Jump to content
The Education Forum

James Curtis Jenkins in Dallas for the 50th


Recommended Posts

Doug Horne over at his blog Inside the ARRB has some valuable comments on Jenkins' presence at Lancer in Dallas for the 50th. Of course Jenkins provides very strong evidence of pre-autopsy surgery and this makes him anathema to many. In fact, I would have thought Lancer would be the last group to want to hear what Jenkins has to say, since evidence of pre-autopsy surgery destroys the credibility of the Bethesda autopsy, and if the body is made to lie, one has to suspect the Z-film is also made to lie, for as Tink Thompson noted at the Lancer gathering: it is clear (to him) that in the Z-film the top of the head is missing-- the very place noted by Jenkins as being highly disrupted-- but who also noted the brain underneath was not disrupted there. In other words there is a consistency between pre-autopsy surgery and apparent damage to Kennedy's head as noted in the Z-film. Best to go over to Horne's blog and read his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, actually Bill Miller reached the same general conclusion as Tink has recently and presented it at a Lancer conference several years ago, - had to remember - perhaps five years. Using excellent quality Z film frames he demonstrated what most felt was a large wound at the back of the head, as well as material coming off the rear of the head during the shooting. That has been very consistent with most of the medical presentations about the head wound by individuals present at Parkland who have presented at the conferences - certainly including Dr. McClellan's presentation.

-- Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, actually Bill Miller reached the same general conclusion as Tink has recently and presented it at a Lancer conference several years ago, - had to remember - perhaps five years. Using excellent quality Z film frames he demonstrated what most felt was a large wound at the back of the head, as well as material coming off the rear of the head during the shooting. That has been very consistent with most of the medical presentations about the head wound by individuals present at Parkland who have presented at the conferences - certainly including Dr. McClellan's presentation.

-- Larry

I must disagree with you Larry; the early depositions of the Parkland doctors, and I am thinking of the WC depositions and even better their contemporaneous notes, do not indicate disruption of the top of the skull. I'm sure you have read all of this upteen times over. What Jenkins adds is this anomaly: considerable disruption of the top of the skull but the brain matter underneath much less affected, by and large: "He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual," is the quote from Horne, who is dependent upon Dr. Mantik's notes of the meeting. What counts in the Parkland presentations is not what they present at conferences but what they said originally -- before memory pollution or enhancement caused them to change their stories to make them fit with the official story line. Give me a consistent contemporaneous description of Kennedy's head by Parkland personnel that the top of Kennedy's skull was disrupted in any way, and then I will concede the value of your point. I use Brad Parker's First on the Scene as a useful compilation of the Dallas views, but also other articles, esp by Dr. Gary Aguilar. Am I missing something important these guys missed as well? And here's another important point: ITEK long ago concluded that no matter is seen exiting the back of the skull; an anomaly I pointed to Miller 10 years ago. His answer was that all the material exiting the wound blew out too fast to be captured by the camera. That would inlcude all blood and brain matter not directly in the bullet's path. Both McClelland and Jenkins estimate that about a third of Kennedy's brain, mostly posterior and including at least part if not most of the cerebellum, was blasted out. See Jenkins on this point. And none of this was captured by the camera? Toni Foster is quite explicit: "the spray went behind him" in an interview with Debra Conway, 2000 KAC. This comports well with McClelland and Jenkins' description of the damage to the brain. Were Tink and Miller correct he would have described the damage to the brain quite differently. That's why I believe Jenkins' observations provide one more nail in the coffin of the supposed genuinness of the Z-film. That's also why I was so surprised Lancer would allow Jenkins a voice on the 50th. Either I am reading Jenkins wrong, or his observations make body alteration a certainty and sink the Z-film in the process.

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, I'm not going to get into a battle or debate over the subject of the wounds or the film other than what I have in SWHT. That makes it pretty clear that

I believe there was work on the head before the official autopsy began and also that the Z film itself strongly suggests multiple shooters, as was observed

at NPIC - for that matter in viewing it I still think it suggests multiple shooters and when I show it to a novice they intuitively come to the same conclusion.

What I was trying to point out and what always is that we have have had a variety of speakers on all sides of the medical topic and film at Lancer conferences

for ages. And honestly as speaker chair I think its important people know that. Heck the first Z film alteration panel was at a Lancer conference well

before I have became speaker chair. William Law and Debra's early interviews with the Autopsy staff members from Bethesda did a great deal to challenge the

official story line and Jenkins came because William Law was presenting on those interviews. He and the others from Bethesda have always been welcome and several

of them have spoken before. Jim knew he would have a receptive forum and went further this time than he ever had before. And of course as you noted Tink was there

presented and David Mantik held a focus group on his topics.

We try to shoot for a lot of balance at the conference and certainly there are speakers who present information from across the spectrum. That's really all I wanted

to say and I hope the thread can go back to its focus, I'll shut up at this point.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well Pat, you were there and I wasn't, so I am in no position to question what Jenkins said. A careful reading of Best Evidence indicates Jenkins had no recollections about a shipping casket or body bag, but you evaded my main point: that the top of the skull was disrupted badly, according to Jenkins, while the brain underneath unaccountably less so. No one at Parkland reported damage to the top of the skull, but principally the right rear. This anomaly has to be explained. Also the phrase "the back of the head was not blown out" would surely be granted by everyone at Parkland as this implies a wound the size of which no one at Parkland attests to. However, "that the back of the head was smashed but intact" is very strong evidence of pre-autopsy surgery, especially when coupled with the apparent dual cuts (not tears) of the spinal cord that Jenkins attested to. Apparently there was no work for Humes to perform to remove the brain precisely because the head was so smashed and the spinal cord cut. But since the majority of the missing brain was in the rear, if I recall Jenkins' comments as reported in Horne's blog correctly, how do you explain the presence of smashed bone in the back, yet it somehow being "intact"? The brain matter lost had to go somewhere, out some hole, and the Parkland accounting is generally consistent with the damage Jenkins describes. So I have to ask: did you ask Jenkins what he thought of the Parkland testimony of a defect in the right rear? A defect consistent with the loss of brain matter in the back of the head? Another anomaly: if you regard the x-rays and photos as authentic, and believe they indicate shots from the rear only, as might be argued from the back of the head photo, then you are not with Jenkins, who assumed Kennedy was shot from the front, if Lifton (p. 610) has recorded Jenkins views in the late 1970s correctly. How does Jenkins square the authenticity of the x-rays and photos with his belief that Kennedy was shot from the front? It might be helpful to know where the loss of bone was that Jenkins observed. According to Jenkins' in Best Evidence, "at least one-third of the skull was gone when Kennedy was brought in." Most of the missing bone would be, presumably, in the top but extending "toward the rear" as Lifton describes Jenkins' view. The one-third would not be from the back of the head because, according to Jenkins, the back of the head was "intact " if I understand you correctly. Then it must be primarily from the top and perhaps the side to some degree extending somewhat (?) toward the rear. Since no one saw such a wound at Parkland, I would say Jenkins strongly cements the case for alteration, whether he knows it or not. So he doesn't have to be an alterationist himself for his recollections to strongly support alteration. It is simple logic, and not desperation, that indicates that Jenkins' recollections strongly argue for alteration. Given the whole of his recollections at the autopsy, the conclusion is inescapable. I believe Jenkins was telling the truth as he saw it; of that I have no doubt. It was the body that was lying, the result of pre-autopsy surgery, and Jenkins could only report on the result of that surgery. I think he did it well, and compellingly.

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, I'm not going to get into a battle or debate over the subject of the wounds or the film other than what I have in SWHT. That makes it pretty clear that

I believe there was work on the head before the official autopsy began and also that the Z film itself strongly suggests multiple shooters, as was observed

at NPIC - for that matter in viewing it I still think it suggests multiple shooters and when I show it to a novice they intuitively come to the same conclusion.

What I was trying to point out and what always is that we have have had a variety of speakers on all sides of the medical topic and film at Lancer conferences

for ages. And honestly as speaker chair I think its important people know that. Heck the first Z film alteration panel was at a Lancer conference well

before I have became speaker chair. William Law and Debra's early interviews with the Autopsy staff members from Bethesda did a great deal to challenge the

official story line and Jenkins came because William Law was presenting on those interviews. He and the others from Bethesda have always been welcome and several

of them have spoken before. Jim knew he would have a receptive forum and went further this time than he ever had before. And of course as you noted Tink was there

presented and David Mantik held a focus group on his topics.

We try to shoot for a lot of balance at the conference and certainly there are speakers who present information from across the spectrum. That's really all I wanted

to say and I hope the thread can go back to its focus, I'll shut up at this point.

Thank you for inviting Jenkins; having said that, I'll shut up as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the HSCA, Jenkins generally described a large defect in the right rear of JFK's skull, extending somewhat forward on the right lateral side. And the part of the skull where the official entry wound was supposed to be, was completely gone:

Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the

big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md65.pdf

Bjørn Gjerde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is permitted, so I will let the moderators guide me: from Inside the ARRB, and Doug Horne's reading of Dr. Mantik's notes:


THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a “skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.


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



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


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


Pat Speer was there and can verify whether or not these words, or words to this effect, were indeed spoken by Jenkins; and if they were, it is clear he is an alterationist. Please weigh in, Pat.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the HSCA, Jenkins generally described a large defect in the right rear of JFK's skull, extending somewhat forward on the right lateral side. And the part of the skull where the official entry wound was supposed to be, was completely gone:

Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the

big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md65.pdf

Bjørn Gjerde

Thank you, Bjorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is permitted, so I will let the moderators guide me: from Inside the ARRB, and Doug Horne's reading of Dr. Mantik's notes:

THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a “skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.

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

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

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

Pat Speer was there and can verify whether or not these words, or words to this effect, were indeed spoken by Jenkins; and if they were, it is clear he is an alterationist. Please weigh in, Pat.

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.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...