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

[David Andrews]

On 4/23/2020 at 9:51 AM, David Lifton said:

He implied that the judge had Mafia connections.  You call that "A passionate advocate for his fellow CTs"   I don't think so.

Can you cite that 'Mafia' allegation?  My reading of the Feinman papers comprehends that he called the judge "corrupt" in the sense that he obstructed truthful facts about Feinman's clients and the assassination from being admitted into the trial proceedings.  Doing this in a letter to another judge was overly "passionate," and foredoomed to draw censure, or worse.  So, a too thorough advocate for his clients, a bad advocate for himself.

[David Lifton]

On 4/24/2020 at 8:22 PM, David Andrews said:

Can you cite that 'Mafia' allegation?  My reading of the Feinman papers comprehends that he called the judge "corrupt" in the sense that he obstructed truthful facts about Feinman's clients and the assassination from being admitted into the trial proceedings.  Doing this in a letter to another judge was overly "passionate," and foredoomed to draw censure, or worse.  So, a too thorough advocate for his clients, a bad advocate for himself.

I'm not sure what you mean by writing that your reading of  Feinman "comprehends" that he called the judge "corrupt." In any event, I was writing based on (my) recollection, and will defer to the written record. What I do recall is that whatever he wrote (or said, orally, if that is the case) led to his disbarment.

Edited April 26, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 4/22/2020 at 1:02 AM, Joseph McBride said:

The priest may have been referring to what appears to

be a small bullet entrance wound at Kennedy's hairline

on the right side of his head. You can see it in an autopsy

photo. Perhaps when the priest said it was "on the left

forehead," he was thinking of how it appeared to his

left when he was looking down at the dead president.

Joe: "left" is left.  An examining physician does not describe an anatomic location based on his particular "perspective," but rather as defined, anatomically (for example) in Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. (Think about it: were it otherwise, medical reports would be filled with redundant phraseology such as "From my perspective, as I observed the deceased" [or, "as I operated on the victim" etc.] ) The point you might argue is that Dr. McClelland (in this case) did not follow standard procedure, but I find that highly unlikely.

Edited April 25, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 4/22/2020 at 2:04 AM, Pat Speer said:

Question for David Lifton.

I don't remember where I heard this---but it was my understanding Feinman got disbarred because he'd lost his cool while representing a number of CTs against Gerald Posner's publisher. 

Assuming this is true, it would be unfair to use his disbarment to suggest he was a lousy lawyer. A passionate advocate for his fellow CTs,  yes--but a lousy lawyer, no. 

From a brief summary at Wikipedia:

Groden sued Random House over a 1993 New York Times advertisement for Gerald Posner's book Case Closed in which Groden was featured along with other conspiracy theorists and declared "guilty of misleading the American public." The U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment and dismissed the case. END QUOTE

FYI: I (too) was named in the ad --which accused the Warren Commission critics of "misleading the American public"--and was not happy with it.  I consulted a senior attorney at a major law firm, and determined that the ad did not use language that offered adequate grounds for a lawsuit. Groden thought otherwise, and--as noted above-- his lawsuit was dismissed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_of_A_President

Edited April 26, 2020 by David Lifton

[Joseph McBride]

David, I was using the description by the priest of the wound, not

the doctor. A priest is not a medical expert, so he could more

easily make such a mistake in looking down at the president on the table.

[Micah Mileto]

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

David, I was using the description by the priest of the wound, not

the doctor. A priest is not a medical expert, so he could more

easily make such a mistake in looking down at the president on the table.

I am working on a megapost listing all of the evidence for small wound(s) in the front of Kennedy's head.

 

Huber was taking about the anatomical left. He said that, at the very least, he saw a "blotch of blood" on the left forehead which he thought looked like a wound. If you want, I can link and quote more details.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/17/2020 at 5:44 PM, David Lifton said:

On 4/17/2020 at 4:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It depends on Connally's frame of mind when he said, "From behind, I think:" Was he thinking of himself only, or of the entourage in the limo when he said that?
 

Frame of Mind = Himself:

Connally said:  "I got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the back.

 

Frame of Mind = Entourage:

Connally said:  "We got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the front.

 

I still believe that Connally was talking about himself--not about the automobile (nor about any "entourage").  I think the two "Frames of Mind" you set up needlessly complicates the analysis of what he said.

 

Yes, you are right David. I made a mistake in formulating that. (And I edited the post stating so.) My apologies for the time you spent responding to it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

On 4/26/2020 at 1:24 AM, Joseph McBride said:

David, I was using the description by the priest of the wound, not

the doctor. A priest is not a medical expert, so he could more

easily make such a mistake in looking down at the president on the table.

I am working on a megapost listing all of the evidence for small wound(s) in the front of Kennedy's head.

Huber was taking about the anatomical left. He said that, at the very least, he saw a "blotch of blood" on the left forehead which he thought looked like a wound. If you want, I can link and quote more details.

Micah, how do you know Huber was thinking "anatomical left" when he said "left?" Or did he actually say so?

 

[Micah Mileto]

On 4/27/2020 at 3:04 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Micah, how do you know Huber was thinking "anatomical left" when he said "left?" Or did he actually say so?

 

Huber used the word "left" when talking to Shirley Martin (with her family present), Mark Lane, and Lawrence Schiller. The transcripts don't show him being specifically asked, but it wouldn't be too unreasonable to infer that he meant anatomical left. But also, Shirey's daughter Teresa said in a 6/16/2000 email to John Kelin "I remember him touching his forehead in describing Kennedy's wound. He was an animated little guy".

Edited May 3, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Huber was used the word "left" when talking to Shirley Martin (with her family present), Mark Lane, and Lawrence Schiller. The transcripts don't show him being specifically asked, but it wouldn't be too unreasonable to infer that he meant anatomical left. But also, Shirey's daughter Teresa said in a 6/16/2000 email to John Kelin "I remember him touching his forehead in describing Kennedy's wound. He was an animated little guy".

Micah, Three questions: (1)  I appreciate what Shirley Martin's daughter (Teresa) said  --in an email to John kelin (in the year 2000-- that Huber indicated in the year 2000.  But isn't it a fact that-- decades earlier-- Vincent Salandria quoted him as saying (or indicating) "left temple"?; and wasn't the source for that an article in the Philadelphia newspaper?  (2) If Huber did not believe "left temple," and when saw that he was being quoted --i.e., "mis-quoted" --to that effect, then isn't it reasonable to believe that he would immediately have stepped forward and offered a correction?   (3) Wasn't Huber interviewed by William Manchester?  (If so, has anyone checked with the Manchester papers --at Weslyian, in Connecticut-- to see what Manchester's notes say? Perhaps most important, imho: Huber's account represents important corroboration for medical report of Dr. Robert McClelland, who wrote--in a medical report dated Friday afternoon, 11/22/63, that JFK died of a "gunshot wound of the left temple."  (approx).  Consult any book on evidence, and one learns the basic principle: The earliest recorded recollection is the 'best evidence''. (My quotes). 

Edited April 28, 2020 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

Dr. Aguilar says the following on his Fatal Wounds Witness page:

Left Temporal Wound Described At Parkland

It must be mentioned that there were those at Parkland who described a left temporal entry: Robert McClelland, MD, Marion Jenkins, MD (WC--V6:48) and Father Oscar Huber all mentioned such a wound.(BE:46, 331) This location for a wound has been abandoned by all: the Warren Commission loyalists by arguing that Oswald was firing from the school book depository, while some Warren Commission critics rejected it for conflicting with a grassy knoll origin and left-rear head thrust.

 

[David Andrews]

There is the matter of Jackie's head obscuring JFK's left temple to a majority of striking angles by Z-312.

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

There is the matter of Jackie's head obscuring JFK's left temple to a majority of striking angles by Z-312.

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

 

[Micah Mileto]

9 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Micah, Three questions: (1)  I appreciate what Shirley Martin's daughter (Teresa) said  --in an email to John kelin (in the year 2000-- that Huber indicated in the year 2000.  But isn't it a fact that-- decades earlier-- Vincent Salandria quoted him as saying (or indicating) "left temple"?; and wasn't the source for that an article in the Philadelphia newspaper?  (2) If Huber did not believe "left temple," and when saw that he was being quoted --i.e., "mis-quoted" --to that effect, then isn't it reasonable to believe that he would immediately have stepped forward and offered a correction?   

Huber was quoted in an article which appeared in Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin on 11/24/1963. The article reads:

 

“The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye.

 

However, in a 1964 letter to Salandria, Shirley Martin wrote "Father Huber says he never told this to the press. However, he supposes that someone to whom he spoke may have relayed it to the newsmen"

 

Salandria wrote an early article mentioning Huber, but he himself did not interview Huber, he wanted Mrs. Martin to do it because she was already planning to take her family to a mass in Dallas on the first anniversary.

Quote

(3) Wasn't Huber interviewed by William Manchester?  (If so, has anyone checked with the Manchester papers --at Weslyian, in Connecticut-- to see what Manchester's notes say? Perhaps most important, imho: Huber's account represents important corroboration for medical report of Dr. Robert McClelland, who wrote--in a medical report dated Friday afternoon, 11/22/63, that JFK died of a "gunshot wound of the left temple."  (approx).  Consult any book on evidence, and one learns the basic principle: The earliest recorded recollection is the 'best evidence''. (My quotes). 

 

Never seen the Manchester papers, I don't know why anybody hasn't already swooped in to the Wesleyan University library and scanned them (the ones that aren't sealed until 2067). Vince Palamera copied some of them, but I don't know if he did for all of them.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

On 4/6/2020 at 8:03 AM, Pete Mellor said:

James Jenkins who assisted in the autopsy of JFK on 22nd November stated that Humes remarked "the damn thing fell out in my hands"  referring to JFK's brain.  In his 2018 book 'At the cold shoulder of history' Michael Chesser M.D. contributes a full chapter on his research of the autopsy photos & x-rays.  He has no doubt that original & enhanced films were altered to fit-up Oswald with 'shots from the rear scenario'.  Changes to enhanced x-rays were done to obscure images.  Secret Service agent in the morgue exposed film.  With the coffin shell game prior to autopsy at Bethesda it is very difficult not to believe in alteration of head wounds.  How, when & where remain a mystery.

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).

Edited June 29, 2020 by David Lifton