Mortician Thomas Robinson

[Joe Bauer]

So much to discuss regards contradictions in Robinson's ARRB testimony versus so many other eyewitnesses to JFK's autopsy.

 

 

[Vince Palamara]

20 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Thanks for the contribution Vince.

I`m not the one in the comments section on your Youtube video asking the question about being there early in the black Cadillac.

Thanks!

[George Govus]

"Q. Isn't that strange, that the brain just disappeared?"

"A. It's very strange." Rueful chuckle.

[David Lifton]

On 2/17/2021 at 10:15 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

what college is holding Manchester's papers ?

Wesleyan.

On 2/19/2021 at 11:51 PM, Michael Crane said:

Thanks for the contribution Vince.

I`m not the one in the comments section on your Youtube video asking the question about being there early in the black Cadillac.

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 2/13/2021 at 7:21 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

  Based on testimony and the two books that chronicled the events (Manchester and Bishop),  the coffin was never unattended on the flight back to DC. Lady Bird’s baggage was delivered after the coffin was placed on the plane. They waited some time for Judge Hughes to arrive. From the time the coffin was placed on the plane until the swearing in, either Jackie or Ken O’Donnell were always present with the coffin. When Jackie went forward to the State room for the swearing in, Godfrey McHugh (who was very loyal to JFK) stood next to the coffin. Powers and O’Donnell stayed in the walkway by the presidential bedroom and O’Brien was in the corridor as well b/c they couldn’t stand to watch the swearing in. I just don’t see any realistic opportunity to steal the body while it was on AF1.  They would have seen or heard something while in the corridor. Plus the coffin was strapped down when it was placed on the plane.

When the plane arrived in DC, the Kennedy entourage did not leave the coffin unaccompanied until it was taken from the lift and placed into the ambulance.  

Thus, there simply was no opportunity to do move the body to a second coffin for a "pre-autopsy".  I believe the accounts of different types of coffins are flawed memories. One has to believe that the focus on the minds of all those present would have been the condition of the president's body and that the type or color of the coffin was a secondary observation.

Rather than a pre-autopsy, I think the more plausible answer is that the photos and x-rays were altered after the body left the morgue. Those in attendance were sworn to secrecy at the risk of prosecution and loss of their pensions. By the time they testified decades later, their recollections were either inaccurate or poisoned by what they read or heard about that evening. 

 

  

Your statement (Lawrence): "I just don’t see any realistic opportunity to steal the body while it was on AF1."    DSL RESPONSE:  Your analysis is incorrect   The body was not "stolen" while it was "on" --as in "on board,"   AF-1.  The President's body was offloaded onto a fork lift truck, then shifted to the forward luggage area of Air Force One.  All of this was covered in detailed posts years ago.  You ought to familiarize yourself with the existing record.  DSL 

P.S.:  Re your statement: "Rather than a pre-autopsy. . I think (that) the more plausible answer is.  " etc.  Again. . .No, not true. See the "pre-autopsy autopsy" --Chapter 18 of Best Evidence  

As to your assertion that the testimony "decades later" was "inaccurate or poisoned" by what they "read or heard" (later). Really ... you "know" that?  How may I ask?  I interviewed the key people-- not just by telephone, but then in fully professionally filmed interviews--circa 1979 and 1980.  These events were peak events, that made a deep unforgettable impression on each of the participants.  Getting the key people on film was an exciting and memorable experience-- almost all of it was pre-Internet. Your casual rejection of their accounts and glib explanation(s) that "their recollections were either inaccurate or poisoned by what they read or heard about that evening"  is based on. . . on what. Lawrence?  Its a glib explanation that explains nothing.  You're spouting nonsense from some class at law school. If you had interviewed the people --as I did-- you'd realize that for these participants, their recollections were akin to "hallowed ground."  Today, its 2021.  You're entering the scene almost half a century later. Your after-the-fact commentary has little value, and no probative force. Spouting supeficialities that you picked up from some law school class on evidence is no substitute for careful filmed  interviewing conducted decades ago --circa 1978 - 1980.  DSL

Edited April 12, 2021 by David Lifton
tt