The Mystery of Kennedy's Brain Deepens

[Adam Johnson]

Thanks for posting Vince.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me explain what I mean by that last paragraph.

Many years ago, in his critique of Best Evidence, Roger Feinman pointed out that George Burkley was the one doctor who was at both Parkland and Bethesda.

He was the one who Humes said he gave everything to after the autopsy.

Does anyone here today think that Burkley could not have known about this subterfuge?

Yet Burkley was not examined by Specter.

After he wrote that utterly fascinating note to Sprague, the HSCA did not submit him to a formal deposition.  I would have confronted him with his letter.

Third, I know someone familiar with Burkley's family. (No, not the doctor form Oliver's film.).

This source told me that the Secret Service visited Burkley every year until the time of his death.

Burkley knew, and they knew that he knew.

Edited August 24, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Take a look at this supplementary report.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_391.pdf

Go to Paragraph four:

The brain was not sectioned in the interest of preserving the specimen.

Can anyone read that and keep a straight face?

Who were they going to preserve it for, as Wecht asked in Stone's film?  And for what purpose?

Notice this report had the weight at 1500 grams.  🤫

It is only signed by Humes, not Finck or Boswell. 

But it is certified by Stover and Galloway on the third page.  That tells us something.

[Benjamin Cole]

Great job by DeEugenio and Palamara too. 

---30---

Dr. Burkley advised him [Sprague] that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.

---30---

Now, if anyone cogent had been in charge of the HSCA, would not have Burkley been interviewed in depth, by an "all hands on deck" assembly of lawyers and researchers? 

And transcripts created, so that Burkley's comments could be reviewed, and cross-checked against other info, and so on? 

Then HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey pontificates that Gov. Connally had been struck by a tumbling bullet, due to the large scar on his back---ignoring the small round hole in the rear of Connally's assassination-day shirt, or the commentary by Connally's surgeon that he had enlarged the wound, in debriding it. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Great job by DeEugenio and Palamara too. 

---30---

Dr. Burkley advised him [Sprague] that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.

---30---

Now, if anyone cogent had been in charge of the HSCA, would not have Burkley been interviewed in depth, by an "all hands on deck" assembly of lawyers and researchers? 

And transcripts created, so that Burkley's comments could be reviewed, and cross-checked against other info, and so on? 

Then HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey pontificates that Gov. Connally had been struck by a tumbling bullet, due to the large scar on his back---ignoring the small round hole in the rear of Connally's assassination-day shirt, or the commentary by Connally's surgeon that he had enlarged the wound, in debriding it. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

 

To my recollection Burkley didn't advise Sprague of anything. It was his lawyer, Illig, who told him Burkley told him he suspected there was more than one shooter. Unfortunately, there was no immediate follow-up, and Sprague stepped aside. Blakey then took over with a whole new approach: have "experts" re-interpret the evidence. As these experts were all over the place, this, sadly, resulted in a muddled mess. 

[Mark Ulrik]

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                         February 28, 1986
Vol. 8, #1                                                        Paul L. Hoch

"Reasonable Doubt"
...
     There is a second very provocative piece of new evidence, resulting from
Hurt's 1982 phone call to Adm. George Burkley.  He said "that he believed that
President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy."  He
subsequently refused "to discuss any aspect of the case."  (P. 49)
     As JFK's personal physician, and the only doctor present at Parkland and
the Bethesda autopsy, Burkley was in an especially crucial position.  He did
not testify to the Warren Commission (which published his contemporaneous
report containing basically no medical details, CE 1126.)  He did give five
interviews to William Manchester (the last one in July, 1966).  Manchester
recently told me that Burkley did not then believe there had been a conspi-
racy.  However, Hurt notes that in a 1967 oral history interview, Burkley was
asked if he agreed with the Warren Commission on the number of bullets that
hit JFK; he replied, "I would not care to be quoted on that."  The HSCA
interviewed Burkley at least once, generating in addition an outside contact
report and an affidavit -- all unpublished and unavailable.
     Along with the Tippit evidence, the Burkley assertion of conspiracy calls
for intense examination by the Justice Department and, I hope, by some
reporters.  (For my letters to Assistant AG Stephen Trott, ask for #1986.3
[1 Feb 86, on Burkley] and #4 [2 pp., 4 Feb 86, on Tippit].)

 

ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY                                              May 31, 1987
Vol. 9, #1                                                        Paul L. Hoch

Status of the Justice Department review
...
     One of my unacknowledged letters to the JD last year directed their
attention to Adm. George Burkley's comments to Henry Hurt, to the effect that
he should be included among the majority of Americans who think there was a
conspiracy.  (See 8 EOC 1.2 for a discussion.)
     Dr. Burkley's comments to Hurt may well not have been based on what he
knew about the medical evidence, according to information recently provided to
me.  William Manchester, who interviewed Dr. Burkley five times from April
1964 through July 1966, told me that at that time Dr. Burkley said he did not
believe in a conspiracy theory, and was emphatic on that point.
     Also, Dr. Burkley recently told a relative of his that he did think that
Oswald must have been part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family
lived and traveled was indicative of financial support.  (This suspicion has
been voiced by many people over the years, and the Warren Commission attempted
to rebut in in Appendix XIV of the Report.)  This relative also asked Dr.
Burkley about Lifton's book when it was published; Dr. Burkley did not provide
any clarification of the issues involved, nor did he indicate that he agreed
with any of Lifton's analysis.
     If there is more information to be obtained about what Dr. Burkley knew,
it will probably have to come from existing documents, or as the result of an
official inquiry by the Justice Department.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh please with Paul Hoch. Mr. Warren Report.

Burkley signed the death certificate.

He said in a JFK library interview he did not want to be quoted about the official story. Why?

We don't know.

He and his lawyer wrote that tantalizing letter to Sprague. Sprague leaves, Blakey does no formal deposition.

Then Gunn  got his daughter to sign off on a review of his files.

Cool.

She then reversed herself. 

Why?

George Burkley knew and the Secret Service knew he knew.

The additional question is this: did LBJ also know he knew?

Is that why he more or less bribed him to stay on at the White House after the assassination?

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Cummings]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please with Paul Hoch.

Burkley signed the death certificate.

He said in a JFK library interview he did not want to be quoted about the official story. Why?

We don't know.

He and his lawyer wrote that tantalizing letter to Sprague. Sprague leaves, Blakey does no formal deposition.

Then Gunn  got his daughter to sign off on a review of his files.

Cool.

She then reversed herself. 

Why?

George Burkley knew and the Secret Service knew he knew.

The additional question is this: did LBJ also know he knew?

Is that why he more or less bribed him to stay on at the White House after the assassination?

 

 

Look who got "promoted" after the JFKA. I would add Helms into it as well.

[James DiEugenio]

Now, the official story says that there was no dissection of the brain, as I quote above: in order to preserve the specimen.

The whole concept of either sectioning a brain by breadloaf style or by pie cut style is to find the bullet path or paths in the skull.

If you do not do that, then there is no way you can track a bullet path with any authority.

But here is the problem.

In his informal interview to the HSCA, Burkley told Andy Purdy that after he got the brain, "he decided to keep it for possible future study--by serial sectioning." (Horne, p. 840) He actually mentioned sectioning to see if Kennedy's brain was hit by just one or two bullets. (Horne, p. 841)

Now, here is the capper to that.  Stringer said the brain was serially sectioned and the sections were photographed on a light box in order to show damage. (Horne, p. 832, sourced to HSCA and ARRB interviews). I should add, one of the reasons Stringer was taken aback by the pictures the ARRB showed him is that the cerebellum was intact.  He did not recall it that way at all.  Another indication that there was a swtich.

The reason that Humes gave the brain to Burkley was so it could be interred with the body at the funeral, at least that was the excuse Burkley gave. Boswell agreed with this. (Horne, p. 839)

If that is so then what was Humes looking at, on reportedly December 6th or earlier, for the supplementary brain exam?

Was Burkley using that excuse so as to get the brain out of Bethesda and to the Secret Service at the Old Executive Office Building? And then use a different specimen for the supplementary? Did Stringer's sectioning of Kennedy's brain reveal a conspiracy?

Again, how could Kennedy's brain weigh 1500 grams?  After it was flying all  over Dealey Plaza.

Edited August 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Again, how could Kennedy's brain weight 1500 grams?  After it was flying all  over Dealey Plaza.

Chunks of JFK brain matter on the back seat, interior door panels and on the back seat floor carpet.  Some even sprayed into the front seat area.

Chunks of JFK brain matter and brain fluid sprayed up and back so profusely the Z-film clearly showed this as a 6 foot high bright pink spray cloud.

The two Dallas motorcycle police escorts behind the limo felt this JFK brain fluid and matter spray cloud hitting them with enough force one of them thought he was hit with something solid. 

More JFK brain matter continued to ooze from the large hole in the back of his skull in the Parkland ER.

The most basic common sense tells you that all this JFK brain matter loss had to have been more than just a handful. 

Official JFK brain weight listed at 1,500 grams?

Sorry... just plain untrue.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

You can say that again Joe.

But yet that is the weight given on the supplementary.

But remember in addition to not sectioning the brain, Humes did not weigh the brain the night of the autopsy.

Which is really kind of stunning.

So , I am not sure but  I think the supplementary is the first time that this 1500 gram weight appears in the official record.  I am sure Pat Speer can correct me if I am wrong.

But as I noted, only Humes signed off on that.  On the last separate page, its Stover and Galloway certifying it.

And the date of 12/6 is handwritten.  

Whew.  If there had been a real trial.

[Pete Mellor]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, here is the capper to that.  Stringer said the brain was serially sectioned and the sections were photographed on a light box in order to show damage. (Horne, p. 832, sourced to HSCA and ARRB interviews). I should add, one of the reasons Stringer was taken aback by the pictures the ARRB showed him is that the cerebellum was intact.  He did not recall it that way at all.  Another indication that there was a swtich.

Stringer also stated the images in the Nat Archives are not on the same type of film that he used + he shot only views of the top of the brain & most of the images in the Archives are of the underside (basilar views).

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Pete.

In Horne's book he lists five reasons why Stringer did not buy the official photos, and that is one of them. (p. 810)

[Vince Palamara]

18 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Thanks for posting Vince.

Sure!

[Vince Palamara]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Vince.

I should have checked more thoroughly.

 

No problem!