Pat Speer Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 11 hours ago, Vince Palamara said: Hi, Pat---you never answer this question: WHERE was the head wound located? Yes---Wilson was a bad influence on Custer. What??? I have answered that question a hundred times, and people have tried to have me burned on the cross for it. Edited February 11 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 (edited) On 2/10/2024 at 11:44 AM, 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). Thanks Vince. It's always nice to see a video that you have not seen yet. Especially for me on the medical evidence. Edited February 12 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 4 hours ago, Pat Speer said: What??? I have answered that question a hundred times, and people have tried to have me burned at the cross for it. Outstanding, Pat!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 hours ago, Michael Crane said: Thanks Vince. It's always nice to see a video that you have not seen yet. Especially for me on the medical eveidence. My pleasure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Krome Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Was the Chief of Surgery at Bethesda off his rocker too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 20 hours ago, Tony Krome said: Was the Chief of Surgery at Bethesda off his rocker too? You gotta name.Or are you talking about Humes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Krome Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 1 hour ago, Michael Crane said: You gotta name.Or are you talking about Humes? David Osborne, later Admiral. Stated President was fully dressed and wearing a coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 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.") and the physical X-rays that were put before him. He orients the X-ray by the sella turcica (not by memory). The sella turcica was not visible in the original image. I contend that was added to the “computer-enhanced” image later along with other "landmarks" via composite overly with JFK’s “living” lateral X-ray, because in the “computer-enhanced” image, they align 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." (At one point, 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. Custer still thinks the “black” area is the front of the head and Mantik’s “white patch” area is “double-density” at the back of the head (i.e., bone from the front of the head being pushed to the back of the head towards the blow-out). I think he is just trying to reconcile his certainty that Kennedy was shot from the front with what the extant X-ray shows. Eventually the interviewer (William Law) does say that there is speculation that the X-ray images have been forged, but the subject is immediately dropped, without much response from Custer. The interviewer (Law) should have started with that, and then asked Custer, “How closely do these images match with your recollection of the day?” Rather than waiting until Custer had already discussed the images. The first order of business should be to authenticate the X-rays. But note the caption in the HSCA-published original X-ray, before the “living” X-ray was overlaid to create the “computer-enhanced” X-ray. The caption describes it as showing the “occipital defect,” which is medical-speak for “hole at the back of the head.” And if you look at the bottom of the image, it appears to show the spinal column and both mastoid processes, which were cropped off to create the "computer-enhanced" composite. (Go to https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm for the original un-enhanced HSCA image. I can't seem to upload it (the forum won't let me upload anything larger than a few kb), but the original HSCA caption reads: “Figure 18.—Photograph of the lateral X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray no. 2) showing the occipital defect with beveling and adjacent missile fragment.” Notice that it is not specified whether this is the "right" or "left" lateral. I believe it is the left lateral, with front of the head on the left side of the image, tilted downward, showing the dark hole ("defect") at the back ("occipital" area) of the head, not at the front as the "computer-enhanced" version shows. Again, Custer (and Reibe) did tell Vanity Fair in 1994 that the X-ray images and photographs had been forged. Go to https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/12/the-ghosts-of-november for a transcript. I don’t believe Custer was “off his rocker,” but was simply trying to reconcile what the physical evidence in front of him was showing (via the sella turcica) and what he remembered about “everything (being) blown out of the back of the head). The correct way to handle it is to first let him know that there is debate on the matter, and then ask him if the images aligned with his recollections—which might have provoked some thought on Custer’s part rather than his trying to figure out how to get the X-rays to align with his recollection of “a shot from the front” that “blew everything out the back” by speculating on a “double-density” piece of skull being blown to the back of the head. The very first questions should have been about authenticating the X-rays, with the understanding that questions of authenticity have been raised. Regarding the "suit" recollection in his ARRB interview—he does mention that once, apparently in passing. It could also be a transcription error. (I have not yet listened to the audio version, but the transcription of the interview does say “suit.”) JFK was wrapped in sheets, of course, with extra wrapping around the head. It may have been a transcription error or 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. In the third video, Custer says, “The body was totally naked. There were no clothes on it at all. The only thing I can possibly remember is the head was completely covered, and there was a sheet wrapped around it.” What is extremely interesting about Custer's ARRB deposition is the recollection of a "king-size" fragment falling out of the back when the body was lifted, something he repeats in his video interviews. 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 he reiterates in the third video, but 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, from that frontal shot Custer was so adamant about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 I'll try again to post the original HSCA "un-enhanced" image. Note the caption, which is original to the HSCA document (at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm ) describing "occipital defect" meaning "hole at the back of the head". Note that "right" vs. "left" lateral is not specified. Note the spinal column and mastoid processes, which were cropped off in the creation of the "computer-enhanced" image more commonly found and referenced: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 39 minutes ago, Tony Krome said: David Osborne, later Admiral. Stated President was fully dressed and wearing a coat. That's right! I have been trying to remember his name. Osborne had a long and successful career at Bethesda, with promotions after 1963. He sure does not seem like a lulu. "Osborne said that the President was fully dressed when the coffin was opened. Upon raising his shoulders to remove the coat, Osborne said that a slug rolled out of his clothing and onto the table. Osborne said that the slug was copper-clad and that the Secret Service or FBI took possession of this. Upon further inquiry, Osborne emphasized that the slug was a fully intact missile and not a fragment." https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md66.pdf Sheesh! How does Osborne's commentary line up with anything? If you told me the CIA had released a hallucinogenic gas into Bethesda...I would not sneer. The different recollections are wildly inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 The Osborne bullet was the same one as Dr. Young's bullet brought into the autopsy from the limousine, not the "king-size fragment" that fell out of Kennedy's back, per Custer. Two different pieces of ballistic evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said: The Osborne bullet was the same one as Dr. Young's bullet brought into the autopsy from the limousine, not the "king-size fragment" that fell out of Kennedy's back, per Custer. Two different pieces of ballistic evidence. You think Dr. Young's slug (found in the limo) was seen by Osborne? But Osborn's testimony is the bullet fell out of JFK's coat. Seems like a mish-mash of conflicting statements to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 8 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.") and the physical X-rays that were put before him. He orients the X-ray by the sella turcica (not by memory). The sella turcica was not visible in the original image. I contend that was added to the “computer-enhanced” image later along with other "landmarks" via composite overly with JFK’s “living” lateral X-ray, because in the “computer-enhanced” image, they align 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." (At one point, 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. Custer still thinks the “black” area is the front of the head and Mantik’s “white patch” area is “double-density” at the back of the head (i.e., bone from the front of the head being pushed to the back of the head towards the blow-out). I think he is just trying to reconcile his certainty that Kennedy was shot from the front with what the extant X-ray shows. Eventually the interviewer (William Law) does say that there is speculation that the X-ray images have been forged, but the subject is immediately dropped, without much response from Custer. The interviewer (Law) should have started with that, and then asked Custer, “How closely do these images match with your recollection of the day?” Rather than waiting until Custer had already discussed the images. The first order of business should be to authenticate the X-rays. But note the caption in the HSCA-published original X-ray, before the “living” X-ray was overlaid to create the “computer-enhanced” X-ray. The caption describes it as showing the “occipital defect,” which is medical-speak for “hole at the back of the head.” And if you look at the bottom of the image, it appears to show the spinal column and both mastoid processes, which were cropped off to create the "computer-enhanced" composite. (Go to https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm for the original un-enhanced HSCA image. I can't seem to upload it (the forum won't let me upload anything larger than a few kb), but the original HSCA caption reads: “Figure 18.—Photograph of the lateral X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray no. 2) showing the occipital defect with beveling and adjacent missile fragment.” Notice that it is not specified whether this is the "right" or "left" lateral. I believe it is the left lateral, with front of the head on the left side of the image, tilted downward, showing the dark hole ("defect") at the back ("occipital" area) of the head, not at the front as the "computer-enhanced" version shows. Again, Custer (and Reibe) did tell Vanity Fair in 1994 that the X-ray images and photographs had been forged. Go to https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/12/the-ghosts-of-november for a transcript. I don’t believe Custer was “off his rocker,” but was simply trying to reconcile what the physical evidence in front of him was showing (via the sella turcica) and what he remembered about “everything (being) blown out of the back of the head). The correct way to handle it is to first let him know that there is debate on the matter, and then ask him if the images aligned with his recollections—which might have provoked some thought on Custer’s part rather than his trying to figure out how to get the X-rays to align with his recollection of “a shot from the front” that “blew everything out the back” by speculating on a “double-density” piece of skull being blown to the back of the head. The very first questions should have been about authenticating the X-rays, with the understanding that questions of authenticity have been raised. Regarding the "suit" recollection in his ARRB interview—he does mention that once, apparently in passing. It could also be a transcription error. (I have not yet listened to the audio version, but the transcription of the interview does say “suit.”) JFK was wrapped in sheets, of course, with extra wrapping around the head. It may have been a transcription error or 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. In the third video, Custer says, “The body was totally naked. There were no clothes on it at all. The only thing I can possibly remember is the head was completely covered, and there was a sheet wrapped around it.” What is extremely interesting about Custer's ARRB deposition is the recollection of a "king-size" fragment falling out of the back when the body was lifted, something he repeats in his video interviews. 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 he reiterates in the third video, but 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, from that frontal shot Custer was so adamant about. 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? It seems like we're on the same page with some of this but in different books on other. Which is fine. In fact, it's pretty much the purpose of this forum. (Or at least the original purpose of this forum.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 10 hours ago, Tony Krome said: David Osborne, later Admiral. Stated President was fully dressed and wearing a coat. Yes,to me that's off your rocker or you were simply not there and lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now