What James Jenkins Actually Said

[Keven Hofeling]

On 5/6/2024 at 4:01 PM, Pat Speer said:

About an hour into this, Jenkins says the wound he saw at Bethesda was pretty much the wound others described at Parkland... and is then verbally assaulted by someone from the alterationist school (who sounds a lot like James Fetzer.) 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

About an hour into this, Jenkins says the wound he saw at Bethesda was pretty much the wound others described at Parkland... and is then verbally assaulted by someone from the alterationist school (who sounds a lot like James Fetzer.) 

Mr. Speer, I would point out to you that your comment contradicts your usual mythology about James Jenkins -- that he is not a back of the head wound witness -- but you would just respond by saying that the video you posted is from 2018 after, according to you, William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser had prevailed upon Jenkins to change his story about the location of the large avulsive head wound being in the frontal quadrant of JFK's head as, according to you, Jenkins had placed it prior to that time.

Given that James Jenkins had told the HSCA (and made a drawing for the HSCA) in 1977, and also told David Lifton in 1979 that the back of the head wound was in the right quadrant of the back of JFK's head (to Lifton, specifically occipital-parietal), your story that Jenkins had later started claiming it was instead in the frontal quandrant never made any sense to me, and caused me to suspect, like so many other things, that were just lying about this.

As I'm sure you recall, I've repeatedly asked you where I can find the video from which you made the screenshots on your website to accompany your claims that Jenkins was demonstrating the large avulsive head wound to be on the top of JFK's head, and now I understand why you've repeatedly ignored my requests...

Because I've located that video and have ascertained that your claims about James Jenkins changing his mind about the location of the head wound are fraudulent.

I'll demonstrate what led me to conclude that your James Jenkins claims are fraudulent, as follows:

The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations you make on your website in which you claim that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to you, "that scalp was attached to the bone" in the area marked on the model, and "that there was thereby no blow-out wound" in that area.

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made:

The topic of the discussion was the back of the head autopsy photograph, and James Jenkins was asked to explain from the perspective of the autopsists why the photograph does not depict the gaping back of the head wound that had been described by the Parkland doctors. James Jenkins responded that by the time the work of the pathologists was completed -- and skull fragments had been inserted into the wound -- there remained a "silver dollar" sized hole in the same place as the large avulsive wound in Dr. Robert McClelland's drawing "that still had bone and scalp missing." At this point Jenkins was asked to draw the wound he was describing on the mannequin head, and he did so.

* Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is a lie that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head.

Immediately following that segment on your website is the following in which you claim that James Jenkins next demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," going on to then describe the silver dollar sized hole was "after reconstruction."

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made:

Contrary to your claim that Jenkins had went on to describe the silver dollar sized hole, Jenkins had in truth went on to describe the large avulsive wound he saw at the beginning of the autopsy which he described as "an open gaping wound" approximately the "size of a closed fist" similar "to Dr. McClelland's drawing," except a little higher. Jenkins then went on to identify the F-8 autopsy "mystery" photo as being of "the massive cavity" that existed at the beginning of the autopsy. Then Harrison Livingston asked Jenkins to turn around and put his hand on his head to show "where that large hole was," and Jenkins turned his body entirely around in his chair to do so, placing it on the back of his head.

Despite my best efforts with the technology available to me, I was unable to clean this photo up well enough to make it clear that Jenkins was indicating the back of his head, but you should be able to determine that watching it in the video starting at 1:57 ( https://youtu.be/UOtc56ga5Es?si=TLl6IbGw0bWeSKdu&t=117 ), additionally, as a matter of common sense, Jenkins would not have had to twist around in his chair like that if he was just going to touch the frontal part of the top of his head. Dr. McClelland was sitting on the other side of Harrison Livingstone, and Jenkins had referenced Dr. McClelland's drawing for the location of the "open gaping wound."

* Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was demonstrating the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head."

* And it is a lie that Jenkins was at this point describing the silver dollar sized wound as it existed at the end of the autopsy rather than the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound.

Speer, you can consider your fraudulent misrepresentations that James Jenkins was conned into moving the large avulsive wound to the back of the head by "alterationists" circa 2018 to now be officially dead. That was a con job, and you are now busted.

I can barely believe that I distrusted my own instincts about you and about this to feel reluctant about James Jenkins's credibility and about posting his 2018 skull model wound drawing all the way up until now.

 

And the following is the information about the 1991 Dallas Medical Witness Conference that Speer refused to provide to me (and now we know why )

Link to complete 'JFK Medical Witness Conference Part 1 (April 6th, 1991)'

https://youtu.be/t_FY2loSOZY?si=afF4yPtWK5jusv_s

An extremely rare, but important video discussion between eyewitnesses from Parkland Hospital, where JFK died and Bethesda Naval Hospital, where his autopsy was performed. This was the FIRST and only time these witnesses met each other and discussed their memories. It was filmed on April 6th, 1991, at the Stouffer Hotel in Dallas, Texas. It was hosted by Harrison Livingstone, author of High Treason 2. Which includes a transcript of key moments from this conference, in Chapter 14: https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea0000livi/page/282/mode/2up

 

Edited May 8 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

16 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer wrote:

Mr. Speer, I would point out to you that your comment contradicts your usual mythology about James Jenkins -- that he is not a back of the head wound witness -- but you would just respond by saying that the video you posted is from 2018 after, according to you, William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser had prevailed upon Jenkins to change his story about the location of the large avulsive head wound being in the frontal quadrant of JFK's head as, according to you, Jenkins had placed it prior to that time.

Given that James Jenkins had told the HSCA (and made a drawing for the HSCA) in 1977, and also told David Lifton in 1979 that the back of the head wound was in the right quadrant of the back of JFK's head (to Lifton, specifically occipital-parietal), your story that Jenkins had later started claiming it was instead in the frontal quandrant never made any sense to me, and caused me to suspect, like so many other things, that were just lying about this.

As I'm sure you recall, I've repeatedly asked you where I can find the video from which you made the screenshots on your website to accompany your claims that Jenkins was demonstrating the large avulsive head wound to be on the top of JFK's head, and now I understand why you've repeatedly ignored my requests...

Because I've located that video and have ascertained that your claims about James Jenkins changing his mind about the location of the head wound are fraudulent.

I'll demonstrate what led me to conclude that your James Jenkins claims are fraudulent, as follows:

The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations you make on your website in which you claim that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to you, "that scalp was attached to the bone" in the area marked on the model, and "that there was thereby no blow-out wound" in that area.

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made:

The topic of the discussion was the back of the head autopsy photograph, and James Jenkins was asked to explain from the perspective of the autopsists why the photograph does not depict the gaping back of the head wound that had been described by the Parkland doctors. James Jenkins responded that by the time the work of the pathologists was completed -- and skull fragments had been inserted into the wound -- there remained a "silver dollar" sized hole in the same place as the large avulsive wound in Dr. Robert McClelland's drawing "that still had bone and scalp missing." At this point Jenkins was asked to draw the wound he was describing on the mannequin head, and he did so.

* Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is a lie that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head.

Immediately following that segment on your website is the following in which you claim that James Jenkins next demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," going on to then describe the silver dollar sized hole was "after reconstruction."

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which you have taken your screenshot and upon which you are basing your claims about the statements you allege that James Jenkins made:

Contrary to your claim that Jenkins had went on to describe the silver dollar sized hole, Jenkins had in truth went on to describe the large avulsive wound he saw at the beginning of the autopsy which he described as "an open gaping wound" approximately the "size of a closed fist" similar "to Dr. McClelland's drawing," except a little higher. Jenkins then went on to identify the F-8 autopsy "mystery" photo as being of "the massive cavity" that existed at the beginning of the autopsy. Then Harrison Livingston asked Jenkins to turn around and put his hand on his head to show "where that large hole was," and Jenkins turned his body entirely around in his chair to do so, placing it on the back of his head.

Despite my best efforts with the technology available to me, I was unable to clean this photo up well enough to make it clear that Jenkins was indicating the back of his head, but you should be able to determine that watching it in the video starting at 1:57 ( https://youtu.be/UOtc56ga5Es?si=TLl6IbGw0bWeSKdu&t=117 ), additionally, as a matter of common sense, Jenkins would not have had to twist around in his chair like that if he was just going to touch the frontal part of the top of his head. Dr. McClelland was sitting on the other side of Harrison Livingstone, and Jenkins had referenced Dr. McClelland's drawing for the location of the "open gaping wound."

* Thus, it is a lie that Jenkins was demonstrating the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head."

* And it is a lie that Jenkins was at this point describing the silver dollar sized wound as it existed at the end of the autopsy rather than the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound.

Speer, you can consider your fraudulent misrepresentations that James Jenkins was conned into moving the large avulsive wound to the back of the head by "alterationists" circa 2018 to now be officially dead. That was a con job, and you are now busted.

I can barely believe that I distrusted my own instincts about you and about this to feel reluctant about James Jenkins's credibility and about posting his 2018 skull model wound drawing all the way up until now.

 

And the following is the information about the 1991 Dallas Medical Witness Conference that Speer refused to provide to me (and now we know why )

Link to complete 'JFK Medical Witness Conference Part 1 (April 6th, 1991)'

https://youtu.be/t_FY2loSOZY?si=afF4yPtWK5jusv_s

An extremely rare, but important video discussion between eyewitnesses from Parkland Hospital, where JFK died and Bethesda Naval Hospital, where his autopsy was performed. This was the FIRST and only time these witnesses met each other and discussed their memories. It was filmed on April 6th, 1991, at the Stouffer Hotel in Dallas, Texas. It was hosted by Harrison Livingstone, author of High Treason 2. Which includes a transcript of key moments from this conference, in Chapter 14: https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea0000livi/page/282/mode/2up

 

Here is a very recent additional example of the variety of deception Pat Speer employed in the case of James Jenkins, and in the cases of every other JFK back of the head wound witnesses on this forum, and on his web site.

Speer had to have done this within the last three months, because it was not on his web site the last time I was fact checking his Ed Forum claims.

It is a screenshot of ex-Secret Service Agent Paul Landis responding to a question asking him "where the head wound was located" by placing his hand onto the right rear quadrant of his head, with commentary from Speer advising his readers not to trust their own lying eyes: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19f-reason-to-doubt

Note that Speer is claiming that Landis "is pointing at the right side of the head just above the ear," which is not at all what we see in his screenshot of Landis with his hand clearly outstretched on the back of his own head (Unlike those of Dr. McClelland and James Jenkins, Landis's gesture did not provide Speer with a sufficient opportunity to cherry pick a screenshot of Landis's hand elsewhere). Speer then goes on to write that Landis's hand gesture was "just back of the ear -- which is not the middle of the very back of the head at the level of the ear, where do many prominent "theorists" place the wound."

But it is not true that "so many prominent theorists" place the wound in "the middle of the very back of the head at the level of the ear." The researchers that Speer is constantly railing on against -- Horne, Mantik, Law, Livingstone, etc. -- place the wound consistent with the vast majority of the witness testimony, in the lower right quadrant of the back of the head, just as is demonstrated by the following witness sketches:

The only witness I can think of that places the large avulsive wound in the middle of the back of the head at the level of the ears is mortician Tom Robinson, who is anything but "a prominent theorist," and who, according to Speer, only placed it there because that was where it ended up after skull fragments were inserted and the head was "reconstructed" by the morticians (though in my opinion, Robinson merely misremembered it as being in the middle, rather than on the right side):

Adding insult to injury is that when we view the actual video of Paul Landis which Speer has taken his screenshot from, we see that it is completely unambiguous that Landis is locating the large avulsive wound in the right quadrant of the back of the head and not, as Speer claims in his descriptive commentary, "at the right side of the head just above the ear." In fact, while demonstrating the location with his hand Landis clearly and unequivocally states:

"Not knowing medical terms, right, rear head."

Does Pat Speer believe that all his readers are suckers who will not fact check his claims? Apparently, he does.

 

[Michael Crane]

Hello Keven,

Be sure to check out this video also if you haven't already.