Patrick Bet-David's interview with James Curtis Jenkins

[Gil Jesus]

 

[Joe Bauer]

I've watched this video several times since it was first aired.

I think it is a very important piece regards revealing important facts of the autopsy beginning with the actual arriving of JFK's body to the morgue.

JFK's body was delivered to the morgue in a grey shipping casket.

I'll watch it again to get my facts straight regards Jenkin's actual words.

I think I recall however, that Jenkins sometimes contradicts his fellow corpsman Paul O'Conner in a few key areas ( notably JFK's brain ) and you are left with trying to determine which one is more believable.

I tended to trust O'Conner's take slightly more in those areas.

One fact is a given however. Both Jenkins and O'Conner were right there from the second JFK was brought in. O'Conner actually helped lift JFK's body out of the casket. He and O'Conner helped remove the sheets wrapped around JFK's body.

One incredibly suspicious and intriguing observation that Jenkins relates ( from the 30 minute to 31 minute mark ) is that he saw a several inches long "incision" in JFK's skull bone that ran longitudinally from the top of the missing bone hole in the back of the skull forward to a frontal portion. Jenkins noticed this skull bone incision before any cutting was done at Bethesda.

As Bet-David astonishedly ask...how was that possible?

Obviously, such an incision would not have been made at Parkland hospital.

Jenkins said he didn't know.

Jenkin's personal avoidance of participating in the first 50 years of JFK discussion does sound sincerely well intentioned and grounded.

He seems quite honest.

Jenkins recollection of the HSC interview of him in his congressman's office was ominous in that the two investigative interviewers tried to steer him into rubber stamping the Warren Commission ( single bullet) conclusion.

If true, that's a sign that even that investigation was compromised by the WC promoters...whoever "they" were.

And Jenkins was lied to in the initial contact. He was told both these men were simply "attorneys" working for the HSC.

He soon discovered however, that one was an FBI agent.

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

This interview video of Jenkins is astonishing in it's revelations of contradictory autopsy findings entered into the WC report.

I am surprised more members here are not engaging with it and it's contents.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

This interview video of Jenkins is astonishing in it's revelations of contradictory autopsy findings entered into the WC.

I am surprised more members here are not engaging with it and it's contents.

I spoke to James at two conferences. He specified on both occasions that the back of the skull was shattered beneath the scalp but remained in place until Humes peeled back the scalp. After falling under the sway of Michael Chesser, he changed this for his book. It pains me to think what else he's changed. Researchers love to complain when witnesses change their stories to fit the official story but fail to see or even acknowledge when witnesses change their stories to fit what all-too-many researchers are desperate to believe. It's an embarrassment, IMO. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I spoke to James at two conferences. He specified on both occasions that the back of the skull was shattered beneath the scalp but remained in place until Humes peeled back the scalp. After falling under the sway of Michael Chesser, he changed this for his book. It pains me to think what else he's changed. Researchers love to complain when witnesses change their stories to fit the official story but fail to see or even acknowledge when witnesses change their stories to fit what all-too-many researchers are desperate to believe. It's an embarrassment, IMO. 

Unfortunately, many witness accounts have evolved over the years in the JFKA.  

There is a tremendous temptation to cherry-pick witnesses (the WC led the way), and highlight acceptable parts of witness  testimony in the most-favorable iteration. 

In his latest statements, Jenkins is very compelling. Was he frightened before, or just wanted to stay on the team? Did he genuinely change his mind? 

Even in mundane trials, witness testimony is often useless. 

People are inexplicable. Some people have confessed to murders they did not commit---something about wanting to appease or be liked by interrogators. 

 

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I spoke to James at two conferences. He specified on both occasions that the back of the skull was shattered beneath the scalp but remained in place until Humes peeled back the scalp. After falling under the sway of Michael Chesser, he changed this for his book. It pains me to think what else he's changed. Researchers love to complain when witnesses change their stories to fit the official story but fail to see or even acknowledge when witnesses change their stories to fit what all-too-many researchers are desperate to believe. It's an embarrassment, IMO. 

If this is true...it pains me as well.

You want to believe these important involvement persons and trust that what they share is true.

If Jenkins really made up his most serious claims like the skull bone incision, the grey shipping casket, the frontal bullet wound, the non-penetrating back wound and suspicious trachea etc.

I am just sickened. I feel so gullible.

So, If JJ made these things up...one must assume that Paul O'Conner did as well with his similar recollection claims? The casket, the brain, the frontal entrance wound?

Why would both these fellas feel they had to make up and/or exaggerate such important claims? Did doing so make them money? Or stroke their egos with some new found attention and celebrity?

Another huge let down if this was the case.

Next I am going to be told that Sylvia Odio made up her "Leon Oswald" meeting story?

[Joe Bauer]

So, Bethesda medical corpsman Paul O'Conner ( who literally helped lift JFK's body out of it's arriving casket and who, along with fellow corpsman Jenkins, unwrapped the sheets around his body ) also made up his JFK body claims that were close to or matched Jenkins?

Both these super up close to JFK's body for hours eyewitnesses have turned out to be discredited?  Dennis David as well?

All three?

Only the three autopsy doctors told the truth?

How depressing. Makes one feel you can't trust anything any low social, professional and military standing eyewitness said about what they claimed to have seen.

Only doctors and other higher status standing folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

So, Bethesda medical corpsman Paul O'Conner ( who literally helped lift JFK's body out of it's arriving casket and who, along with fellow corpsman Jenkins, unwrapped the sheets around his body ) also made up his JFK body claims that were close to or matched Jenkins?

Both these super up close to JFK's body for hours eyewitnesses have turned out to be discredited?  Dennis David as well?

All three?

Only the three autopsy doctors told the truth?

How depressing. Makes one feel you can't trust anything any low social, professional and military standing eyewitness said about what they claimed to have seen.

Only doctors and other higher status standing folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides the 12 witnesses I've named in the "Head Games" essay, Floyd Riebe, Jerrol Custer and FBI agent Frank O'Neill support Jenkins' account of there being a hole in the back of the head. There's way too many witnesses in support of a right, rear head wound to discount it all as a big mistake. How many witnesses does it take saying the same thing before people believe what they say ? On the one hand, they'll believe a single witness ( Brennan ) saying he saw Oswald in the window with a rifle, but on the other hand they'll dismiss 59 witnesses compiled by Vince Palamara who said the limo slowed down or stopped.

Normally, the more witnesses you have saying the same thing, the greater the chance of what they said being true. We call this corroboration. And corroboration is essential to establishing credibility and the truth.

To the Warrenati, there is no standard by which they measure the credibility of a witness. It all depends on what the witness said. If the witness says something that supports Oswald's guilt, they're credible. If not, they're not credible. 

For example, they'll question the length of time it took a witness to come forward, unless that witness is Jack Ray Tatum. Then it's OK.

That's how they operate. Rules for thee, not for me.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

If this is true...it pains me as well.

You want to believe these important involvement persons and trust that what they share is true.

If Jenkins really made up his most serious claims like the skull bone incision, the grey shipping casket, the frontal bullet wound, the non-penetrating back wound and suspicious trachea etc.

I am just sickened. I feel so gullible.

So, If JJ made these things up...one must assume that Paul O'Conner did as well with his similar recollection claims? The casket, the brain, the frontal entrance wound?

Why would both these fellas feel they had to make up and/or exaggerate such important claims? Did doing so make them money? Or stroke their egos with some new found attention and celebrity?

Another huge let down if this was the case.

Next I am going to be told that Sylvia Odio made up her "Leon Oswald" meeting story?

No, it's not as simple as people making stuff up. They are ordinary people. They do not document what they said one day and compare it against what they said the next day. So their stories change. When they talk to other people about something, moreover, their recollections get mixed up with what others claim happened, and sometimes things change dramatically. This has been studied extensively by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. While some CTs misrepresent her findings, when one reads her books for oneself one finds that memories are incredibly prone to suggestion. I discuss this extensively on my website. One test, for example, showed that when people are shown a brief glimpse of a person and subsequently asked to identify that person in a line-up, they will usually select the person who looked most like the person they were shown. That's not a surprise. What is surprising, however, is what happens afterward.  One group was then asked how certain they were of their identification. As I recall roughly 50% said they were not certain. The other group however, was told afterwards by a policeman at the line-up that they'd correctly picked out the suspect. This group, when asked if they were certain, overwhelmingly said yes. Something like 90%. Well, the clear deduction from this is that our sense of certainty about our recollections is greatly affected by others. 

So...back to Jenkins and O'Connor. Having met Jenkins, I think he has always told the truth as he saw it. At the 2013 Lancer Conference, in a side room discussion which was unfortunately not recorded, he was asked over and over about JFK's large head wound. And, much to the dismay of those claiming it was on the far back of the head, he said over and over again that it was at the top of the head, and that the back of the head was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. A few years later I met him at another conference--this was witnessed by Matt Douthit--and I pointed out to Jenkins that some of those with whom he was appearing had long claimed the back of the head was blown out and that there was a conspiracy to hide this from the public. He said something like "Yeah, well, what can you do? People are gonna believe what they want to believe." So I was shocked when he later put out a book, with a forward by Mike Chesser, who evidently helped him on the book, claiming the back of the head was blown out. This was in opposition to not only what Jenkins had said at the 2013 conference, and later to me personally, but what he told William Law in the their taped conversations. And yet there he was, reversing himself.  

Now, sadly, this is not at all unusual. I spoke to Bill Newman at a couple of these conferences as well. And he told me he knew that in his initial statement he said he'd heard two shots, and that he soon thereafter started saying he'd heard three shots, but that he had no recollection whatsoever of changing his mind about this. He said that evidently he originally thought he'd heard two, but now, whenever he replays the incident in his mind, he hears three. He had no explanation. Well, having read tons on this kinda thing, I reminded him that his wife had said, right from the start, that she'd heard three shots. I then asked him if, without his realizing as much, she could have convinced him he'd heard a third shot. He then laughed and asked me if I'm married or something like that, but repeated that he had no idea why his first statement says he heard two shots when he so clearly remembers three. 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Besides the 12 witnesses I've named in the "Head Games" essay, Floyd Riebe, Jerrol Custer and FBI agent Frank O'Neill support Jenkins' account of there being a hole in the back of the head. There's way too many witnesses in support of a right, rear head wound to discount it all as a big mistake. How many witnesses does it take saying the same thing before people believe what they say ? On the one hand, they'll believe a single witness ( Brennan ) saying he saw Oswald in the window with a rifle, but on the other hand they'll dismiss 59 witnesses compiled by Vince Palamara who said the limo slowed down or stopped.

Normally, the more witnesses you have saying the same thing, the greater the chance of what they said being true. We call this corroboration. And corroboration is essential to establishing credibility and the truth.

To the Warrenati, there is no standard by which they measure the credibility of a witness. It all depands on what the witness said. If the witness says something that supports Oswald's guilt, they're credbile. If not, they're not credibile. 

Yikes. When shown the autopsy photos by the ARRB, Riebe deferred to their accuracy. The same goes for Custer, who also told researchers the back of the skull was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. As far as O'Neil, from what I recall he did believe the large head wound was further back on the head than shown in the autopsy photos. But he believed it was at the top of the back of the head, and was the exit for a shot fired from behind. None of these witnesses, and very few of the supposed back of the head witnesses, said there was a large blow out wound on the far back of the head between the ears. 

So why won't researchers denounce the many books and articles portraying a wound in this location? 

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No, it's not as simple as people making stuff up. They are ordinary people. They do not document what they said one day and compare it against what they said the next day. So their stories change. When they talk to other people about something, moreover, their recollections get mixed up with what others claim happened, and sometimes things change dramatically. This has been studied extensively by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. While some CTs misrepresent her findings, when one reads her books for oneself one finds that memories are incredibly prone to suggestion. I discuss this extensively on my website. One test, for example, showed that when people are shown a brief glimpse of a person and subsequently asked to identify that person in a line-up, they will usually select the person who looked most like the person they were shown. That's not a surprise. What is surprising, however, is what happens afterward.  One group was then asked how certain they were of their identification. As I recall roughly 50% said they were not certain. The other group however, was told afterwards by a policeman at the line-up that they'd correctly picked out the suspect. This group, when asked if they were certain, overwhelmingly said yes. Something like 90%. Well, the clear deduction from this is that our sense of certainty about our recollections is greatly affected by others. 

So...back to Jenkins and O'Connor. Having met Jenkins, I think he has always told the truth as he saw it. At the 2013 Lancer Conference, in a side room discussion which was unfortunately not recorded, he was asked over and over about JFK's large head wound. And, much to the dismay of those claiming it was on the far back of the head, he said over and over again that it was at the top of the head, and that the back of the head was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. A few years later I met him at another conference--this was witnessed by Matt Douthit--and I pointed out to Jenkins that some of those with whom he was appearing had long claimed the back of the head was blown out and that there was a conspiracy to hide this from the public. He said something like "Yeah, well, what can you do? People are gonna believe what they want to believe." So I was shocked when he later put out a book, with a forward by Mike Chesser, who evidently helped him on the book, claiming the back of the head was blown out. This was in opposition to not only what Jenkins had said at the 2013 conference, and later to me personally, but what he told William Law in the their taped conversations. And yet there he was, reversing himself.  

Now, sadly, this is not at all unusual. I spoke to Bill Newman at a couple of these conferences as well. And he told me he knew that in his initial statement he said he'd heard two shots, and that he soon thereafter started saying he'd heard three shots, but that he had no recollection whatsoever of changing his mind about this. He said that evidently he originally thought he'd heard two, but now, whenever he replays the incident in his mind, he hears three. He had no explanation. Well, having read tons on this kinda thing, I reminded him that his wife had said, right from the start, that she'd heard three shots. I then asked him if, without his realizing as much, she could have convinced him he'd heard a third shot. He then laughed and asked me if I'm married or something like that, but repeated that he had no idea why his first statement says he heard two shots when he so clearly remembers three. 

 

 

 

I see. To a great degree I wouldn't argue your point about how common it is for eye witnesses to change their stories and for the reasons you state.

Of course this happens a lot.

Yet, this is not a steadfast rule all the time is it?

I also agree with Gil that usually corroboration is the greater weight determination of what may or may not be the truth regarding a witnessed physical action.

I don't think Jenkins or O'Conner ever had changing view claims regards the casket JFK arrived to the morgue in.

I also don't think James Jenkins could have got his "skull incision" recollection from any other source besides his own.

 Didn't corpsman Paul O'Conner do the JFK skull cutting and retraction procedure during the autopsy? If so, Jenkins would have noticed that such an incision was made by him imo.

Whose version of JFK brain observation and removal do we believe?

We have three.

Paul O'Conner: There were virtually no brains left to remove. Just eviscerated chunks? A handful?

James Jenkins: A third missing but otherwise an intact brain.

Commander Humes: The brain just fell into my hands. Like mush? ( also inferring the brain stem was cut?)

Humes could never explain why he never weighed the brain. Nor could he explain how in the final autopsy report JFK's brain weight was listed at more than a normal male's completely intact brain.

Guess it boils down to everyone simply using their life-time experience common sense in determining the truth in any affair.

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Joe Bauer