DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20

[Steve Thomas]

On 4/22/2020 at 7:24 AM, Micah Mileto said:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/huber.pdf

 

Found it. Thank you.

Micah,

Thank you for this tip.

If you back up a little in the directory line, you can get an index of other Lane interviews, such as Lee Bowers, Acquila Clemmons, etc.:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/

Steve Thomas

 

[Joseph McBride]

I think these came from Emile de Antonio's papers at the Wisconsin Historical

Society. That's where I first saw them. There are other files on the film

RUSH TO JUDGMENT. De Antonio was a great independent radical documentary filmmaker.

I interviewed him once on LA TV. He asked me to do so after I wrote about

his Weather Underground film for Variety. He surprised me by saying

he thought Variety was more fair to him than other publications, because

we had a policy of reporting accurately what a film contained, unlike

other reviewers in other publications.

[Micah Mileto]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:06 PM, David Lifton said:

I interviewed James Jenkins at length back in September 1979 (approx), just prior to the publication of Best Evidence. He made no such statements to me at that time. (See Chapter 27 of B.E.)  Further, I then conducted a multi-hour filmed interview with him, at his lakeside home.  Again, Jenkins had no such recollections.  Only after --well after--- Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) did Jenkins' account change.  Bottom line: only after Jenkins read the account of Paul O'Connor (to whom he was distantly related), and who described --in detail-- that the cranium was empty), did Jenkins then --years later!-- suddenly come up with the account you are quoting (As if: "Oh yes. . now I remember!" And. . :  {"The damn thing fell to in my hands.")  For these reasons, I do not place any reliability whatsoever in Jenkins' "new and improved" account.  Nor should you. (Again, IMHO). 

Yes, I am sure there are authors who, perhaps unaware of this history, will quote O'Connor (per Best Evidence); and then quote Jenkins (as if his account constitutes corroboration).  But that is not true.  And historically -- there is no equivalence. Simply put: they are on not on equal footing. I wish that were not so.  But that's the reality.   And let me remind you what Jenkins said, when I first interviewed him, and when --after a lengthy conversation --he made no mention of any "empty cranium" or anything like what O'Connor had said. When I decided to spell it out, and see what his response would be, here's what happened. He listened to what I had so say, and then denied the essence of it, saying, "That's 'blue sky' stuff David."   Again: "Blue sky stuff" - -that's was his response to me.  Then (months later) came the publication of B.E. (Jan 1981) and thereupon followed-- some years later-- James Jenkins "new and improved" version. .

And, pardon me, but that's how I think it should be treated, because I have no patience for those who attempt to fictionalize history with a false account.  I wish a label could be affixed to such accounts so that writers who wish to rely on them could do so by introducing it in just that fashion: "According to the 'new and improved' version provided by James Jenkins. . " etc. (DSL, 6/28/20).

Not only that, but Jenkins also told Livingstone that the spinal cord was removed during the autopsy.

Jenkin's claim was denied by Dr. Boswell, as well as Dr. Robert Karnei, another autopsy witness. Dr. Humes refused to comment. As summarized in Livingstone's 1992 book High Treason 2:

[Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence]

[...]

Spinal Cord

Jenkins describes removing the spinal cord with a Stryker saw, but Dr. Karnei does not remember it having been removed. When I tried to ask Dr. Humes if it had been removed, he hung up on me.¹⁵ Dr. Boswell told me that the cord was not removed.¹⁶

The question of removal and examination of the spinal cord is important because this would tell us if the tuberculosis Kennedy had been exposed to as a child had been reactivated by the steroids he was being given, and only examination of the tissues of the spinal cord would tell this.

Normally during an autopsy the spinal cord is removed and its condition is reported.

Livingstone interviewed Dr. Karnei on 8/27/1991, Dr. Humes on 9/5/1991, and Dr. Boswell 8/7/1991.

[...]

[Chapter 7. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei]

[...]

"Nobody got a look at the spine area?"

"Not that I remember. I don't remember anybody going into the spinal area to take a look there."

[...]

"In the end, don't you think they performed a complete and good autopsy?"

"I think it was as complete as they were allowed to do. I mean, normally they would have gone into the spinal column and taken the spinal cord and all that sort of thing. And they were not allowed to do that. And there was no way they could have looked at the spinal column there to see if there was any disease in the spinal column."

"They didn't remove the spinal column?"

"No. No. Not that I can remember. I am almost sure they did not touch the spinal column. [...]

[...]

"So the spinal cord was not removed, so there was no opportunity to take tissue samples from it or study whether or not he might have actually had TB of the spine?"

"No, I don't remember the spinal column ever being touched."

[...]

[Chapter 11. James Curtis Jenkins]

[...]

Later the spinal cord was removed-a Stryker saw cut both sides of the vertebral column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord.¹²

Both Dr. Boswell,¹³ and Dr. Robert Karnei, who was present in the autopsy room, deny that the spinal cord was removed. Once again it sounds as though we are talking about two different autopsies.

Part of the problem of trying to solve a case with so much conflicting evidence is the way people's minds play tricks on them. A lot of the witnesses did not see certain things because they were momentarily out of the room or otherwise occupied, so they will compensate by making certain assumptions in their mind which then become fact. If they think that Robert Kennedy was limiting the autopsy and they did not see the spinal cord removed, for instance, then they may state that the spinal cord was not removed because Robert did not want it done.

It is very common under stress for people's minds to imagine that they saw something they did not or to block out the memory of certain events. Jackie K as climbing on the trunk or Nelly Connally going up a flight of stairs.

I am not suggesting that that is what happened here, and that the spinal cord was in fact removed. I don't know at this point. The cord is not properly mentioned in the autopsy report, wheras normally it would be.

From Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case:

[Appendix J, Encyclopedia of Medical Events And Witness Testimony by Harrison E. Livingstone and Katlee Link Fitzgerald]

[...]

SPINAL CORD

[...]

Doctor Robert Karnei: The spinal cord was not removed. He was quite strong about this. (Aug. 27, 1991)

Jim Jenkins: said that later the spinal cord was removed separately-use of Stryker saw but both sides of the vertical column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord (a: June 6, 1991) Jenkins thinks the brain stem was severed before it arrived at the autopsy because when they removed it from the head, the spinal cord did not come with it. He also said during the same interview that he did not recall removing the spinal cord and that he would have removed it (a: May 29, 1991)

However, approximately 90% of the time the spinal cord will separate from the brain when the brain is removed.

[Richard Booth]

Why would Jim or Milicent do that?

The notion doesn't make any sense... 

[Guest]

On 4/15/2020 at 10:28 PM, David Lifton said:

Quoting Bojzcuk: The paranoid, 'everything is a fake' mindset does more than just legitimise the lone-nut theory. It causes another problem: it gives the general public the impression that everyone who questions the lone-nut theory is a paranoid fantasist.

MY RESPONSE:

First of all, based on polling data, this country must be loaded with paranoid fantasts.(Is that the right term? Or is "skeptic" a better choice? I prefer the latter).

Poor Mr. Bochuk. .he cannot get his mind around the idea that an Oswald frame-up was possible, or in any event even plausible.

Let’s review the basic chronology:

1. The Bethesda autopsy began (officially) at 8 PM EST

2. There were no bullets or macroscopic fragments in the body.  As the two FBI agents reported, the doctors “were at a loss explain. . why they could find no bullets”

3. At about 9 pm, at the White House, a Secret Service agent turned over the bullet that (he said) was found on a Dallas stretcher at Parkland Hospital (Note the time: The agent (Richard Johnsen) carried the bullet in his pocket for about six hours.)

4. At about 10:30 PM, two Secret Service agents (and/or FBI agents) assigned to search the limo (by then parked in the White House garage) found (in the front seat) the two large ballistically identifiable fragments that matched LHO’s rifle.  (Wow!  What a find. Proof that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon - -either that, or that someone with an eye for detail was involved in the design of this frame-up.

FWIW:  The basic draft of the Warren Report was written by late March, 1964; and by June 1964, there were already many revisions. The Warren Commission legal staff didn’t seem to “catch on” to the possibility of fraud in the evidence until June 1964, long after the basic draft of their report (with its “case against Oswald", se Chapter 4)  was written.  At that time, they had no “chain of possession” on the bullet, the fragments, or lots of other critical evidence. That’s when (approx. June 1964) senior WC attorney Norman Redlich (of considerable academic brilliance, BTW) thought to address this situation.  So, at about that time, he requested of FBI Director J. E. Hoover something that most law students learn in their first year: if Director Hoover could please send out his agents and establish a “chain of possession” on all of the basic evidence on which the Warren Commission relied (!)....the rifle, the bullet fragments, etc.  (This bizarre situation is documented in the "working papers" of the Warren Commission, which I spent weeks studying at NARA, in the early 1970s).  If the FBI were to have proceeded in this fashion in the case of a stolen horse, there would have been a fistful of excellent FBI reports about the situation at the barn, after the horse was stolen, and no information about the missing horse, which —it perhaps would have been concluded— had simply run away.

To state it somewhat differently: eighth grade students know, from watching CSI or Law and Order—the necessity of establishing a chain of possession on the key evidence in a murder case.  But, unfortunately, this basic precept was ignored by the legal eagles on the Warren Commission until about June 1964. . . when, apparently, someone apparently realized that, without a valid chain of possession, they were vulnerable to the charge of having  “played cards” with a stacked deck.  OMG. . what then?! (And: Would the public notice?)

FWIW: The first public notice that the WC had a "chain of possession" problem (with regards to the President's body) appeared in a legal paper written by attorney Jay Schwartz (from upstate New York) -- a paper published (approx 1966) in an NYU legal journal.  Schwartz drily noted that  (a) the most important evidence in a murder case was "the body" and (b) there was no chain of possession on JFK's body (!).  He added a few words (tongue in cheek, perhaps?) that of course the presumption was (i.e., it was "assumed") that nothing could have happened to JFK's body  in the approximate six (6) hour period between the Dallas pronouncement of death (1 PM CST), and the (8 PM EST) start of the official autopsy at Bethesda. However, (in the spirit of "But') he politely noted at least one observation that was different, and raised (in a single sentence, as I recall)  the basic question (explored in great detail in B.E.)  He did not make any accusation, but he did raise the question.

Furthermore. .  : This is/was more than a procedural matter. Think about it: If the FBI had done a genuine chain-of-possession investigation (even if they started with the assumption that nothing was amiss, and this was simply a procedural matter of "dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's), and if they (as I did, in 1966/67) had questioned members of the U.S. Multi-Service Casket Team, what would have been the result? What would FBI officials have thought when they learned that, at Bethesda Naval Hospital (and after RFK and JBK exited the vehicle), there had been an "ambulance chase" (per Ch. 16 of B.E.). What would they had thought, if they had questioned Dennis David (as I did on 7/2/1979),  and learned that the coffin offloaded from Air Force One was empty? And were  told, in effect: "Not to worry, this was only a security measure." Rest assured that if any of this information had been discovered, and made public at the time (1963/1964) there would have been a public outcry, and a demand for explanations. And the Warren Report would have had to include several pages of explanation-- explaining to the general public (and the world) why --in the scene broadcast nationally, and to the world--showing the arrival of the Kennedy party at Andrews Air Force Base, that the coffin next to which Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy were standing, was empty.  None of this happened, of course; but I have wondered what the outcome would have been, if this bizarre situation had been discovered at that time.

 

Hi David,

 

just on point “3”, is there an explanation how that SS agent Richard Johnsen obtained the bullet? I watched the Dr talking here and he references the bullet still being in Connelly’s left thigh and requiring further surgery to remove it.

Wouldn’t the surgeons have to officially hand over the bullet as a piece of evidence after the surgery, how does it get on to a gurney under some clothes? 
I apologise if this is in your book (which I haven’t read yet) or if this has been covered many times on here. If that SS agent has had the bullet in his pocket (6) for hours, when did they actually remove it from Connelly, when was he stable enough for his next bout of surgery to remove the bullet? Does the timeline match?
 

Thanks

 

[James DiEugenio]

Chris,

Back in 2011, you can see it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/Z3q4Semr5lQ/m/H_aW2sgGGnwJ

BTW, the idea that Jeremy is an "Ozzie did it" zealot is  wrong.  There should not even be the implication of that.  In fact, in a video we are putting up soon at K and K, we are using a demonstration by him of the back wound.  Because one disagrees with Armstrong and Lifton does not mean one buys the WC.  Not even close.  There is some interesting work at ROKC, which Jeremy is, or was, a part of.

Richard,

I have no idea why Lifton ever thought  I did not write that article about Dylan.  But it was simply impossible since I had no communication at all with Mili between when I first learned of the song going up in public, and when my article was posted. Also, I like giving our contributors their earned credit. .  Mili Cranor has been a contributor for a long time.  I would never do such a thing since I want to keep her on board.

[Cliff Varnell]

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

In fact, in a video we are putting up soon at K and K, we are using a demonstration by him of the back wound. 

I’m looking forward to this with keen interest given the fact this issue *should* have been settled 54 years ago.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chris,

Back in 2011, you can see it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/Z3q4Semr5lQ/m/H_aW2sgGGnwJ

BTW, the idea that Jeremy is an "Ozzie did it" zealot is  wrong.  There should not even be the implication of that.  In fact, in a video we are putting up soon at K and K, we are using a demonstration by him of the back wound.  Because one disagrees with Armstrong and Lifton does not mean one buys the WC.  Not even close.  There is some interesting work at ROKC, which Jeremy is, or was, a part of.

Richard,

I have no idea why Lifton ever thought  I did not write that article about Dylan.  But it was simply impossible since I had no communication at all with Mili between when I first learned of the song going up in public, and when my article was posted. Also, I like giving our contributors their earned credit. .  Mili Cranor has been a contributor for a long time.  I would never do such a thing since I want to keep her on board.

Thanks James, painful read that link was. I got the gist of it though. 

[Guest]

In terms of a case for surgery/manipulation on the body before the official autopsy began at Bethesda, would the neck would have to have been widened to fish out the bullet that entered the throat? Or would a tracheotomy hole/original wound have been sufficient. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, the idea that Jeremy is an "Ozzie did it" zealot is  wrong.  There should not even be the implication of that.  In fact, in a video we are putting up soon at K and K, we are using a demonstration by him of the back wound.  Because one disagrees with Armstrong and Lifton does not mean one buys the WC.  Not even close.  There is some interesting work at ROKC, which Jeremy is, or was, a part of.

Thanks for that, James.

I'd guess you're referring to one or more of the images on my website's single-bullet theory page. You're welcome to use any of them, of course. If larger versions would work better, let me know; I may be able to find some.

One of the media's techniques for deflecting criticism of the lone-nut theory is to portray all critics as raving crackpots: 'conspiracy theorists', in the pejorative sense of the phrase. Far-fetched theories that are obviously wrong and strongly promoted, such as Lifton's body-alteration nonsense or Armstrong's double-doppelganger nonsense, have the potential to be used for this purpose, as indeed Lifton's was in the 1980s. Anyone who questions the lone-nut theory should also be questioning the high-profile genuinely crackpot theories.

I replied to Lifton on page 15: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26441-dieugenio-cranor-and-the-mole-my-mole-33120/?do=findComment&comment=418937. If he'd like to continue the conversation, that's fine with me.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Thanks for that, James.

I'd guess you're referring to one or more of the images on my website's single-bullet theory page. You're welcome to use any of them, of course. If larger versions would work better, let me know; I may be able to find some.

Jeremy, your work on the back wound is excellent.  My only beef is that you’ve buried the lede— the low back wound should be the first objection to the SBT, not the third.  Connally’s wounds and hat are moot given JFK’s T3 back wound.

From Jeremy’s website:
 
JFK’s Back Wound was too Low

It makes no practical difference whether President Kennedy’s throat wound was located at or just above the knot of his tie. The balance of the evidence places his back wound several inches lower than either location.12

• The death certificate signed by Dr George Burkley, the president's personal doctor, who was present both in the emergency room at the hospital in Dallas and at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, located the back wound “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra,” which is typically four to six inches, or 10 to 15 centimetres, below the top of the shirt collar.13
• The only surviving contemporary report of the autopsy supported this location.14
• The autopsy descriptive sheet, made by one of the pathologists during the autopsy, was the official diagram of the wounds to the body. It, too, placed the back wound in this location.15
• The backs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt each contained a bullet hole located between five and six inches below the top of the collar, which matched this location.16 Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. In a photograph taken no more than 1.2 seconds before any non–fatal shot from the sixth floor could have been fired, the jacket can clearly be seen to be at or very close to its normal position.17 Buttoned–up shirts tend to be much less flexible than jackets. President Kennedy’s shirt in particular could not have bunched up significantly: it had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. The hole in the shirt lined up almost exactly with the hole in the jacket. </q>

The only fact I’d add is that in every photo taken on Elm St. there is a normal amount of shirt collar visible above the jacket collar.   The claim JFK was shot in the back at T1 would have required 2+ inches of shirt and an equal amount of jacket to elevate entirely above the top of the back without pushing up the jacket collar, a flat out impossible to replicate scenario.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Thanks for that, James.

I'd guess you're referring to one or more of the images on my website's single-bullet theory page. You're welcome to use any of them, of course. If larger versions would work better, let me know; I may be able to find some.

One of the media's techniques for deflecting criticism of the lone-nut theory is to portray all critics as raving crackpots: 'conspiracy theorists', in the pejorative sense of the phrase. Far-fetched theories that are obviously wrong and strongly promoted, such as Lifton's body-alteration nonsense or Armstrong's double-doppelganger nonsense, have the potential to be used for this purpose, as indeed Lifton's was in the 1980s. Anyone who questions the lone-nut theory should also be questioning the high-profile genuinely crackpot theories.

I replied to Lifton on page 15: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26441-dieugenio-cranor-and-the-mole-my-mole-33120/?do=findComment&comment=418937. If he'd like to continue the conversation, that's fine with me.

You’re right Jeremy but, this is part of the dirty game. Its very frustratingly plausible that the state or whoever was indeed responsible for the JFK assassination and those looking to maintain the W/C narrative would proliferate disinformation and easily provable false scenarios in order to muddy the waters. The ‘Jackie did it’, SS man in the front with a handgun’ or even the ‘SS man with assault rifle in the follow up car did it’ provide wonderful subterfuge. We all know there are people with IQ’s less than 90 that are impressionable that pick this stuff up as gospel and then the media uses these instances to label all members of the public with doubts over the W/C narrative as crackpots, loonies or just the generic ‘conspiracy theorist’ term.  Unfortunately, we choose to challenge the establishment with all of its means, finances and power, it’s a tough ugh task and nothing is fair about it. 

[David Josephs]

On 4/28/2020 at 12:18 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

If there really was a wound there, perhaps it was an exit of a fragment.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Is there any possibility the priest was referring to his own left view when looking at the deceased president’s head, as opposed to the presidents left side of his head above his eye? 

[David Josephs]

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

Is there any possibility the priest was referring to his own left view when looking at the deceased president’s head, as opposed to the presidents left side of his head above his eye? 

Most anything is "possible"...  maybe if we ask ourselves - how likely is it that Huber touched anything on the RIGHT side of his head given the injuries on that side?

More surprising is the xray's anatomical left compared to the table image of a virtually untouched left side.

FWIW here is Huber in what look's like the Parkland ER room...  maybe it will help with lining up the photos we have supposedly of JFK in that room...

Chris - I for one have a difficult time accepting that an experienced priest mistakenly said LEFT instead of RIGHT and then never corrects it?  His statement was a pretty big deal which was why it received so little traction from the FBI et al....

DJ