James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

We've got JFK brain matter on the limo back seat and floor carpet ( as stated by SS agents Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine)  JFK brain matter spattered throughout the interior of the limo, sprayed into the air space above JFK and Jackie and onto rear position motorcycle DPD officers.

JFK brain matter was reported as falling out onto the stretcher carrying JFK into the Parkland ER and finally oozing and falling out of JFK's skull wound onto the ER room examining and treatment table according to many on site eye witnesses.

We've got a brain described as having a huge hole with much missing brain matter by up close attending Parkland doctors and nurses with one nurse "Diana Hamilton Bowron" stating " most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside."

We've got two Bethesda navy morgue/autopsy techs as close to JFK's head as Humes and Boswell at times for hours the evening of the autopsy.

One of whom ( Paul O'Conner ) stated ( under oath) there was essentially no brain in JFK's shattered skull and always stood by this claim

The other tech ( James Jenkins ) states he thinks the brain he held in his hands might have been a replaced brain. Either JFK's after being removed before the autopsy, or someone else's.

We've got a brain from JFK that Jenkin's  quotes Dr. Humes as stating..."the damn thing fell into my hands" when Humes started his brain examination and a brain the official autopsy finding reports as weighing the same or even more than an undamaged, normal male sized brain would weigh.

These almost unbelievable conflicting JFK brain observations and statements would seem laughably crazy if they weren't reported by actual up close witnesses, most of whom were in their positions as well trained medical professionals with no political or monetary gain bias.

It doesn't take "half a brain"  to see complete corruption in the area of JFK's brain study and the official autopsy findings.

One would have to be "brain dead" not to see this reality.

You're correct, but not for the reasons stated. The damage to the brain described by the doctors in the autopsy report, and by Clint Hill, is consistent with a "gutter" wound of both entrance and exit, and not with the exit of a bullet that entered near the EOP.  Dr. Clark noticed this, and initially said the wound was yessirree a wound of both entrance and exit.

And the Clark panel (no relation) noticed this as well...which is why they "decided" the bullet really entered near the top of the head...at the approximate location of the gutter.

The damage to the brain proved there were two shots to the head--which is why the EOP entrance had to be disappeared.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. 

All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain that all the Parkland doctors saw a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html#JFK-Head-Wound

[Ron Bulman]

22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html#JFK-Head-Wound

Rickey said "No need to splain it Lucy, they were all there and stated what they saw".  They pretty much concurred, back of the head and large.  What did that nurse say, I could almost stick my fist in it?  The size of a baseball, a tennis ball.  Read their descriptions people, they weren't mistaken.  They were used to dealing with trauma, gunshot wounds at times on a daily basis, sometimes more than once in the same day.  Yet this was likely the most traumatic experience they ever encountered.  It was seared into their brains for life, even if they wanted to, tried to forget it.

[Jake Hammond]

This is my first post but its on a topic , in fact topics, I feel strongly about after spending way too long in complex conspiracy theories. 

 Firstly one must understand two things .

 1- People forget and make slight mistakes leading to inconsistency 

 2- Mutual Exclusivity. If I ever get round to writing my JFK book that will be its title. 

 It is not mutually exclusive for JFK to have a massive exit wound at the back of the head and the autopsy photos be not faked. Quite simply the doctor is pulling the scalp tight across the region that is blown out. Much of the skull fragments are still attached to the scalp although obviously there was at least one that didn't remain attached. The independent specialists  who examined the skull posthumously all agreed that two bullets had caused the damage, from different directions. 

 in addition the Zapruda film is not inconsistent with this as many claim. The zapruda film shows him getting pushed forward initially by a bullet entering high on the rear of the head, just where the bullet hole is. He is then thrown back and Jackie jumps into action trying to retrieve something from the back of the limo. This is discussed best by Robert Harris in his YT presentation ' Murder in Dealey Plaza'. The massive deformity we see in the Zapruda film is the flap of bone by the right ear and the laceration of the scalp behind the right eye, back to the bone flap creating a gory red mess. 

 IN addition we have Pat Speers excellent work of objective analysis which shows that every single witness in the immediate vicinity describes the right side of the head exploding, and not backwards. The only immediately incongruous evidence on this subject is in fact the photo at the autopsy showing Boswell pulling the scalp tight at the back of the head, across the gaping wound, which they clearly weren't trying to hide as it is in all other photos it is present and Boswell describes pulling the scalp tight himself. 

 All of the evidence, when really analysed shows the following .... A headshot from the rear entering fairly high on the right side of the head, possibly fracturing that area of the skull but certainly causing no real damage. This exited around where the flap of bone was and lacerated the scalp longitudinally  causing the gory mess in the zapruda film. Momentarily after was a shot from the front ( all witnesses described two very close shots) which threw him back, sent Jackie looking for bits on the limo ( Jackie was not looking for bits of head initially)  and caused the massive hole in the rear of the SKULL ( not necessarily HEAD). The second shot of course didn't help the situation of the damage caused by the first shot. 

 The only cover up here is that the laceration to the front right area was stitched or glued back in place, PERHAPS to cover up the front entry wound, or even possibly simply to tidy things up a little. Its not particularly important since all of the evidence and witnesses are consistent. By this I mean not mutually exclusive. You can have the Zapruda film and witnesses describing a huge blow out in the front right part of the head AND, simultaneously a massive hole to the back of the skull, AND have the autopsy photo where the scalp is pulled tight across the hole ( Jackie confirmed that there was a large flap of scalp when she described the white bone and grooving to that bone, which could only be the inside of a flap of scalp). 

 I spent too long looking into conspiracy theories about alteration to the skull and body to let others waste their time doing the same. There was probably an attempt to cover up the front entry wound by reattaching the scalp there but otherwise the evidence is 100% consistent. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Sandy Larsen]

You top-of-the-head guys keep forgetting that the Parkland doctors and nurses ALL (but one) said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head, many of them specifically saying  that it was down to the occiput (the lowest part of the back of the head) and some saying that they saw cerebellar tissue oozing out, which also would be at the bottom of the back of the head. And these medical professionals saw only the original wound, not the skull damage after scalp reflection.... so there is no confusion between the two. (See Dr. Aguilar's wound witness list.)

NOBODY at Parkland saw a wound on the top part of the head! Nobody.

When you see pictures of these guys pointing to the wound at the back of the head, you only pay attention to the location of their PALMS rather than their fingers, because their palms are near the tops of their heads. WE KNOW THAT IT IS THEIR FINGERS THAT ARE DOING THE POINTING BECAUSE THEIR STATEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHERE THEIR FINGERS ARE POINTING. (And besides, who uses their palms to point to things?)

Your ideology forces you to cherry pick from what these -- our best impartial witnesses -- have to say about the gaping wound.

You are on the losing side of this argument.

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

It is not mutually exclusive for JFK to have a massive exit wound at the back of the head and the autopsy photos be not faked. Quite simply the doctor is pulling the scalp tight across the region that is blown out

Jake,

Upon considering the descriptions of the gaping wound given by a multitude of Parkland witnesses, it is hard for me to believe that there was enough intact scalp below the gaping wound remaining to pull up as far as what we see in the autopsy photos.

Nice try though.

P.S. I think that Pat Speer relies too much on the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Unlike the Parkland Hospital witnesses would spent several minutes observing Kennedy and the gaping wound, the Dealey Plaza witnesses were taken by surprise AND saw the event for just a fraction of a second.

 

[Jake Hammond]

No, he also relies on the Parkland staff.  I don't see the point of faking one image and not the other ones which show a massive wound ? what is the objective there ? and even if they did fake that image, so what ? we know there was a massive wound there from the reaction of Jackie, the piece of skull that was left near Charles Brem, the autopsy photos (!), the spray covering the motorcyclists to the left rear and as you point out yourself, the Parkland staff. 

 My point here is mutual exclusivity, just because the sky is blue doesn't mean grass cannot be green. just because a large portion of his skull was missing at the rear does not mean that some wasn't still attached to scalp and that the scalp wasn't still attached, it also does not mean that there can't be a wound elsewhere on the head. In fact to claim that the scalp had nicely removed itself in a cartoon like circle really is a big stretch. But again, look at the testimony of Jackie who described seeing the inside of the scalp. If you look at the top of the head in the images you see lacerated section of scalp, it is quite possible that these could be put back in to place to some extent , and the rear section pulled across to create from a rear angle what looks almost like a normal head. The Doctors described doing this in their own testimony, they weren't hiding that. 

 And to repeat... the initial shot caused a blowout upwards and forwards according to all witnesses and the Zapruda film, from the right side of the head. roughly at the top of where the flap of bone is hanging in front of the ear. This is mutually exclusive to a blow out at the rear if there were two shots. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 I think that Pat Speer relies too much on the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Unlike the Parkland Hospital witnesses would spent several minutes observing Kennedy and the gaping wound, the Dealey Plaza witnesses were taken by surprise AND saw the event for just a fraction of a second.

 

59 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

No, [Pat] also relies on the Parkland staff.

No he doesn't. He relies upon his own cherry-picked version of what the Parkland witnesses said. Which renders their testimony worthless because it is grossly misrepresented.

As I keep pointing out, Pat ignores the fact that the Parkland witnesses place the wound down so far as to involve the occiput and cerebellar tissue. Which he necessarily has to do in order for their testimony to support his position. If you can't see that, then there's no point in our discussing this further because we'd be talking past each other.

I mean, did you see the following two posts? They provide definitive proof that the Parkland witnesses described a blowout wound nothing like what Pat believes, and that is completely incompatible with the BOH autopsy photos.

 

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I don't see the point of faking one image and not the other ones which show a massive wound ? what is the objective there ?

They removed the back-of-head blowout wound because it was proof of a shot from the front. Which would mean conspiracy.

 

[Jake Hammond]

Thank you, you have argued my point exactly , but also to be fair I have ignored the main issue here. My view of this thread is that we are discussing the wounds on kennedy's head. and solely that. However, for many that also encompasses the Warren Commission cover up and framing of Oswald, which leads to conflation with the magic bullet theory and so on... 

 What I should have said is that the artists drawn impression of the shot with the scalp pulled over the wound was used in the WC as evidence of a single shot from the rear. Yes that is indeed the case and you are correct there. However, that is a mutually exclusive issue and discussion to the wounds to Kennedys head, which is what my interpretation of the thread was. The two should not be confused. After the assassination the DPD, warren commission and FBI were under strict orders to find LHO guilty, some were almost certainly told that there may have been others involved but to keep everything neat and tidy and help turn pubic opinion against communism and Cuba by focusing all efforts on the commie Lone wolf cop killing ex marine with dishonourable discharge ( hilarious since he caught urethritis whilst on duty, from prostitutes apparently). 

 The reason the wound is so far down, which you are correct about,  is that the head was knocked forward by the first shot but also because of kennedy's stance in the car, he was sitting at almost 45 degrees. The position kennedy starts in, even before the first shot is extremely slouched which has led many lazy researchers to posit the single shot theory as hogwash. Thats another thread though. 

 The reason you have argued my point is that you have shown in the above post very clearly how mutually exclusive issues can be conflated and both disagreeing parties are in fact correct. The best example is the magic bullet theory, where the snipers nest, Oswald, the carcano rifle's abilities,  bullet 399 and the wounds to JFK and JC are all conflated into one impossible story which must be wrong. In this instance the artists impression used as evidence of a single shot from the rear is being conflated with the actual damage to the head. We know there was a cover up to prove a single shooter from the rear. But we also know that there were two head shots, one front, one back. Theres no need, in my opinion, to go any further with this debate.

All of the experts said that there was a blow out to the rear of skull and brain tissue, there were skull and brain tissue blown out to the rear in the zapruda film, Jackie says that there was tissue blown out to the rear, Charles Brem saw a chunk of skull blown to the rear. But .... all of the witnesses within 50 yards all said that his head exploded upwards, on the right side, which is what the zapruda film shows and what is consistent with a high on the head shot from the rear. This was the first shot, the pressure within the densely packed head when combined with the impact of the bullet erupted at the 1 o clock position, less than half a second later a second bullet destroyed the rear of the head sending all the tissue rearwards but not with an explosive release of blood as is shown by the first one as there was if anything a negative pressure in the cranium. The combination of the initial shot fracturing the skull at the rear and the second shot exiting the rear is what caused the massive damage without it looking like there was a blow out at the rear on the film, quite simply because there wasn't any pressure or excess material to blow out. 

 In addition the attached image of frame 313 shows the angle of the head at impact and how a shot from the front would have blown out the lower area of the rear skull and probably entered into the lacerated scalp/bone flap area caused by the exit of the first shot.By this point the president has no hope . This is important as the angle JFK is sitting at COMBINED with the angle he is turning his head to, the proximity of Jackie and height of the roll T top and windscreen , in my opinion, REALLY narrow down where the shots could have come from.  The first must have come from very near the snipers nest ( and not the other end of the floor as Jackie would have been hit), and the second could only have come from the corner of the grassy knowl and the Triple underpass. 

 I also appended the 16/17/18 sequence of frames which show the end of the forward motion and the start pf the head snap "back and to the left". 316 is bottom of the move forward and does not show any rear damage, 317 possibly shows a piece of bullet fragment or even possibly bone ejecting, 318 shows, IMO, the rear of the head opening like a door as the bullet exits and takes with it bone and brain matter. Once again, just because there was a hole there post mortem doesn't mean that he bone disappeared, much would have stuck to the scalp. 

 I would also like to add that there IMHO it looks like there are many issues for the recoil of the body ' back and to the left'. 

 1- Jackie is holding him up at 313 to a degree and almost pushes him back . 2- he is wearing a back brace . 3- he has his legs out in front of him, not underneath  4 - the back muscles only stretch so far before they will recoil , and of course 5 - he was hit by a second bullet to the head which threw his head back but this is limited by the lack of structure to the head and the forces already acting on the body as briefly discussed above. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Jake Hammond
mistake made and image upload

[Don Jeffries]

I posted earlier about John Barbour and others having difficulty in registering here. We've chased away lots of good people, and now apparently are making it hard for good people to join. 

First, the fact that William Law is being mentioned so sparingly here, when he is THE expert on the medical evidence at this point, and especially is the expert on Jim Jenkins, is very telling. I can understand why those like him have no desire to post on these forums. But many of us are used to credit not being given where it is due by this dysfunctional community of ours. 

All of the medical personnel at Parkland reported a huge wound in the back of JFK's head. As is obvious by looking at the extant photos, that huge wound isn't there. Considering how much other evidence in this case has been lost, withheld, or altered, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the Dallas people were telling the truth, and that therefore the photos are not legitimate. 

I'm not going to get into an extended debate. I do wish that those who know the evidence well, and are still posting regularly here, would be more involved in these debates. And please give a shout out to William Law on this particular subject. 

[Adam Johnson]

Capt (Ret) James Morningstar Young MC, USN 

One of JFK's three white house doctors gives an oral history account of his service career and the role he played in the aftermath of the president's assassination.

Great read, some amazing  stuff in report, here is the link

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/

 

Here is a link to just the oral history pdf.......take half an hour to read it you wont be disappointed:

https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf

 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Adam Johnson

[Rick McTague]

11 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

No, he also relies on the Parkland staff.  I don't see the point of faking one image and not the other ones which show a massive wound ? what is the objective there ? and even if they did fake that image, so what ? we know there was a massive wound there from the reaction of Jackie, the piece of skull that was left near Charles Brem, the autopsy photos (!), the spray covering the motorcyclists to the left rear and as you point out yourself, the Parkland staff. 

 My point here is mutual exclusivity, just because the sky is blue doesn't mean grass cannot be green. just because a large portion of his skull was missing at the rear does not mean that some wasn't still attached to scalp and that the scalp wasn't still attached, it also does not mean that there can't be a wound elsewhere on the head. In fact to claim that the scalp had nicely removed itself in a cartoon like circle really is a big stretch. But again, look at the testimony of Jackie who described seeing the inside of the scalp. If you look at the top of the head in the images you see lacerated section of scalp, it is quite possible that these could be put back in to place to some extent , and the rear section pulled across to create from a rear angle what looks almost like a normal head. The Doctors described doing this in their own testimony, they weren't hiding that. 

 And to repeat... the initial shot caused a blowout upwards and forwards according to all witnesses and the Zapruda film, from the right side of the head. roughly at the top of where the flap of bone is hanging in front of the ear. This is mutually exclusive to a blow out at the rear if there were two shots. 

Jake,

Welcome as a new member to the forum!  I've found even with the back and forth debate, the EF is not as far down in the gutter as other forums are as related to personal attacks, etc.  We can disagree here without being disagreeable.

I'm curious, how do you reconcile what is seen on the Z film, the giant red/orange/white blob-flap above the right ear and temple, and the complete absence of that wound at Parkland?

Thanks

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Don Jeffries said:

I posted earlier about John Barbour and others having difficulty in registering here. We've chased away lots of good people, and now apparently are making it hard for good people to join. 

First, the fact that William Law is being mentioned so sparingly here, when he is THE expert on the medical evidence at this point, and especially is the expert on Jim Jenkins, is very telling. I can understand why those like him have no desire to post on these forums. But many of us are used to credit not being given where it is due by this dysfunctional community of ours. 

All of the medical personnel at Parkland reported a huge wound in the back of JFK's head. As is obvious by looking at the extant photos, that huge wound isn't there. Considering how much other evidence in this case has been lost, withheld, or altered, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the Dallas people were telling the truth, and that therefore the photos are not legitimate. 

I'm not going to get into an extended debate. I do wish that those who know the evidence well, and are still posting regularly here, would be more involved in these debates. And please give a shout out to William Law on this particular subject. 

I don't blame some of the more knowledgeable people regarding facts about the case for not posting here.  Many times responses are simply distractions from the subject at hand or disinformation.  Often a logical, important, relevant post is buried before it is read by many.  But, it's about the only place for some of us not truly involved in research to carry on, ask questions or rebut even greater ignorance than our own.

https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/1634240464/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544808563&sr=1-1&keywords=william+law+in+the+eye+of+history

https://www.amazon.com/At-Cold-Shoulder-History-Chilling/dp/1634242114/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544809175&sr=1-1&keywords=at+the+cold+shoulder+of+history 

[Jake Hammond]

Rick,

 Thank you for your response, it is difficult being a new member and wanting to contribute in some way, as you are immediately  aware that there are many with a greater knowledge than yourself, yet you need to get involved and add what you can at some point.

 Back to your main question though... I think I subconsciously don't give the autopsy photos much credence as they don't even agree with themselves and some have clearly being altered, for whatever reason. The giant blob vs. Parkland witnesses is a tough one. It is possible that the destruction of the back of the head overshadowed the laceration to the front whereas on camera the laceration and initial blowout greatly overshadow the gaping hole. Secondly when placed on the stretcher, or even before, the flap of blob gore could have been pushed back to its original place, and later stitched or glued back down.  The Dealey PLaza witnesses could not have seen the hole because he sunk forwards and the car sped away. 

 However, I accept your point, it is a big stretch to imagine that none of the doctors mentioned the forward flap and mess that we see in the Z film. I am not an advocate of major manipulation of the Z film but it has always seemed tom me that several things have been altered. The colouring in of the back of the head after frame 318 is one and the possible addition of the flap another. Can I ask a newbie question ??  Are there any witnesses in the immediate vicinity that describe what we see in the Z film ? before the Z film was released ? I know that Pat Speer has written extensively on this but if there is even one witness that describes the blob and is reliable then that changes everything. 

 My main area of interest is the Tippit shooting and also the Harvey / Lee conundrum which in future I'll stick to. The problem with the headshot is that the videos and photos , which can and have been altered play such a major part in the 'evidence' and wider debate that a definitive answer will never be accepted by all . its good to try though !

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Jake Hammond