Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

[Michael Crane]

I was listening to his ARRB testimony and he says that when they took JFK out of the body bag,that he was wearing a plastic bag over his head & more important,he said that JFK was wearing a suit.JFK was not wearing a suit.

This makes me think that he didn't see JFK in the body bag at all.

*At the beginning he says that he remembers the autopsy "Too well" (not those exact words)

Thoughts?

Edited February 9 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

Jerrol also said that he couldn't remember the color of the plastic bag.

[Joe Bauer]

Yes, off his rocker.

[Michael Crane]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes, off his rocker.

You know,that Jerrol had to keep a FBI agent out of the dark room and made a set of x-rays for himself?

Later,he decided to destroy them himself.

Edited February 10 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

I really liked what he had to say during his interview/deposition.

 

He really laid the smackdown on Ebersole & Burkley.

Edited February 9 by Michael Crane

[Ron Bulman]

Michael, have you read William Matson Law's chapter on Custer in In The Eye of History?  A neglected stunning and historical book.

In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence: Law, William Matson: 9780965658287: Amazon.com: Books

Unfortunately, the chapter ends with his sad demise and the downfall of his family, and this.  Pgs. 278-80.

Jerrol Custer was an enigma.  . . .  I found the man to be more than a bit of a curmudgeon.  . . .   The first time we spoke, he said, "See all these people take advantage of me.  They write books, making millions, while I'm busting my ass for pennies."  (working as a security guard, lost his position as a supervisory X-ray technician due to down-sizing.)

"The kindest possible light I can shed on the dubious parts of Jerrol Custer's account is that he hoped to use the interview to promote the book he was working on."

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit because he gave the deposition 3 decades after the event. He could have simply conflated his memory with some other person he x-ray'd during his career.
 To take each of the head X-rays he had to take the head in his hands and align it on 3 separate axis. He had to use the shape of the head itself to determine the correct axis. So I have much more confidence in his memory of the wound location than what JFK was wearing when his body first arrived.
 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

William Matson Law: "The kindest possible light I can shed on the dubious parts of Jerrol Custer's account is that he hoped to use the interview to promote the book he was working on."

 

I think that William Matson Law is right.

I find Jerold Custer's early statements to be credible. But after he had read some CT books and was drawing his own conclusions, he was just plain wrong about too many things IMO. It seemed like he enjoyed pointing out how researchers would get things wrong, when to me they made a lot more sense than what Custer was saying.

 

[Michael Crane]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Michael, have you read William Matson Law's chapter on Custer in In The Eye of History?  A neglected stunning and historical book.

In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence: Law, William Matson: 9780965658287: Amazon.com: Books

Unfortunately, the chapter ends with his sad demise and the downfall of his family, and this.  Pgs. 278-80.

Jerrol Custer was an enigma.  . . .  I found the man to be more than a bit of a curmudgeon.  . . .   The first time we spoke, he said, "See all these people take advantage of me.  They write books, making millions, while I'm busting my ass for pennies."  (working as a security guard, lost his position as a supervisory X-ray technician due to down-sizing.)

"The kindest possible light I can shed on the dubious parts of Jerrol Custer's account is that he hoped to use the interview to promote the book he was working on."

 

 

That's one book that I have not gotten ahold of yet.So,the answer would be no.

[Michael Crane]

To me,this is like Ebersole saying that the throat wound was sutured.

Edited February 10 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit

But Chris,Custer says that he remembers the event too well.And since he said that he helped lift JFK out of the casket and onto the autopsy table,that's a glaring red flag.

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

But Chris,Custer says that he remembers the event too well.And since he said that he helped lift JFK out of the casket and onto the autopsy table,that's a glaring red flag.

He helped take JFK out of the casket yet remembered him wearing clothes, yes that is a big mistake. It puts a big question mark on his credibility but I don't know if it makes all of his testimony incorrect. He would have paid more attention to the taking and inspecting the X-rays so I would give more credit to his memory of the wound. But that is just my opinion, he could be wrong about the wound too. 

[Vince Palamara]

I interviewed Jerrol Custer twice in person: on 11/22/1991 with Harry Livingstone and Tom Wilson (the interview results are in HIGH TREASON 2 and KILLING THE TRUTH), as well as over two days in March 1998 with author and friend William Matson Law (for his fantastic book IN THE EYE OF HISTORY---I am mentioned several times in the Custer chapter). Here are 3 videos (the 11/22/1991 video is merely an excerpt- Tom Wilson freaked out when he saw I was videotaping and demanded a stop to it):

 

 

 

The definite impression I received was that Jerrol was heavily influenced by Tom Wilson and was starting to change his story because of it (both men lived in Pittsburgh, as do I, but they lived in the very same suburb close by. Ironically, both men would pass away within a very short time of each other in July 2000). As we all know, from roughly the time of the HSCA until the early 1990's, Jerrol was firm on the matter of the back of JFK's head being gone and the x-rays and photos being faked in some way.

By the time of his ARRB interview and his association with Wilson (just beginning in late 1991/early 1992), Jerrol started to change both the position of the head wound and to dramatize his story a tad. It is a sad story of a principal witness changing his story for money and acclaim (NOT from us- he received not a penny, BUT he did receive money from both JFK Lancer and Tom Wilson, not to mention the excitement he had over TWO of his own books he was going to release [they never saw the light of day] and his association with Wilson, who made a splash at the A.S.K. Conference in late November 1991 and on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY).

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

I interviewed Jerrol Custer twice in person: on 11/22/1991 with Harry Livingstone and Tom Wilson (the interview results are in HIGH TREASON 2 and KILLING THE TRUTH), as well as over two days in March 1998 with author and friend William Matson Law (for his fantastic book IN THE EYE OF HISTORY---I am mentioned several times in the Custer chapter). Here are 3 videos (the 11/22/1991 video is merely an excerpt- Tom Wilson freaked out when he saw I was videotaping and demanded a stop to it):

 

 

 

The definite impression I received was that Jerrol was heavily influenced by Tom Wilson and was starting to change his story because of it (both men lived in Pittsburgh, as do I, but they lived in the very same suburb close by. Ironically, both men would pass away within a very short time of each other in July 2000). As we all know, from roughly the time of the HSCA until the early 1990's, Jerrol was firm on the matter of the back of JFK's head being gone and the x-rays and photos being faked in some way.

By the time of his ARRB interview and his association with Wilson (just beginning in late 1991/early 1992), Jerrol started to change both the position of the head wound and to dramatize his story a tad. It is a sad story of a principal witness changing his story for money and acclaim (NOT from us- he received not a penny, BUT he did receive money from both JFK Lancer and Tom Wilson, not to mention the excitement he had over TWO of his own books he was going to release [they never saw the light of day] and his association with Wilson, who made a splash at the A.S.K. Conference in late November 1991 and on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY).

OMG. Custer changed his story for money? Or did he, like ALL the supposed back of the head witnesses, tell people largely what they wanted to hear at the time? In Custer's case, he was shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays--which do not look like the original x-rays--and this led him to think something was up. When shown the actual x-rays, however, he recognized his marker and said they were legit. 

As far as the head wound location... He told Groden that skull was missing from front to back and pointed this out with this hand. (He was obviously describing the size of the wound once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table.) In any event, Groden took a still from this video of him with Custer's hand at the back of his head, and made out that Custer was describing a blow-out wound low on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy. It was a scam. And he made money off of it. 

So the question you should be asking yourself is not if Custer was changing his story for money, but if Groden and numerous others were misrepresenting his story for money...

P.S. I just watched the video of Livingstone and Wilson with Custer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. So you are correct about this--Wilson should not have been allowed anywhere near an actual witness, as he was trying to tell them the "truth" as opposed to listening to what they had to say. In any event, it sure looks like Custer is not too impressed with Wilson. 

Edited February 10 by Pat Speer

[Vince Palamara]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

OMG. Custer changed his story for money? Or did he, like ALL the supposed back of the head witnesses, tell people largely what they wanted to hear at the time? In Custer's case, he was shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays--which do not look like the original x-rays--and this led him to think something was up. When shown the actual x-rays, however, he recognized his marker and said they were legit. 

As far as the head wound location... He told Groden that skull was missing from front to back and pointed this out with this hand. (He was obviously describing the size of the wound once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table.) In any event, Groden took a still from this video of him with Custer's hand at the back of his head, and made out that Custer was describing a blow-out wound low on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy. It was a scam. And he made money off of it. 

So the question you should be asking yourself is not if Custer was changing his story for money, but if Groden and numerous others were misrepresenting his story for money...

P.S. I just watched the video of Livingstone and Wilson with Custer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. So you are correct about this--Wilson should not have been allowed anywhere near an actual witness, as he was trying to tell them the "truth" as opposed to listening to what they had to say. In any event, it sure looks like Custer is not too impressed with Wilson. 

Hi, Pat---you never answer this question: WHERE was the head wound located?

Yes---Wilson was a bad influence on Custer.