A little factoid about Parkland doctor Marion Jenkins

[Chris Bristow]

I just found a letter Dr Jenkins wrote to the Dean of a medical college on the day of the assassination. In it he describes the wound in JFK's head as "Temporal and occipital". That's a surprise! Being that the temporal occipital area is is even lower than the occipital parietal area it is harder to explain this away as an error. The letter is in vol 20 of the WC on page 252.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Chris Bristow

[Joe Bauer]

Small to noticeable chunks of JFK's brain matter sprayed throughout the passenger area of the limo, FBI agents cleaning the back seat area of the limo report chunks of brain matter, some brain matter and blood even hitting the fronts of the two motorcycle police escorts in back of the limo.

 Dr. Jenkins describes brain matter on the gurney. At least one other ER doctors stated JFK brain matter had actually fallen ( oozed ) out JFK's back head wound while he was prone and being worked on the ER table.

Jackie had head wound blood all over her dress front and even had some of JFK's brain in her hand which she handed to one of the ER treating doctors.

The official final autopsy report measuring JFK's removed brain weight is that of a normal intact human male brain, perhaps even heavier than average?

Bethesda Naval Hospital attendant Navy corpsman/student Paul O'Conner testified that he didn't need to do a brain removal procedure on JFK because there was so little brain left to remove.

These are not minor conflicting first hand eyewitness reports concerning what medical personnel saw of JFK's brain immediately upon arrival to Parkland and then Bethesda. 

Just the amount of expelled brain matter found in so many areas out of JFK's head alone in Dallas would have been enough to significantly lower it's intact brain weight, no?

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Chris Bristow]

It's really a mystery to me how Paul O'Connor unwrapped the president's head and immediately saw that there was hardly any brain left. Yet Jenkins was somehow handed an almost complete brain. I think he said Boswell or Humes handed it to him.

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I just found a letter Dr Jenkins wrote to the Dean of a medical college on the day of the assassination. In it he describes the wound in JFK's head as "Temporal and occipital". That's a surprise! Being that the temporal occipital area is is even lower than the occipital parietal area it is harder to explain this away as an error. The letter is in vol 20 of the WC on page 252.

Chris,

This is an interesting letter.  The word horniation was a stumper until I figured out the word in herniation.  The temporal region is around the ear.  Going back toward the occipital is a line that that is fairly flat without much rise.  According to Jenkins description this was a wound without much rise/descent.  I marked a line centered through the two bones.  The line crosses the Parietal Bone something like this.  If the line was higher more of the Parietal Bone would be engaged.

 

I also put an X where there was supposed to be another wound at the hairline in the frontal bone.  This is the way I see Kennedy's head wounds.  A orange or fist sized wound as described by others may engage more of the Parietal. 

Jenkins also said another thing interesting about Kennedy.  He said there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.  I think this means that Kennedy was DOA on arrival at Parkland.  I have always thought that considering the seriousness of the head wound.

So, I am off to spec land again.  Why was it necessary to resuscitate if Kennedy was DOA on arrival at Parkland?  There is something suspicious here particularly in regards to the throat wound.  Is this a cover up for not examining the body for other wounds?  For not examining the horrendous head wound and whether there was a shot to the back or more than one shot to the back.  There is that autopsy photo that looks like there is more than one shot to the back.    

Edited November 13, 2020 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

It took some effort to get JFK hooked up and to test and see if the heart massage was creating a pulse. But prior to that their first concern was the airway. After the airway they did take a close look at the head wound. Doctors Clark and Jenkins examined it together and concluded that it was fatal. At that point Clark decided not to initiate open heart massage. But as I recall he was not really DOA on arrival. I assume even with no pulse you may be resuscitated.

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/12/2020 at 7:28 PM, Chris Bristow said:

It's really a mystery to me how Paul O'Connor unwrapped the president's head and immediately saw that there was hardly any brain left. Yet Jenkins was somehow handed an almost complete brain. I think he said Boswell or Humes handed it to him.

 

O'Conner testified under oath the skull, membrane and nerve cutting brain removal procedure "was never done on JFK!"

Even if O'Conner is lying, the "fact" is that so much JFK brain matter had been expelled during the initial head shot (with visibly more oozing out up to and during his Parkland treatment" there is no way JFK's brain weight as listed in the final "official" autopsy report can be accurate imo.

The two motorcycle officers right behind the presidential limo stated in ther WC testimony that they felt they were hit quite sharply by a blood and "matter" spray. Driver Greer and agent Kellerman said brain matter sprayed into their area as well.

Brain matter was found throughout the JFK limo back seat area. Jackie held a piece of JFK's brain in her hand. Dr. Jenkins stated there was brain matter on the stretcher JFK was brought in on and at least one Parkland doctor next to JFK's head in the ER table tesified that some more brain matter had oozed out of the massive baseball sized occipital wound during his ER treatment.

How many grams of brain matter could make up all this noted brain loss?

10% of JFK's entire brain? 20%. More?

The final brain weight listed in the official autopsy report can't be right if even 20% of JFK's brain was lost in all these testified ways.

And we know much of JFK's brain was macerated mush upon his arrival to Parkland from the descriptions of Dr. Jenkins, Jackie's hand held chunk, oozing out the occipital wound.

Jenkins did not describe seeing such a mushy mascerated brain that was handed to him.

 

10:56NOW PLAYING

 

ON TRIAL LEE HARVEY OSWALD PART 24WITNESS PAUL O CONNOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Mark Knight]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:46 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Small to noticeable chunks of JFK's brain matter sprayed throughout the passenger area of the limo, FBI agents cleaning the back seat area of the limo report chunks of brain matter, some brain matter and blood even hitting the fronts of the two motorcycle police escorts in back of the limo.

 Dr. Jenkins describes brain matter on the gurney. At least one other ER doctors stated JFK brain matter had actually fallen ( oozed ) out JFK's back head wound while he was prone and being worked on the ER table.

Jackie had head wound blood all over her dress front and even had some of JFK's brain in her hand which she handed to one of the ER treating doctors.

The official final autopsy report measuring JFK's removed brain weight is that of a normal intact human male brain, perhaps even heavier than average?

Bethesda Naval Hospital attendant Navy corpsman/student Paul O'Conner testified that he didn't need to do a brain removal procedure on JFK because there was so little brain left to remove.

These are not minor conflicting first hand eyewitness reports concerning what medical personnel saw of JFK's brain immediately upon arrival to Parkland and then Bethesda. 

Just the amount of expelled brain matter found in so many areas out of JFK's head alone in Dallas would have been enough to significantly lower it's intact brain weight, no?

 

 

 

Technically, JFK was NEVER "prone" on the ER table.

He was supine. Prone would put him there FACE DOWN. Ask anyone who has fired a rifle from the prone position.

Just a technicality...but we ARE the Education Forum here, so accuracy matters.

If JFK actually HAD been prone on the ER table, there would be no debate about where the head wound was.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Chris, I don't know if you realize how important that is:

If he is correct, how could the doctors not see the cerebellum?

[Chris Bristow]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chris, I don't know if you realize how important that is:

If he is correct, how could the doctors not see the cerebellum?

It does seem like a shocking contradiction. I don't know if he was  implying the defect was both oc and temporal or just the laceration, but either way there was no laceration of skin near the oc area in the autopsy photos. I suppose the temporal laceration could be associated with the temple flap.
He never uses the word parietal to describe the laceration and saying oc/temp puts it very low on the side of the head. So the laceration revealed the skull defect and that limits the skull defect location to a low place on the side of the head. 
 That was his recollection within hours of working on JFK so it might be his best recollection.

[Chris Bristow]

On 11/13/2020 at 1:20 AM, Joe Bauer said:

There is some conflict between Bethesda Naval Hospital corpsman Paul O'Conner's JFK's body and head handling observations and time line account and that of his fellow corpsman James Jenkins.

I can't recall all the exact specifics right now but you already stated one above.

Remember too that corpsman Paul O'Conner had more training and experience than James Jenkins who had only been in this medical position just a few months before and up to 11,22,1963.

O'Conner's main autopsy job was brain removal.

He was trained to saw and lift back the skull and membrane and cut muscles and nerves to start the procedure of brain removal which would also require cutting the brain from the brain stem underneath.

Corpsman Jenkins was not.

Humes and Boswell themselves would not be the ones to do this procedure.

Humes really didn't even have that much hands on autopsy experience.

So, did O'Conner do this procedure on JFK?

O'Conner testified under oath he "did not."

In fact O'Conner testified under oath the skull, membrane and nerve cutting brain removal procedure "was never done on JFK!"

If not, how could anyone pull an almost intact brain out JFK's skull which the official report says weighed as much as a full brain?

When O'Conner testified that he saw little brain matter inside JFK's skull, are we sure he made this observation as soon as he and Jenkins lifted JFK's body out of the casket ( and body bag? ) and had placed him on a table?

Or did he make this observation later and while involved in other preparation work on JFK's head area.

Jenkins and O'Conner were not always together at the exact same time as I recall from an interview account of Jenkins made not that many years ago. Bathroom breaks, brief fresh air or sandwich in the hallway breaks perhaps?

James Jenkin's account in his decades later interview seemed a little unsure in some areas of details. On the contrary, Paul O'Conner seemed very sure, very confident when he related his remembered account decades earlier.

Jenkins claims Humes or Boswell ( Jenkins wasn't sure which? ) handed him an almost intact JFK brain (except for a missing chunk ) to place in a preservative container. The size of the missing chunk? Can't recall the exact size description Jenkins mentioned but I generally remember him stating it wasn't too large.

Jenkins could not say who removed the brain from JFK's skull.

Did he even say he was present when the brain removal took place?

The idea that O'Conner didn't see much brain in JFK's skull because it had already been removed is ludicrous because the only way to get JFK's brain out of his skull ( even shattered on it's back and right top and side) would be the procedure O'Conner described in his court testimony.

Cutting the skull and peeling it back, cutting the membrane and severing the eye nerves and other connective tissue and then finally severing the brain from the brain stem.

You can't just pull JFK's brain out of his skull without doing these cutting procedures.

But O'Conner says the cutting procedure wasn't even done on JFK's skull at any time.

If O'Conner is lying, then the question is at what point were these skull, membrane, nerve and tissue cutting procedures done on JFK's skull to be able to remove a full weight brain ... and who did the procedure?

If not O'Conner, who was trained in this procedure, who else and why not?

So, either much of JFK's obliterated brain matter had been exploded out of his skull on initial impact ( as O'Conner speculates happened ) and with even more oozing out at Parkland and during the flight back to Maryland, or O'Conner just lied about his whole account even though he had the opportunity to see JFK's skull and even inside of it as he was so close to the head area of JFK from initial casket delivery through the entire autopsy.

The question is who's telling the truth here. Was the typical skull, nerve and membrane cutting procedure done on JFK's head or not?

To get an intact brain it had to have been done.

 So, who did this and when?

If not O'Conner, Humes or Boswell and certainly not corpsman James Jenkins then whom?

Even if O'Conner is lying, the "fact" is that so much JFK brain matter had been expelled during the initial head shot (with visibly more oozing out up to and during his Parkland treatment" there is no way JFK's brain weight as listed in the final "official" autopsy report can be accurate imo.

The two motorcycle officers right behind the presidential limo stated in ther WC testimony that they felt they were hit quite sharply by a blood and "matter" spray.

Brain matter was found throughout the JFK limo back seat area. Jackie held a piece of JFK's brain in her hand. Dr. Jenkins stated there was brain matter on the stretcher JFK was brought in on and at least one Parkland doctor next to JFK's head in the ER table tesified that some more brain matter had oozed out of the massive baseball sized occipital wound during his ER treatment.

How many grams of brain matter could make up all this noted brain loss?

10% of JFK's entire brain? 20%. More?

The final brain weight listed in the official autopsy report can't be right if even 20% of JFK's brain was lost in all these testified ways.

And we know much of JFK's brain was mush upon his arrival to Parkland from the descriptions of Dr. Jenkins, Jackie's hand held chunk, oozing out the occipital wound.

Jenkins did not describe seeing such a mushy mascerated brain that was handed to him.

 

10:56NOW PLAYING

 

ON TRIAL LEE HARVEY OSWALD PART 24WITNESS PAUL O CONNOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I recall O'connor said he noticed most of the brain missing as soon as he unwrapped JFk's head.

[Joe Bauer]

Humes said in his WC testimony that he had to do "virtually" no work with a saw to remove the brain. The word "virtually" implies he had to cut some bone. Humes told the ARRB "we had to cut some bone". Floyd Riebe and Tom Robinson claim they saw the pathologists using a saw to cut bone.

 

O'Conner says there was no brain removal because there wasn't enough brain to remove. O'Conner also stated there was no typical skull cutting procedure that he witnessed.

If there was, wouldn't someone as experienced in this procedure as O'Conner ( who says he was with JFK's body the entire evening) have noticed it being done or at least noticed saw marks or scalp cutting in all the later hours of being near JFK's head? 

Humes tells the AARB "he had cut some bone" to remove JFK's brain." But not much. ?

Can anyone remove a deceased person's entire brain without making enough room to get their hands deep in and around the brain to lift it for the nerve, muscle and brain stem cuts? 

The following are some curious credibilty questioning parts of Hume's AARB testimony:

Q. Dr. Humes, for the most part, I am not going to ask questions about your background or

---

Page 22

education, but there is one question that I had that I did want to ask about, and that is, in the document marked Exhibit 22, on page 2795, it reports that you "performed several autopsies on military personnel killed by gunshot wounds."
A. Yes.
Q. Is that statement correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. When did--
A. Usually they're accidents or homicides or whatever.
Q. When did you conduct the autopsies for gunshot wounds?
A. Well, ones that stand out in my mind, two    ( TWO? ) were in Tripler Army Hospital in Hawaii. The truth of it, I can't recall, specifically recall where else.

Humes can't recall where else... so it was just two?

 

In San Diego, we did 800 autopsies a year. It's really kind of hard for me to specifically recall the details of many of those.

>>>I never held myself forth as an expert in gunshot wounds.<<<

That's why I called Pierre Finck, who was an expert.
Q. Had you had experience with gunshot wounds

---

Page 23

prior to 1963?
A. Yes.
Q. And those were, as best you recall now, at Tripler Hospital in Hawaii?
A. Yes.
Q. And in San Diego?
A. Possibly San Diego.

 

Q. And was the casket opened in the morgue?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else was in the room when the casket was opened?
A. Oh, I can't tell you that. Dr. Boswell and I removed the body from the casket, and I--I don't know who. There were some enlisted helpers, technicians from our department there, and I don't know who else was there. I can't tell you. I was too intent on what I was doing and too, to tell you the truth, a little bit shook by the whole procedure, initially at least. It was disturbing to have a deceased President there in your arms, you know. It's not an unemotional experience. But I was not worrying about who was around or whatever. It was the least of my worries.

---

Page 69

Q. Who else in addition to Dr. Boswell, if anyone, helped you remove the body from the casket?
A. I don't recall that anyone did, but I don't gainsay the possibility that one of the enlisted men may have helped. But nobody else.

(O'Conner?)

 

Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about this. First, was this document, Exhibit 1, in your possession at any point during which you were writing the autopsy protocol?
A. Probably. Probably was. Over the weekend, yeah.
Q. I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
A. Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
A. I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why.
Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or

---

Page 75

no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can't recall why--I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that.

 

Q. When you received training--let me try that question again. Did you take any courses in forensic pathology prior to the time of the autopsy?
A. The only specific course I took was a one- week course at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in November of 1953. 

A "one week" course ten years before 1963? !!!

 

Lastly Corpsman O'Conner states he was with or very close JFK's body the entire evening. He helped lift JFK's body out of the delivered casket.

Dr. Humes states the "first" procedure he did on JFK's body was to remove the brain. Are we to believe that corpsman O'Conner was asked to leave the room while Humes did this procedure? O'Conner claims he didn't leave the body and room, especially so soon after JFK's arrival. If he's telling the truth, he would have seen Humes remove JFK's brain. Corpsman Jenkins claimed he was handed JFK's brain right after it's removal.

The point here is that if you believe Jenkins story, he "was" present during this brain removal procedure. And he was the newbe medical tech understudy to the more experienced O'Conner.

Why would O'Connor not be present when Humes says he removed JFK's brain as Jenkins claims he was ?

[Chris Bristow]

Watching this Youtube video of Dr Jenkins I was surprised to hear what he says at the 7min mark.  He states, "You hear accounts of how many doctors did a thorough examination, that's not true", but he adds "I think everybody took a look but not a thorough examination by any means."
The fact that "everyone" got a look at the head wound before they left the room sends some of the skeptics claims to the trash bin. Skeptics say the room was too crowded for many people to see the head wound. In effect they call their WC testimony into question. They claim they never got a chance because resuscitation required all there attention.
 Well at some point "everyone"(Lets just say a bunch of them) took a look at the head wound.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 11/12/2020 at 6:26 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I just found a letter Dr Jenkins wrote to the Dean of a medical college on the day of the assassination. In it he describes the wound in JFK's head as "Temporal and occipital". That's a surprise! Being that the temporal occipital area is is even lower than the occipital parietal area it is harder to explain this away as an error. The letter is in vol 20 of the WC on page 252.

 

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm

Here is a link, for anyone looking. 

Same day, contemporary testimony, by all appearances done without fear or favor, just telling it like it is. 

Can anyone explain the extant purported JFK skull x-rays, and yet observations such as those of Jenkins? 

 

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm

Here is a link, for anyone looking. 

Same day, contemporary testimony, by all appearances done without fear or favor, just telling it like it is. 

Can anyone explain the extant purported JFK skull x-rays, and yet observations such as those of Jenkins? 

 

Many of the topics in the JFK issue scream conspiracy yet the debates become rabbit holes with no resolution. Complicated subjects like the magic bullet have longstanding threads that go back decades. The same debate is repeated every few years. There is enough wiggle room to create  1% of doubt and then the debate hits a wall. Just how much did the shirt and coat bunch up? Exactly where did the bullet enter JFK's back? Can a bullet slow down enough so it won't deform and still have enough energy to break the radius bone in two? Why has it been impossible to duplicate the near pristine magic bullet for the last half century? Those are rhetorical questions because like most folks here I already have a strong personal opinion. Some smart person once said that if a group of people are 100% convinced of something they will take action on it. But if even a slight doubt is injected the group won't take any action at all. I think this is why some skeptics arguments look absurd on the face of it but if it creates even an iota of doubt the issue becomes clouded.
 When the skeptics argue that the Parkland doctors never got to look at the head wound because they were too busy trying to save JFK's life you just have to laugh. (Maybe the whole thing is too morbid to laugh at their crazy statement, ok)
   The ABC's of resuscitation would prevent them from doing any detailed examination until the airway, breath  and circulation is established. But the WC testimony alone completely and utterly refutes claims that they did not take a look at the head wound before they left the room. They have to add the caveat "detailed" examination but it still does not fly.
 Doctor Perry said he only did a cursory examination of the head wound but noted it was a large avulsive wound in the right occipital parietal with lacerated scalp and missing bone with a serious laceration of the brain. This statements ruins the skeptics argument that we can't trust the Parkland staff because they never did a "thorough examination". Perry's statement is proof that they could ascertain the basics of the wound without any detailed examination. further proof lies in the consistency of so many of the staff's testimony.
 The most compelling testimony that should bury that  skeptical argument is what doctor Clark stated. When he decided to call of the resuscitation he cited three reasons for doing so. 1) the cardiograph showed no heart beat. 2) JFK had shown no muscular or neurological response to their efforts. 3) The head wound was mortal!
  The absolute fact that Dr Clark based his decision in part on the head wound being mortal should have ended the crazy talking point about the doctors never getting a good look at the head wound. It is a complete refutation of their argument. But the argument is a zombie lie in that it will not die. I have driven that point home in discussions with skeptics and then a couple months later they are back to repeating the crazy lie.  Their goal is to create that 1% doubt in the uneducated not to resolve the issue.
 Every point the skeptics try to put forth to explain why 20 of the 25 staff who expressed an opinion on the wound support the Ct not the official wound location, falls flat.
 Even if we eliminate a half dozen of those 20 staff for minor inconsistencies in their testimony the score is still 14 to 4. Then if we apply the same scrutiny to the 4 doctors who support the official record we have to loose Dr Carrico who did a total flip after 20 years, completely contradicting his sworn statement in the WC and HSCA and his notes on 11/22. Then we have Dr Jenkins letter on the 22nd contradicting his official story(Maybe we just put an asterisk  next to that one). The skeptics can't afford to be too critical as they only have 4 doctors on their side to start with. 
 If we really want to be critical the score may be 12 to 1. There is just no way for them to explain away the Parkland doctors testimony. Not a single argument holds water. I think it is the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and a cover up of the medical evidence that exists in the JFK conspiracy issue.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Many of the topics in the JFK issue scream conspiracy yet the debates become rabbit holes with no resolution. Complicated subjects like the magic bullet have longstanding threads that go back decades. The same debate is repeated every few years. There is enough wiggle room to create  1% of doubt and then the debate hits a wall. Just how much did the shirt and coat bunch up? Exactly where did the bullet enter JFK's back? Can a bullet slow down enough so it won't deform and still have enough energy to break the radius bone in two? Why has it been impossible to duplicate the near pristine magic bullet for the last half century? Those are rhetorical questions because like most folks here I already have a strong personal opinion. Some smart person once said that if a group of people are 100% convinced of something they will take action on it. But if even a slight doubt is injected the group won't take any action at all. I think this is why some skeptics arguments look absurd on the face of it but if it creates even an iota of doubt the issue becomes clouded.
 When the skeptics argue that the Parkland doctors never got to look at the head wound because they were too busy trying to save JFK's life you just have to laugh. (Maybe the whole thing is too morbid to laugh at their crazy statement, ok)
   The ABC's of resuscitation would prevent them from doing any detailed examination until the airway, breath  and circulation is established. But the WC testimony alone completely and utterly refutes claims that they did not take a look at the head wound before they left the room. They have to add the caveat "detailed" examination but it still does not fly.
 Doctor Perry said he only did a cursory examination of the head wound but noted it was a large avulsive wound in the right occipital parietal with lacerated scalp and missing bone with a serious laceration of the brain. This statements ruins the skeptics argument that we can't trust the Parkland staff because they never did a "thorough examination". Perry's statement is proof that they could ascertain the basics of the wound without any detailed examination. further proof lies in the consistency of so many of the staff's testimony.
 The most compelling testimony that should bury that  skeptical argument is what doctor Clark stated. When he decided to call of the resuscitation he cited three reasons for doing so. 1) the cardiograph showed no heart beat. 2) JFK had shown no muscular or neurological response to their efforts. 3) The head wound was mortal!
  The absolute fact that Dr Clark based his decision in part on the head wound being mortal should have ended the crazy talking point about the doctors never getting a good look at the head wound. It is a complete refutation of their argument. But the argument is a zombie lie in that it will not die. I have driven that point home in discussions with skeptics and then a couple months later they are back to repeating the crazy lie.  Their goal is to create that 1% doubt in the uneducated not to resolve the issue.
 Every point the skeptics try to put forth to explain why 20 of the 25 staff who expressed an opinion on the wound support the Ct not the official wound location, falls flat.
 Even if we eliminate a half dozen of those 20 staff for minor inconsistencies in their testimony the score is still 14 to 4. Then if we apply the same scrutiny to the 4 doctors who support the official record we have to loose Dr Carrico who did a total flip after 20 years, completely contradicting his sworn statement in the WC and HSCA and his notes on 11/22. Then we have Dr Jenkins letter on the 22nd contradicting his official story(Maybe we just put an asterisk  next to that one). The skeptics can't afford to be too critical as they only have 4 doctors on their side to start with. 
 If we really want to be critical the score may be 12 to 1. There is just no way for them to explain away the Parkland doctors testimony. Not a single argument holds water. I think it is the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and a cover up of the medical evidence that exists in the JFK conspiracy issue.

 

Chris B.--

I largely agree with you, but there has been some progress on recent decades regarding the JFKA.

1. CE 399 has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt by the work of Gary Aguilar, John Hunt, Josiah Thompson and others. The CE 399 bullet was almost certainly, and beyond reasonable doubt, entered into the evidentiary record by the FBI. 

2. A review of the Z film shows JBC was shot by about one second before Z-313, the fatal head shot. Ergo, the narrative of one gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle does not hold water. 

3. Recently re-surfaced are photos of the rear bullet hole in JBC's shirt, at the Texas Archives, but also excellently photographed by researcher Gary Murr. The bullet hole in the JBC shirt rear was measured by the Texas Archive at 3/8ths of an inch by 3/8ths of an inch, and that measurement was after cloth was removed for testing. Ergo, the tumbling bullet striking JBC on its long side narrative cannot hold water. The weight of evidence, again approaching the beyond reasonable doubt standard, is that JBC was shot directly, and from behind. 

4. Researchers such as Larry Hancock and John Newman have deepened the background on LHO and the Miami office of the CIA, through real primary document research and interviews. 

So, yes, the real story, the actual mechanics the JFKA remain agonizingly out of reach.  And yes, we often chase our tails here on the EF, and I plead guilty to some of that. 

BTW, Larry Hancock is preparing an article entitled "Red Bird" that will likely add to the understanding of the JFKA on practical levels. 

So, not all is wrong with the world. A lot, but not all.  Anyway, I felt like saying something positive.