Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

[Michael Crane]

10 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The first interview of Custer (and thank you, Vince Palamara, for posting them) demonstrates the issues I have with how witness interviews are conducted. Instead of asking the witness what they saw, the interviewer (Tom Wilson) "tells" the witness what happened, based on the interviewee's observations of the extant Zapruder Film. There is evidence that the Z-film was altered, which the interviewer seems unaware of. In any case, in this interview, the interviewer tells the witness what his conclusions were rather than listening to the witness. That type of thing is extremely annoying. It's called "leading the witness."

The second interview is better, but I believe by this time Custer had been influenced by, say, the Zapruder Film and his interview with Tom Wilson (Custer: "It's in the Zapruder Film.") He orients the X-ray by the sella turcica, not by memory, which I contend was added to the image later (it's not visible in the original image, but only in the "computer enhanced" image, which I contend is a composite made with the "living" X-ray, with the sella turcica and other "landmarks" aligning perfectly with the "living" X-ray but not with he un-enhanced original. Note the discord between where he indicates the front of the head to be in the "computer-enhanced" X-ray (which shows a blow-out in the front of the head) and his repeated statementss that the skull, etc., was "blown out, in back." (Eventually, he tells Vanity Fair that "These are fake X-rays.") But then, the interviewer jumps in with, "If you look at the Z-film, you'll see..." Aaaagggghh!  But basically, it's a much better interview than the first one.

 

A transcript of Custer's ARRB deposition can be found at https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf .

Regarding the "suit" recollection--he does mention that once, apparently in passing. JFK was wrapped in sheets, of course. It may have been a simple mis-speak, saying "suit" when he meant "sheet"? This is where the ARRB interviewers should have followed up, but didn't. "What did the suit look like? Was he wearing a shirt? Tie? Jacket? Trousers?" That sort of thing. Which might have triggered a correction on the part of the witness, without leading him.

What is most interesting about Custer's deposition is the recollection of a "king-size" fragment falling out of the back when the body was lifted for X-rays. This makes sense, as the nose and tail fragments found in the car don't make up even 1/2 of a Carcanno bullet. It is farther corroborated by December, 1963/January, 1964 news accounts from a leaked FBI report, which described a "bullet" being recovered from the President's shoulder during the autopsy.

Also of interest is the discussion of missing neck X-rays that showed metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region, which would assume a downward trajectory from the back of the head. Mortician Thomas Robinson was "adamant" that he had seen a probe from the back of the head come out at the throat wound. My conclusion, given those statements, is that the throat wound was caused by the exit of a fragment that created a hole small enough to be mistaken as an entrance by the Parkland doctors. I believe the fragment was traveling on this trajectory after an internal ricochet off the back of the head. 

 

 

 

 

Hello Denise,

The deposition is quite long and requires alot of reading.I just kicked back and listened to it on Youtube.

 

 

 

[Tony Krome]

5 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Yes,to me that's off your rocker or you were simply not there and lying.

Dr. Karnei at Bethesda said the first time he saw the president's body, it was being undressed. He mentioned pants being removed and photos taken as the body was undressed.

[Michael Crane]

That's bizarre IMO.

But so is the condition of JFK's head after all is said & done.

1 bullet did not create all of that damage.

[Denise Hazelwood]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. You mention early news accounts of a bullet being recovered from the President's shoulder. I don't remember reading such an account. Can you post a link? FWIW, the December news accounts taken from leaked FBI reports which I do remember involved a fragment exit from the throat.

Here is one account in the 1/4/1964 issue of JAMA, "Washington News" at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559 (right-hand column). I believe there were some December, 1963 newspaper articles that said something similar, but I can't lay my hands on them right now. 

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Here is one account in the 1/4/1964 issue of JAMA, "Washington News" at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559 (right-hand column). I believe there were some December, 1963 newspaper articles that said something similar, but I can't lay my hands on them right now. 

Ok, thanks. That's what I remembered. The article was based on the FBI's report in which the throat wound was attributed to a fragment from the bullet striking the head. True to the Sibert/O'Neill report, moreover, the bullet creating the back wound did not transit. You are correct, furthermore, in that this third-hand account makes it sound like the bullet creating the back wound was recovered during the autopsy.

 

Edited February 13 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

1 bullet did not create all of that damage.

Nope it did not.  One in the hairline over the right eye, one in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the ear. Simultaneously.  Another a split second before in the lower edge of the back of the head blow out. Per Dr's Mantick and Chesser along with Doug Horne of the ARRB.

[Denise Hazelwood]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A couple of questions.

1. You mention early news accounts of a bullet being recovered from the President's shoulder. I don't remember reading such an account. Can you post a link? FWIW, the December news accounts taken from leaked FBI reports which I do remember involved a fragment exit from the throat.

2. At the end you make note of a possible exit of such a fragment from the throat. But you indicate you believe this was a ricochet from a shot from the front. Well, where did this bullet enter? And how do you explain the EOP entrance? Or do you think that was just made up?

1. The 1/4/64 JAMA article can be found at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559. There were some December, 1963 newspaper accounts, but I can't source them online at the moment.

2. I believe this bullet entered at Crenshaw's forehead location above the right eye (described by Joe O'Donnell and Quentin Schwinn from autopsy photos, a hit can be seen in the "stare of death" photo). I believe it fragmented on impact, sending multiple fragments towards the back of the skull, with the largest ones exiting the skull to ricochet off the seat back, becoming the nose and tail fragments found at the front of the limousine and Custer's "king-size" back fragment that came out of the back wound. A smaller fragment or fragments made an "internal ricochet" off the inside back of the skull to leave bits of metal in the C3/C4 region (as Custer describes for the now-missing X-rays) and creating the throat wound, which had the appearance of an entrance due to its small size. Mortician Thomas Robinson was "adamant" that he saw the throat wound probed from the back of the head. This forehead shot came from the TSBD shooter, when the limousine was in witness Pierce Allman's first shot location, just after the turn (when the TSBD shooter would still have had a frontal shot).

The EOP entrance was for the second head shot, the AR-15 slam-fire accident. There would have been a number of seconds for blood and fluids to accumulate in the brain cavity, making this shot more obvious in terms of spray, as Dr. Mantik describes in one of his videos. James Jenkins described a small hole above the right ear, corroborated by Dr. Michael Chesser. Jenkins thought it was an entrance, but since this was the second head shot, entering an already damaged skull, the hole could have been small, with the bullet losing most of its energy within the brain tissue and fluids. The energy ejected from the back-of-the-head blow-out created by the first shot, and enlarged the blow-out, carrying the Harper Fragment (with evidence of the entry) away as it did so.

The first head shot was covered-up because the SS agents, with the exception of Hickey, were hungover and slow to react. The second head shot was blamed on Oswald instead of Hickey.

The original (HSCA-published) X-ray showing an "occipital defect" was superimposed over the R lateral "living" X-ray of Kennedy taken when he was alive, to create the "computer-enhanced" composite and make it appear as if the blow-out was at the front. Custer was a bit confused by this X-ray. He knew the blow-out was at the back of the head and was hypothesizing a "double-density" fragment traveling towards the back of the head to explain it before I think he finally realized the X-ray was a fraud. Dr. Mantik explains that the white patch is too white to be authentic, and would indicate "solid bone from one side of the skull to the other" if it were authentic. I think the "white patch" was made to hide facial features that might otherwise have been visible. Note the spinal column and mastoid processes in the original HSCA-published image that I posted above, which were cropped off in the creation of the "computer-enhanced" forgery that made the face (thanks to the sella turcica from the living X-ray) appear to be in one place, when it was actually in another. 

I know that's a lot, but I overlaid the "living" X-ray onto the "computer-enhanced" X-ray, and the sella turcica and other landmarks are exact matches. The original HSCA X-ray, on the other hand, has a completely different head shape. 

The EOP 

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nope it did not.  One in the hairline over the right eye, one in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the ear. Simultaneously.  Another a split second before in the lower edge of the back of the head blow out. Per Dr's Mantick and Chesser along with Doug Horne of the ARRB.

Hello Ron,

It would not suprise me if down the line it is discovered that there were 3 head shots.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Hello Ron,

It would not suprise me if down the line it is discovered that there were 3 head shots.

Some claim they've already discovered this. But their evidence is well...

When I first noticed this, and reported back to people who would prefer not be harassed that others were describing an entrance on the front of the head--that went unobserved at Parkland and Bethesda--that connected to an exit on the left side of the back of the head--that went unobserved at Parkland and Bethesda--they wouldn't believe me.

One prominent researcher even emailed me a number of times flipping out about this. He couldn't believe they were relying upon witnesses who never saw the body--and who were repeating what they claimed to remember being shown in photographs 30 years earlier. That is the sloppiest kind of research, essentially not research at all. Jeremy Gunn said his experience with the ARRB led him to distrust the recollections of witnesses from 30 years prior--and he cited in support that one of the Parkland doctors insisted Jackie was wearing white on the day of the shooting, and had blood stains on her white clothing. Well, if he'd asked around he probably could have found another witness to confirm she'd been wearing white, and voila! we'd have another a couple of books and a couple of thousand online posts about how "they" faked all the photos and films to show her wearing a pink outfit. 

Heck, give us a couple of years and someone will raise the ante by claiming there were FOUR headshots. 

Edited February 13 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Hello Pat,

I'm kind of going off of what James Jenkins said about a possible wound right above the right ear that Burkley said to stay away from.Those damn X-rays appear to show a hole the size of a tennis ball.

How in the world do these kind of wounds not bleed so that they can be discovered? The hair is so bloody that it covers it up?

Edited February 13 by Michael Crane

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

17 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

One in the hairline over the right eye, one in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the ear. Simultaneously.  Another a split second before in the lower edge of the back of the head blow out. Per Dr's Mantick and Chesser along with Doug Horne of the ARRB.

13 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

It would not suprise me if down the line it is discovered that there were 3 head shots.

 

I believe that three head shots is what Ron said:

• One in the hairline over the right eye.
• One in the right temple slightly in front of the top of the ear.
• One in the lower edge of the back-of-head blow out. In other words, near the EOP.

 

[Michael Crane]

Ok,

I say one low shot from the rear that caused the cerebellum to rupture.

I also say one shot from the right front high in JFK's hairline/forehead.

And one more possible slightly above the right ear which I'm highly still debating within myself.

Edited February 14 by Michael Crane

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 2/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, Michael Crane said:

The deposition is quite long and requires alot of reading.I just kicked back and listened to it on Youtube.

Thank you for posting the YouTube link. Heretofore I only had the written form.

[Joe Bauer]

On 2/13/2024 at 4:01 PM, Michael Crane said:

Ok,

I say one low shot from the rear that caused the cerebellum to rupture.

I also say one shot from the right front high in JFK's hairline/forehead.

And one more possible slightly above the right ear which I'm highly still debating within myself.

Zapruder Film JFK Assassination Head Shot Slow Stable Smooth 1080p HD

[Michael Crane]

18 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Thank you for posting the YouTube link. Heretofore I only had the written form.

Not a problem.

You're welcome.