Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI agent James Sibert talks about JFK's wounds and the autopsy


Recommended Posts

On 2/11/2021 at 8:18 PM, Micah Mileto said:

In Jenkins' original HSCA and Lifton interviews, there is no record of him mentioning anything about seeing a brain in the cranium, or the story about the pre-cut brainstem.

That is correct.  When I first interviewed Jenkins by phone (fall, 1980), he had no recollection of any such details, just as you have stated.  Then, I interviewed him on camera; the result was the same.  Keep in mind the chronology:  I interviewed Paul O'Connor, on film, in late August 1980.  In late Sept (or early October) I interviewed James Jenkins --who was distantly related to Paul O'Connor.  James Jenkins had nothing specific to offer, except a feeling that things 'weren't right' that night.  I remember asking him why, if he felt that way, he didn't communicate with someone at the Department of Justice, or even write a letter directly to Attorney General Robert Kennedy.   He had no answer.  I questioned him vigorously, to such an extent that his wife, Jackie, who was present, took me aside during a brief pause (when we were changing film reels) and mildly scolded  me for treating  her husband that way.  i explained that I was only trying to elicit the information he seemed to indicate he might have, but could not (for whatever reason) articulate.

 When the footage was edited, Paul O'Connor's account  played a major role.  He was forthright, and extremely credible; I called him the "John Wayne" of the film.

 Best Evidence was published in mid-January 1981; and then I went on a national book tour, showing excerpts from my filmed O'Connor interview in cities all over the country. 

Now "Flashforward" to many years later: At some point in time, along came William Law, who sought my assistance in contacting one of the B. E. witnesses.   At some point in time --and I don't know the details-- Law met Jenkins who, I came to understand (because of a conversation with O'Connor) --was rather envious of the publicity (and, to some extent) the notoriety that Paul had received.   At this point, Jenkins' recollections seem to have blossomed, and that's about all I know.  

I would remind readers that in the law, its the "earliest recollection" that is viewed as the "better" evidence.  Paul O'Connor was forthright, and what he had to say was put on the record.  I have no idea as to why, if Jenkins had significant information, he did not volunteer it, when I first interviewed him, by phone; or the following year, when i spent a good hour with him, on camera.

DSL (3/8/21; 2:30 AM PST) 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/11/2021 at 8:18 PM, Micah Mileto said:

In Jenkins' original HSCA and Lifton interviews, there is no record of him mentioning anything about seeing a brain in the cranium, or the story about the pre-cut brainstem.

My first (and only) telephone interview with Jenkins occurred in late September 1979 (I am doing this from memory).  The main point I would like to make (about Jenkins) is that he didn't remember very much --if anything--that was relevant.  I didn't think of this as being sinister. 

Jenkins just didn't remember. When I had arranged for funding for filmed interviews, I put Jenkins on the list.   I flew to Canyon Lake[s], Texas, and that's where I interviewed Jenkins, on camera, around midnight, at his lakeside residence.

 Just about everything I asked was met with the response that he didn't remember.  His wife, Jackie, was present, and very understanding.  During a brief intermission (pauses that occurred when we were changing film reels --each of which took an 11 minute cartridge) she took me aside and asked (basically): "Why are you treating James this way?"  My response was that I wasn't trying to be impolite, just trying to question him as firmly as possibly, and elicit whatever he remembered. And yet here he was--in effect, answering "I don't remember" ---to just about everything (except his name).  It was only years later, under the "tutelage" (quotes deliberate) of William Law, that his recollections (supposedly) blossomed.

One other matter: during my questionin  seemed to imply that he knew things "weren't right."   I specifically asked him: if that was the case, then why didn't he go to the DOJ, or wrote Robert Kennedy a letter.

IMHO: the whole thing (the Law and Jenkins "recovered memory" show, or however may wish to describe it) results in a totally unreliable version of what happened on the night of 11/22/63, at the Bethesda morgue.  If this were a legal proceeding, and anyone tried to introduce Jenkins' so-called "recollections" this many years "after the fact," they would be laughed out of court.   I say this because it is so obvious that there is a "prior recollection" --the phone record and filmed record that I made establishes that.

All this pains me because I see many well meaning people on the London Forum addressing serious questions to Jenkins, not knowing of this history.  IMHO: the essence of what is going on here is this: I interviewed Paul O'Connor, first by phone, and then on camera.  PKO (I always called him that in my research notes) was a strong witness; and he became the "John Wayne" of the film.   

Then, inJanuary 1981, B.E. was published, and I was on my national book tour, airing the O'Connor footage on numerous occasions. At some point, Jenkins --possibly because of envy of O'Connor (to whom he is distantly related) --and, years later,  possibly egged on (or "stimulated") by Law ) -- "found" his memories.  Voila!.  William law (via Jenkins) was then able to launch his career as a JFK researcher. 

My own reaction to all of this, and particularly, my advice to anyone studying the medical evidence in this case:  Beware, at this late date, of anything coming from Jenkins, via William Law.  Take into account what I have written here, and be skeptical of anything Jenkins now "remembers".  IMHO: These are not reliable recollections; they are some mangled mish-mash of "recovered memory", plus a desire to appear important in history--as important as Paul O'Connor, to whom he is distantly related (and with whom --for whatever reason --he feels rather "competitive").  

I post these remarks with some regret.  I am pleased to see a "new generation" involved in JFK research.  I would advise caution in taking seriously anything that emerges decades later, especially launched under the guidance of a third party. 

 

DSL (3/8/2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

My first (and only) telephone interview with Jenkins occurred in late September 1979 (I am doing this from memory).  The main point I would like to make (about Jenkins) is that he didn't remember very much --if anything--that was relevant.  I didn't think of this as being sinister. 

Jenkins just didn't remember. When I had arranged for funding for filmed interviews, I put Jenkins on the list.   I flew to Canyon Lake[s], Texas, and that's where I interviewed Jenkins, on camera, around midnight, at his lakeside residence.

 Just about everything I asked was met with the response that he didn't remember.  His wife, Jackie, was present, and very understanding.  During a brief intermission (pauses that occurred when we were changing film reels --each of which took an 11 minute cartridge) she took me aside and asked (basically): "Why are you treating James this way?"  My response was that I wasn't trying to be impolite, just trying to question him as firmly as possibly, and elicit whatever he remembered. And yet here he was--in effect, answering "I don't remember" ---to just about everything (except his name).  It was only years later, under the "tutelage" (quotes deliberate) of William Law, that his recollections (supposedly) blossomed.

One other matter: during my questionin  seemed to imply that he knew things "weren't right."   I specifically asked him: if that was the case, then why didn't he go to the DOJ, or wrote Robert Kennedy a letter.

IMHO: the whole thing (the Law and Jenkins "recovered memory" show, or however may wish to describe it) results in a totally unreliable version of what happened on the night of 11/22/63, at the Bethesda morgue.  If this were a legal proceeding, and anyone tried to introduce Jenkins' so-called "recollections" this many years "after the fact," they would be laughed out of court.   I say this because it is so obvious that there is a "prior recollection" --the phone record and filmed record that I made establishes that.

All this pains me because I see many well meaning people on the London Forum addressing serious questions to Jenkins, not knowing of this history.  IMHO: the essence of what is going on here is this: I interviewed Paul O'Connor, first by phone, and then on camera.  PKO (I always called him that in my research notes) was a strong witness; and he became the "John Wayne" of the film.   

Then, inJanuary 1981, B.E. was published, and I was on my national book tour, airing the O'Connor footage on numerous occasions. At some point, Jenkins --possibly because of envy of O'Connor (to whom he is distantly related) --and, years later,  possibly egged on (or "stimulated") by Law ) -- "found" his memories.  Voila!.  William law (via Jenkins) was then able to launch his career as a JFK researcher. 

My own reaction to all of this, and particularly, my advice to anyone studying the medical evidence in this case:  Beware, at this late date, of anything coming from Jenkins, via William Law.  Take into account what I have written here, and be skeptical of anything Jenkins now "remembers".  IMHO: These are not reliable recollections; they are some mangled mish-mash of "recovered memory", plus a desire to appear important in history--as important as Paul O'Connor, to whom he is distantly related (and with whom --for whatever reason --he feels rather "competitive").  

I post these remarks with some regret.  I am pleased to see a "new generation" involved in JFK research.  I would advise caution in taking seriously anything that emerges decades later, especially launched under the guidance of a third party. 

 

DSL (3/8/2021)

I have watched many interviews of interesting historical figures ( notorious and not ) conducted by Patrick Bet-David and found them very compelling.

I found his interview of James Jenkins compelling as well, yet I also sensed just enough discrepancies on the part of Jenkins recollections regarding his participation and observations in the Bethesda Naval morgue to consider them with important questions. 

Not the least of which were ones that differed from his fellow Navy corpsman Paul O'Conner's accounts.

Jenkins mentions ( at least in one account) that he kind of thought the brain he was handed ( supposedly JFK's ) seemed smaller than normal. He even states he had at least a fleeting thought that maybe the brain he was handed might not have been JFK's?

Jenkins mentioned a severed brain stem, cut on both sides? As if this was a suspicious anomaly?

Jenkins holds a model brain in his Patrick Bet-David interview and explains what part of JFK's was missing and how much of it was ( a little less than a third ) and says the rest of the brain looked somewhat normal?

In another interview didn't Jenkins mention Humes stating that JFK's brain just fell out of JFK's skull and into his ( Humes's ) hands? Didn't Jenkins also once describe how a brain could turn into mush if it had been internally obliterated by a through and through high powered bullet as JFK's had?

I don't think about or question Jenkin's personal character. Seems fine to me. 

However, he seems much less sure about his recollections than his fellow right there next to JFK's body corpsman Paul O'Conner who was stating his observations ( and never wavering from them or changing them ) for years from way back before Jenkins ever started to share his, Also, at a time when they would have been sharper and easier to recollect imo.

And O'Conner wasn't afraid to share his detailed recollections even under sworn oath!

The JFK brain testimony is all over the map. Humes states he didn't weigh the brain and Jenkins stated neither he nor Boswell did either. Humes didn't even have an answer as to why JFK's brain wasn't weighed. JFK's brain goes missing completely?

O'Conner stated JFK's brains were basically fully gone from the skull all during the observation room autopsy.

JFK's brain, it's handling, study, removal, weighing and storage record is simply so corrupted and even obliterated it renders the official autopsy finding totally useless.

And validates total suspicion of the entire procedure ... in spades.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...