed his story about the location of the wound, thereby yet again accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming.

___________

8-13-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/?do=findComment&comment=467917

...While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe."

But given that James Jenkins never claimed there was not a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, how could this homily of Speer's possibly be true?

___________

9-5-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28107-parklands-dr-paul-peters-to-gerald-posner-dr-robert-mcclelland-wasnt-in-the-best-position-to-see-the-head-wound-because-he-was-on-the-other-side-of-the-table/?do=findComment&comment=470682

Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.)

James Jenkins has been pointing out that there are major problems with the back of the head autopsy photographs since his 1979 interview by David Lifton, and in every interview since that I am aware of. Once again, Speer's story makes no sense.

___________

10-21-2022 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28244-patrick-bet-davids-interview-with-james-curtis-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=475480

...So...back to Jenkins and O'Connor. Having met Jenkins, I think he has always told the truth as he saw it. At the 2013 Lancer Conference, in a side room discussion which was unfortunately not recorded, he was asked over and over about JFK's large head wound. And, much to the dismay of those claiming it was on the far back of the head, he said over and over again that it was at the top of the head, and that the back of the head was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. A few years later I met him at another conference--this was witnessed by Matt Douthit--and I pointed out to Jenkins that some of those with whom he was appearing had long claimed the back of the head was blown out and that there was a conspiracy to hide this from the public. He said something like "Yeah, well, what can you do? People are gonna believe what they want to believe." So I was shocked when he later put out a book, with a forward by Mike Chesser, who evidently helped him on the book, claiming the back of the head was blown out. This was in opposition to not only what Jenkins had said at the 2013 conference, and later to me personally, but what he told William Law in the their taped conversations. And yet there he was, reversing himself....

This is another example of Mr. Speer questioning James Jenkins's veracity by alleging that he changed his story about the nature of the large head wound, supposedly "reversing himself."  Another problem with this post, in addition to those with Speer's anecdotal stories already pointed out above, is that Speer claims that the interview of Jenkins taped by William Law in 1998 supports his anecdotal stories which is definitely does not. Just as David Lifton reported in 1979, and Harrison Livingstone reported in 1990 and 1991, William Law's taped 1998 interview shows James Jenkins describing the large gaping head wound in the back of JFK's head as being occipital-parietal.

___________

2-27-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28849-confused-looking-for-opinions-on-jfks-brain/?do=findComment&comment=492494

I talked to Jenkins a number of times at several conferences, and he insisted the back of the head was not missing--that it was shattered but intact under the scalp. Jerrol Custer said much the same thing--that the back of the head was like a shattered eggshell beneath the scalp.

In Jenkins' case, he said this a number of times until he finally switched the wound on top of the head to low on the back of the head, while under the influence of Chesser....

In addition to again reciting his discredited anecdotal story, this is also another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming by alleging that he changed his story under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser.

___________

9-1-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512581

FWIW, I saw Jenkins speak at a couple of conferences, and spoke to him in person on two occasions. He was consistent from day one that NO body alteration occurred prior to the start of the autopsy. He was clear that this did not happen, and when I offered that maybe it had been done in another room he corrected me and pointed out that there was no other room in which it could have occurred. He said the ONLY way it could have occurred was if it occurred prior to the body's arrival at Bethesda, and by someone other than Humes. Well, this sinks Horne's boat.

I was surprised for that matter when Horne wrote an article making out that Jenkins' statements supported that the back of the head was blown out and that Humes performed surgery to the head before the beginning of the autopsy. This was bizarre. Jenkins had told myself and others, including the source for Horne's article, the exact opposite of what Horne claimed he'd said. .

The article by Doug Horne that Speer is referencing can be accessed via the following link: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

Doug Horne's references to "the posterior head wound" in his article are consistent with the transcript of Jenkins's Lancer Conference presentation, a transcript which contradicts Speer's anecdotal stories about the conference. What that transcript indicates that James Jenkin said about the large gaping head wound is as follows:

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."

The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612

Every indication is that it is Speer's account of the Lancer Conference presentations that is false, not Horne's. Furthermore, Speer also claimed that Jenkins was clear that body alteration did not occur before the autopsy, but the truth is that Jenkins does, and has historically believed that body alteration did take place before the autopsy, just not at the Bethesda morgue.

___________

9-2-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512606

To be clear, I don't think Horne was pulling a con. Just desperately flailing. He was not in attendance at the conference, nor at the break-away session with 20 or so of us in a room. His source was Mantik. As I recall, Jenkins said he wasn't sure the photos were legit, and Mantik told this to Horne, who turned around and rushed out an article/blog post claiming Jenkins's statements supported his own theories.

Well, this was nonsense seeing as Jenkins had specified that the back of the head was not blown out and that the body was not altered at Bethesda.

Again, it is Speer's anecdotal story not Horne's article that is contradicted by the transcript of the Lancer presentation, and James Jenkins has been on record since 1977 that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out, as can be seen in the following sketch of JFK's body Jenkins  executed for the HSCA in 1977:

___________

10-1-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29693-victory-for-the-credibility-of-parkland-nurse-audrey-bell/?do=findComment&comment=515463

...Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head....

Again, James Jenkins has always been consistent that there was a large gaping wound at the back of JFK's head... 

___________

11-14-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29796-jfk-what-the-doctors-saw/?do=findComment&comment=519512

...I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos. (Correction:. Jenkins did express some disagreement with the photos but nevertheless insisted that the back of the skull, while shattered, remained beneath the scalp.)

And yet certain people--pretending to stand in support of the Parkland witnesses--continue to push that the back of the head was missing.

It's a red herring, folks. IF people had spent as much time READING and LEARNING as they had pestering old people into confirming their pet theory, the case would have been re-opened decades ago. But we instead ended up in this divide where people sift through the evidence without actually seeing, and claim the very evidence PROVING more than three shots were fired must be fake...because because because...

James Jenkins has always been a back of the head wound witness, it is Speer's revisionist claims that are false...

___________

12-23-2023 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30010-two-head-shots-and-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=524034

...P.S. You are correct about my bias. In 2013, in a breakout session at the Lancer Conference, Aguilar, Mantik, Thompson, myself and maybe 15 others bombarded James Jenkins about the head wound. Jenkins insisted under repeated questioning that the skull was damaged at the back of the head but intact beneath the scalp. Mantik then contacted Horne about this session, and within a day or two Horne put up an online article stating that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos weren't precisely as he remembered, and then presented this is as proof the back of the head was blown out...PRECISELY what Jenkins said was not true.  And then there's the new film on what the doctors saw. Jenkins repeats his belief there was a bullet entrance by the ear. Horne then jumps in and says he is describing a bullet hole high up on the forehead, where ding ding ding...it just so happens he, Mantik and Chesser have taken to claiming a bullet entered. Well, heck, Jenkins said no such thing, and has specifically ruled out such an entrance in his book and in interviews. So, no, I don't trust anything Horne comes up with anymore...

James Jenkins has never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's skull was "intact beneath the scalp," so what was so different about this Lancer Conference? Could it just be that the difference is Speer is telling the story?

___________

1-4-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525054

Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame.

This was Mr. Speer's first post to me about James Jenkins, in which he advised me to research James Jenkins, which I have, leading me to conclude Speer has falsely questioned Jenkins's veracity. This post pretty much contains the whole gambut of his lies, and also accuses James Jenkins of being less than honest by alleging that Dr. Michael Chesser persuaded him to change his story about there being a hole on the top of JFK's head. At the time, Speer was relying upon his darkened screenshot from the videotape of William Law interviewing Jenkins on his website that is discussed above as well as the following screenshots with utterly terrible resolution of Jenkins demonstrating the location of the large head wound at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference (Note how the terribe resolution makes it appear as if Jenkins has his hand on the right side of his head covering his ear):

When I located the video of the 1991 Dallas Conference I cleaned it up and color corrected it as well as I could and made the following GIF which makes it clear that Jenkins was IN FACT placing his hand on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large gaping head wound:

And the video of that segment with the audio makes it even more clear that Jenkins has placed his hand on the back of his head, proving that Speer's website presentation was fraudulent:

___________

1-6-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525289

...P.P.S. I spoke to Jenkins on multiple occasions and he steadfastly insisted that the back of the head was shattered but intact beneath the scalp.

That's just not true.

___________

1-9-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525614

Oh my. For those confused by all this, this character is citing a James Jenkins drawing showing a wound on the back, top and side of the head which stretches to the front...as evidence for a comparatively small blowout wound on the far back of the head. No matter what you think the head wound looked like when first viewed at Bethesda, this is clearly the wound as observed after the removal of the brain, and not the wound as first viewed.

The least bit of research, moreover, would have proved what I have claimed for roughly a decade...that Jenkins told Livingstone and later Law and eventually a roomful of researchers, including myself, that the far back of the head at the level of the ear--the occipital bone--was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. Still, he doesn't dispute that, really, does he? No, he makes out instead that the only evidence for this is my say-so.

That's not research. That's whining. "I don't like what you say, so I'm gonna tell everyone you're a xxxx, without even checking out what you've said against the multiple sources you provide." What a crock.

Another response of Speer's to a post of mine which demonstrates his hubris, and Speer again fraudulently misrepresents what Jenkins told Livingstone and Law, then tries to combine same with his corrupt anecdotal story about the Lancer Conference...

___________

1-23-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30096-the-back-of-head-wound-as-sketched-by-dr-mcclelland-in-tmwkk-1988/?do=findComment&comment=526717

...As far as Jenkins...whoa. Now I owe Jim Jenkins an apology? For what? I was in the room with Jenkins alongside Thompson, Aguilar, and Mantik...when he stated under repeat questioning that the back of the head was damaged beneath the scalp, and that the hole was at the top of the head. It wasn't me that turned around and misrepresented what he said as supporting that the back of the head was blown out. That was Doug Horne, after being briefed by Mantik. And it wasn't me that coerced him into flipping it around and claiming the hole was on the back of the head and the damaged skull was at the top of the head. That was Mike Chesser....

Speer writing his top of the head lie again, and then accusing James Jenkins of lying by changing his story about the location of the large head wound under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser...

___________

4-20-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135

It's not my conjecture. Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite. Now, the next year, he made an appearance with Mantik and Chesser and I spoke to him a bit with Matt Douthitt, and I told Jenkins these guys were taking his words and twisting them into support for their belief the back of the head was blown out. And he said "What are you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe..."

So I was as shocked as anyone when I saw Jenkins pull a flip-flop on all this but when I looked closely at his book I found my answer--he credited Mike Chesser with help on the book.

So, yeah, from where I stand--and from what I have witnessed personally--Mantik, Horne, and Chesser are in the deception business. Now they may be deceiving themselves first and foremost, but they are not particularly interested in the truth, IMO.

The above post contains practically every falsehood that Speer now routinely tells about James Jenkins, but Speer actually has the nerve to conclude it by accusing Jenkins, Mantik, Horne and Chesser of being fabricators.

___________

4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST OF KEVEN HOFELING TO PAT SPEER

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146

Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference:

You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612

James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."

Now this transcript was made by Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633

Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying.

___________

4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534158

What the??? As stated, Jenkins is on camera saying the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp but not blown out of the skull. He has said a lot of things that are problematic for the official story, that's for sure. But he has claimed this part of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy....

...P.S. I notice that you mention Jenkins' claim he saw a bullet wound by the ear. Well, he initially said this was a gray smear on the bone, which helped convince me I was correct about a bullet's entering at this location. Then, after being pounded for years by your heroes, he started claiming he saw a bullet hole by the ear and not just a gray smear. And then, with the release of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, these years of manipulation paid off--as Horne was now claiming this bullet hole, which was originally not a bullet hole, was actually a bullet hole high on the forehead. Which Mantik and Horne had conjured up from almost nothing...

In any event, it's nice to see you acknowledge Jenkins said this was by the ear, and that Horne's claim it was really high on the forehead is nonsense.

Pat Speer doubling down on his lies and concluding by again accusing James Jenkins of being deceptive...

___________

5-5-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30409-what-james-jenkins-actually-said/

I see that on another thread Keven is trying to propagate a myth about what James Jenkins actually said about JFK's large head wound. 

From chapter 19f...

Unbelievable...

 ___________

5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536947

Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. 

He is not a supporter of Horne's and I suspect both of your theories, and you should stop pretending he is. 

Here is what he had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue.

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? 

Here's why. 

In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me  years ago and you can check it for yourself. 

We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery as described by Horne took place.

Now note Horne's claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing... 

·       “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

·       “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

·       “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

·       “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

·       “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

·       “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

 But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted?

Speer demonstrating his failed strategy calculated to defend his lies: Claiming that the photo of James Jenkins out of William Law's book shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head rather than the back of his head, and throwing out straw man arguments and red herrings about Doug Horne...

___________

5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536985

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense.

To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. 

Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body.

But here's the problem...

Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book:

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory.

So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this?

Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology...

Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. 

So stop the theatrics, already...

You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not...

But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not...

Speer fraudulently misrepresents that I agree that James Jenkins was pointing to the top of his head in the William Law screenshot, and attempts a wider variety of straw man arguments and red herrings to deflect attention from his lies about James Jenkins which I have been showcasing...

___________

5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022

Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head...

Speer again erroneously claims that the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video proved he is pointing to the top of his head (when it is obvious Jenkins is pointing to the back of his head), and claims Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" that the open hole was at the top of the head, but when Sandy Larsen and I call for Speer to provide just ONE example of Jenkins stating that the open hole was at the top of JFK's head, Speer is unable to come up with even ONE example...

___________

5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537008

Look at the second photo from Law's book that you posted... As Jenkins says "with the open hole in this area" he points to the top of his head. 

Here is Horne pointing out what he claims was the hole as first viewed by Humes. This is not where Jenkins pointed out an "open hole." And that's okay. Horne and Mantik claim Jenkins viewed the wound AFTER Humes performed the post-mortem surgery.

Speer again tries to float the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video as proof Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head (when Jenkins is actually pointing to the back of his head), and attempts more Doug Horne deflection...

___________

5-30-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537225

Well, you've confused me once again, Keven. Are you really trying to claim James Jenkins is NOT pointing to the top of his head in the photo above? 

And, if so, where the heck is he pointing?

Here?

My response to this post of Speer's was to post William Law's response to his interpretation of the William Law screenshot from Law's video interview of Jenkins, as follows:

 ___________

5-31-2024 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537289

As far as Keven's claim I called James Jenkins a liar. It's not as simple as that. James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time. And the fact Jenkins' story has changed was not something I drummed up...this was something David Lifton started complaining about over 20 years ago, and recorded in a long detailed memo. 

Now I spoke to Lifton about this and he claimed that several aspects of Jenkins' story were added in later, 10 years or more after he was first interviewed by Lifton.

To wit, Jenkins made no mention of a bullet wound by the ear to the HSCA or Lifton...and only began claiming this after talking to Livingstone, if I recall. And I am fairly certain there were several other additions pointed out to me by Lifton, who said Jenkins was so malleable that he agreed with the depiction of the wound in the Ida Dox tracing of the BOH photo when first shown this by Lifton...in an interview filmed at Lifton's expense.

Now, I like you, was surprised by this, and went back to view Lifton's interview of Jenkins in the Best Evidence research video...only to find that there is no interview of Jenkins in the video. And I wish Lifton was here to ask about this, but I can only assume Lifton felt Jenkins' statements weren't particularly important. By voicing agreement with the Dox drawing, after all, Jenkins had simply said what Lifton had already come to believe...that the autopsy photos were legit and reflective of the body after it was altered. 

In any event, I was there in the room in 2013 when Jenkins told a small audience the very top of the back of the head was missing but that the skull between the ears was fractured, and that this fractured skull fell to the table when Humes retracted the scalp, and left a much larger hole. 

And I was dismayed when years later, while promoting his book, he said the exact opposite--that the hole was on the far back of the skull and the top of the head was fractured and fell to the table.

Now Keven doesn't want to believe this--that Jenkins changed his story.

But here he is with Law pointing out the location of the hole...

And here he is in 2018, while pointing out the location of the hole...

  It moved, right?

And you don't have to trust me on this. Jenkins said the wound pointed out by his finger was 2 in wide by 3 1/2 in high. Well, look where his finger-tip is. Just above the lambdoid suture which forms the boundary between parietal and occipital. So the majority of this wound according to 2018 Jenkins was on the occipital bone, right? Well, if you have High Treason 2, your can check this for yourself. On page 228 he tells Livingstone the wound was "just above the occipital area." Now some people use the term "occipital area" as a broad brush which includes the parietal bone at the top of the back of the head. But no one uses the term to mean the bottom of the occipital bone--that is, no one would say something was above the occipital area that still overlay the occipital bone. So in 1990, when speaking to Livingstone, Jenkins specified that the wound was inches higher than he would later come to claim.

It moved, right? 

Mr. Speer made a full on frontal assault on James Jenkins's credibility in his last post on this matter, essentially calling him a fabricator in a variety of ways, and all of these allegations can be defended, but after spending three days on this post virtually around the clock I am just going to conclude with the response of James Jenkins himself to all of this, which was to say that it's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a response:

Where are the promised synonyms?

Keven, you said you had found about a half-dozen synonyms for "liar" which you had personally seen Pat Speer call James Jenkins.

Having read your lengthy post which you tagged to me and identified as "comprehensive", I do not find any synonym for "liar" used with reference to Jenkins in any quotation you have quoted from Pat Speer.

If you will recall, on another thread on May 30 in response to my question, "Keven you say Pat Speer accused Jenkins of lying but in your massive repeat dump which I just waded through for the nth time I could not find you ever quoted Pat using that word of Jenkins ... Can you clarify in simple declarative sentences?" Your first answer declined to answer, called it a "monumental task" I had imposed on you to document the accusation you had made that Pat had called Jenkins a liar.

"So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator … As you have imposed upon me such a monumental task …"

When I pressed, asking you to clarify did you mean the literal word "liar" ("Will you clarify whether you have a quote—evidence—that Pat has called Jenkins a liar using that word, or will you clarify he never used that word that you put into his mouth? Simple question, straight answer requested") you repeated the accusation and answered, second answer:

"Can't you read, Mr. Doudna? … I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time … So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator . . . such a monumental task ..."

With still no straight answer to the question of whether you meant use of the L-word itself, I pressed again for a straight answer to whether you meant use of the L-word ("If you don’t have any quotation of Speer calling Jenkins that, why not just say so? Doesn’t it bother you that some might misunderstand, when you repeatedly say Pat called some luminary a liar, that some people might believe Pat called that person a “liar”, because that is how your wording sounds? Why your reluctance to just tell the accurate truth on this detail in the interests of being clear with the truth and avoiding misrepresentation of Pat?") Your third answer repeated the accusation and said you would begin tomorrow a search for evidence to support the published, public accusation:

"Pat Speer has been claiming that James Jenkins started lying about his descriptions of the head wound starting in 2016, and so I've got eight years of posts to go through starting tomorrow morning ..."

On May 31 Pat said he did not remember calling Jenkins a liar, said he regards Jenkins as sincere: 

"James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time."

The next day, June 1, you now gave a first straight answer to the question of use of the L-word itself: after going through 14 years of Pat's past history, you reported finding no instance of Pat using the L-word of Jenkins, but you had found, you reported, "about a half dozen synonyms for 'liar'" which Pat had called Jenkins, which you said was just as bad.

"Mr. Doudna, I've now collected all the examples of lies that Pat Speer has told about James Jenkins on this forum during the last fourteen years and have found that he didn't use the specific word "liar" in any of them. He used about a half a dozen synonyms for "liar,' ... I don't know what they taught you about that particular word in divinity school, but I can assure you, that in all other branches of education, it is just a word, and is no more serious nor severe than its synonyms ... It's as serious to me when Speer uses synonyms..."

At last a straight answer: not "liar" but synonyms for "liar".

It did somewhat puzzle me that you did not give an example or name any of those synonyms you had seen. But I thanked you for clarifying you had synonyms that you were capable of showing ("I note you do not give any examples of such synonyms, but you do say you now have them in your hip pocket and are able to show the synonyms in the future. OK, thanks for clarifying.").

That was followed by your opening post of the present thread, which presents itself as your exhaustive production of the evidence you had promised on the synonyms.

It was a daunting ordeal for me to read through miles and miles of autopsy of Pat's past history, 14 years worth of quotations and accusations of Pat you catalogued, but I was single-minded focused on finding the elusive Holy Grail--the promised synonyms which surely you had put in there somewhere.

I went the distance, yes I did. Read it all the way through. At the end, exhausted, alas, no synonym for L-word used by Pat of Jenkins, inside quotation marks written by Pat. At least none that I could see. (I did not have the energy to gear up for a second exhausting read-through to double-check.)

May I ask in the interests of fairness to Pat, and in fairness to Jenkins now in his 80s, that you make the record clear on your synonyms claim. So that perchance Jenkins may not be falsely informed Pat has been calling him synonyms for "liar" if Pat did not do so--a horrible thing if it is not true. I have just obtained and read Jenkins' 2018 book yesterday, a decent man and I respect him--Jenkins does not deserve that, and neither does Pat.

What synonyms for "liar" did you see Pat call Jenkins?

Would you identify where in your post you reported those synonyms?

Would you do so in a small number of straightforward, to-the-point sentences or paragraphs?

I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation.

Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. 

For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed.

In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective.

Pat Speer has been effective.

Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. 

Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things.

But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. 

The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic.

Shows up out of nowhere.

Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own.

Has published nothing on the JFK assassination.

Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory.

Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks.

Just took him out. (Victory.)

Those are the facts.

No further comment.

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

... about James Jenkins on this forum during the last fourteen years and have found that he didn't use the specific word "liar" in any of them. He used about a half a dozen synonyms for "liar," and in many more instances, said the same thing by implication and rhetorical device.

I note you do not give any examples of such synonyms, but you do say you now have them in your hip pocket and are able to show the synonyms in the future.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Sandy Larsen, with regard to the above assertion of Mr. Doudna (highlighted in bold red) -- who has obviously made himself the chief defender of Pat Speer's lies on this thread -- I yesterday responded to his frantic posts calling for citations by letting him know I would present him with an eight-year history of Pat Speer lying about James Jenkins in his posts on this forum . . .

Keven, I never asked you for any citations or history of Pat lying. Quit deflecting.

My requests for citations were for you to document an assertion YOU made. They were not "frantic".  

I asked you to document your claim that Pat called Jenkins a "liar" or said Jenkins was "lying".

Horrible, horrible words to put into someone else's mouth to have said of someone else, if they did not.

I think you know full well you are deflecting and changing the issue when the issue is your refusal to either document or correct horrible words you claim someone else said about someone else. 

Have you no conscience? 

On 5/30/2024 at 2:42 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer claims that James Jenkins was lying ...

On 5/30/2024 at 2:42 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

Now Mr. Doudna, I don't see anything in the above that supports Mr. Speer's assertion that James Jenkins has been lying about the location of JFK's head wound since 2016, do you?

Don't you think that if Pat Speer is going to try to make the case that James Jenkins has been lying to the JFKA research community about ... 

or do you instead wish to endorse Speer's allegations that James Jenkins is a liar? ...

Pat Speer makes that claim in the post directly below. Why should he not be called upon to substantiate his claim, especially when the purpose of the claim itself is to substantiate that James Jenkins himself is a liar?

On 5/30/2024 at 3:24 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Keven you say Pat Speer accused Jenkins of lying but in your massive repeat dump which I just waded through for the nth time I could not find you ever quoted Pat using that word of Jenkins, even though that is your premise for your claimed point. Do you or do you not have a quotation using that word or is that that your paraphrase or interpretation of Pat? Can you clarify in simple declarative sentences? 

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

First off, if you began your sentence with "I believe," then you could say anything without breaking the "demonstrable falsehood" rule. Because you would be stating an opinion.

Second, if you say anything in good faith, that would not be a violation of the rule. In that case, if another member pointed out that what you are said is a falsehood, and proved it to be a falsehood, then you would be in violation of the rule only if you refused to correct it, or edit it to say that it is you opinion or belief.

Having said that, I will now answer your specific question, which is:

Of course that would not be violating the rule. Because what you said would be true.

 

I'm pretty sure that Jenkins said the large wound extended into the crown of the head. That is the impression I got from listening to what he said. But it was mostly in the back.

 

A little bit, yes.

From all the descriptions I've read from all the witnesses, I get the impression that they saw a various sized wound at somewhat various locations because of the ragged edges of the scalp. Some saw the wound with the ragged edges more closed up, and others saw it with the ragged edges more opened up. Thus making the hole look smaller or larger, respectively.

 

Yes.

Thanks for the straight answers Sandy, and I think I agree right down the line with you on them. 

But if you noticed in what I previously quoted, that has you saying the wound (of Jenkins' description) was at what is idiomatically routinely referred to (e.g. on a medical website; on Wikipedia, as quoted), as the "top" of the head, which is what Pat Speer has been unmercifully excoriated for saying.

If you have the wound as part of the crown (which I agree with you I believe it clearly was, and Jenkins had it there), is it clear Keven's language is appropriate that Pat is "lying" in all the heat over Pat arguing for a top of the head location of the gaping wound?

You yourself seem to have agreed with Cliff Varnell that Pat Speer believes what he says. But if someone believes what they say, that is not lying. It may or may not be mistaken, right, wrong, insightful, foolish, whatever. But it is not lying if a person believes what they are saying, and Pat does.

So you have Keven with impunity calling Pat Speer directly a liar, which should be a violation of forum rules, and then adding to that having the effrontery to put a horrible word into Pat Speer's mouth in which Keven repeatedly says, brazenly, that Pat called Jenkins a "liar" and Keven refuses to cite a quotation, document his assertion (I am referring to use of the specific word liar and lying). 

And it is clear Keven is going to make a vendetta out of hounding Pat including with these under-the-belt tactics (of calling Pat a liar when Pat clearly believes his views, and putting horrible words in Pat's mouth that Keven refuses to document) ... unless you or other moderators restrain Keven. 

I looked up the forum rules. I see "No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member". 

I see where you are claiming the legitimacy of your prohibition that Pat must not say Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, at: "A member will not use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false ... inaccurate (as well as defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law).

Is it "demonstrably false" when Pat says Jenkins had the gaping wound at the top of the head, when you yourself have just now agreed it partly was in the crown which in American English is understood to be "top of the head"? 

Maybe this is way out to lunch, I don't know, but it just seems that Pat Speer's argument for the tangential wound as explaining the massive damage compared to the lesser damage that a through-and-through shot would cause seems correct (because there was so much massive damage). Then the gaping wound that the Parkland doctors saw indeed was in the back of the head because scalp attached was flipped open as the head was tilted backward. It does not show up on Zapruder not because there was not fractured and shattered skull underneath but because the scalp was still there. Whether the tangential hit came from the front or back direction, and whether there was more than one upper-head shot, would be distinct questions, but this would explain (a) Zapruder, (b) what the Parkland doctors saw and (c) Jenkins. 

It seems to me the heated debates over whether the gaping wound was "back" of the head or "top" of the head ... are both right. It was a gaping wound that stretched over both the rear top of the head, and upper part of the rear of the head and down to the middle part of the rear of the head, not because it was a blowout exit, but because the tangential hit at the top right of the head caused all that shattering fracture damage.

The top of the head photo at the top of this thread look to me like a wound both at the top of the head and the rear of the head.

The bullet hole just to the right of the EOP reported by the autopsists would be unrelated to the tangential hit or its effects. It would connect--because there is nothing else to connect it to--the throat wound. Which direction again could be debated, but one was the entrance and the other the exit. Differing from the conventional view which connects the throat wound to the back wound, and declares the autopsists' near-EOP bullet hole not to have existed there. 

Then on the autopsy photos, I am 100 percent convinced there was intentional messing with, as in disappearances of, some autopsy photos, not as part of an advance plot but as attempts to rig evidence after the fact to better fit and support emergent narrative. And the disappearance of the brain also has no other good explanation I can see than what Dr. Wecht (was it him that said this?) said long ago, that if it still existed it would show something different than the narrative, maybe a second bullet, I don't know.

I'm skeptical of alteration ideas on the autopsy photos, though Mantik's claim that there is a lack of stereo effect in the lower area of the back-of-the-head photo has to be further examined in light of the forcefulness and credentials of those raising the allegation. Could the earlier panelists be wrong in saying there were stereo effects on all of the photos? Sure they could be wrong. The only way to find out is to find out: there needs to be an independent (blind if possible) study of experts look at that BOH photo and answer this up or down, is there stereo imaging there or is it as Mantik says, evidence of a cooked or altered photo with hair painted in (or some such) in one region of that photo. Again, there are two ways to go on this: debate this endlessly for another fifty years, or find out. The way to find out is to find out. Have a well-designed study, with blindness wired into the protocol if possible, and find out.

It was a real photo which either reflects scalp stretched fully over the back (as one of the autopsists, Finck I believe, a participant in that photo, said it was), or it was originally a real photo which was tampered with, if that claim of Mantik were to hold up under independent review. 

The Robinson "hole" after restoration, also said by Jenkins, I assume would be evidence the gaping wound went down as far as that hole which seems like mid-back of the head, again interpreted as part of the radiating massive damage of the higher tangential shot, not because a bullet exited out that "Robinson hole". 

All of this is from someone who, on this medical, does not know what he is talking about (that's me!). But that doesn't stop me from trying to make sense of things even while acknowledging my lack of expertise, as a working hypothesis trying to make sense of it.

Sandy this is a serious question.

In those video images of Jenkins in which he displays his palm and splayed fingers and says his fingertips approximate the location and extent of the gaping wound that he saw, if I in good faith believe some of the area of that gaping wound as depicted visually by Jenkins includes part of the crown area of the head, would I be forbidden under your rule from saying Jenkins portrayed part of the gaping wound as at "the crown of his head"?

"The crown of your head is the area at the very top of your skull", HEALTHLINE site https://www.healthline.com/health/crown-of-head.

"The crown is the top portion of the head behind the vertex", Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_(anatomy)

etc.

https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8 

[url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/hP7MX1FF/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url] 

[url=https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8][img]https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url] 

<a href='https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8' target='_blank'><img src='https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif' border='0' alt='temp-Imagep-T4h-LP'/></a>

[url=https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8][img]https://i.postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8/temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif[/img][/url]

[temp-Imagep-T4h-LP.avif](https://postimg.cc/YhMQVgq8)

https://ibb.co/7Kb0DKV 

[Sorry I cannot get any of these links from postimgcc to display a graphic of a head with the "crown" area marked, but the underlined link goes to it. Or look up "crown" in Google Images to see where in the head it is.]

See the magenta colored area number "3", "crown"?

Are you saying it is a "demonstrable falsehood" and forbidden under forum rules for someone on this forum to say Jenkins displayed part of the gaping wound as in the crown area aka "the top of your skull" and "the top portion of the head behind the vertex"? 

Do you think the gaping wound of JFK included area in the crown, Sandy?

Do you think Jenkins' visual illustrations of his memory of that wound, reasonably interpreted, included some part of the crown?