Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30409-what-james-jenkins-actually-said/

I see that on another thread Keven is trying to propagate a myth about what James Jenkins actually said about JFK's large head wound. 

From chapter 19f. 

The earliest record of James Jenkins' recollections is an 8-29-77 HSCA memo written by Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy (ARRB Medical Document 65). This document reflects that the head wound observed by Jenkins resided "in the middle temporal region back to the occipital." While this is a bit confusing, as the temporal bone is on the side of the head, one must realize that Jenkins is quoted as saying "temporal region" and not "temporal bone."

Well, a quick google search demonstrates that the temporal region includes but is not restricted to the temporal bone, and stretches up onto the parietal bone.

Here, then, is a depiction of "the boundaries of the temporal region," found online. The temporal bone itself is in red.

 
 
N9Qa50PCRIkU0K5asBOVtgp0j4gOkvDnnXIDGs9iNIaiW3Q7HR2gnpnv8V_vHHIZ6EtytvF16TcYA_PVqfQv7vvG3a9xHACcMIo5mjnzbo0V4Pqq=w1280
 
 

Well, think  about it. The wound, according to Jenkins, went back to the occipital. This suggests it resided on the right side of the head, presumably the right top side of the head, but did not stretch onto the far back of the head, below the level of the ears. 

On this point, moreover, Jenkins remained consistent. He was next interviewed by author David Lifton on 9-23-79. As recounted in Best Evidence (1980), Jenkins told Lifton that the large head wound was "situated toward the rear" and that "the general way the fragments were distributed--the way scalp with bone attached seemed to have been exploded outward and to the rear" convinced him "that the shot must have come from the front" (Note: these are Lifton's words and are not direct quotes.) Lifton then repeated that Jenkins told him that the large defect "extended toward the rear...with fragments that seemed to be hanging on."

Lifton then quoted Jenkins with a more precise description of the wound's location: “I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head---it was a large gaping area, even though, I think, as we put it back together, most of the skull, the bone itself was there. It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear…I’m laying my hand on the back area of my skull. And my hand is probably five to six inches from the span of my little finger to the tip of my thumb. So if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing.”

Well, this is a bit confusing. Jenkins described a large gaping area, but acknowledged that most of the bone itself was there. It seems probable, then, that when he described a five to six inch area where bone was "missing," Jenkins meant "missing afrter the scalp was reflected," and not "missing before the beginning of the autopsy."

Well, then, what about the gaping hole of missing scalp and bone as first observed? Where, exactly, was that?

In High Treason 2, author Harrison Livingstone reported that he spoke to Jenkins on 10-8-90, and that Jenkins told him “Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area…this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.”

So...okay. It was above the occipital area, and did not overlay the cerebellum. This puts it at the top of the back of the head, presumably on the right side.

And, sure enough, this is where Jenkins placed the wound when asked to show its location in a 1991 video-taped interview with Harrison Livingstone. This is demonstrated below.

 
 
D2rIc5nAy6ERJJx-hC95dxSH25OFo2Mq_f8FyNqLLp7SuA47quBJ0kTERDbIJa85pmr9eID_C00Vuj8xydiEjzbtq6wLrrCXxr_Z2gZZwTAMEeSl=w1280
 
 

When speaking to William Law in 1998, for that matter, Jenkins said much the same thing. When asked to estimate the size of the head wound, Jenkins told Law: "It would be difficult to estimate because a lot of the hair was still attached to the skull fragments--the skull was fragmented. But I would say that if you take your hand and you put the heel of your thumb behind your ear, that would cover the basic part of the wound with the open hole approximately in that area." Law filmed this interview, moreover, and this showed that Jenkins' hand --the location of the "open hole"--was entirely above the highest tip of his ear, on the parietal bone, and not on the back of the head below the highest tip of his ear, the location of the occipital bone, and cerebellum.

Here, then, is Jenkins, as he said "open hole."

 
 
5LKFlprOvfTr3TqryC_zAbZgkvuzkmtO2xw4dkc-HguFL653vVC2gq12NMKUMvez2jgfnOr7XB4NE5BHFkGGXatqiw3LALVp_A3MTHY8HvBtYo-O=w1280
 
 

I, myself, had a chance to discuss this with Jenkins on November 22, 2013. In focus group discussions at the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas he told a group of people, including at one point Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and myself, that a common "misconception is that that there was actually skull missing" on the far back of Kennedy's head. He explained that "the skull was fragmented from here (he pointed to the top of his head) to here (he pointed to the low back of his head), but it was intact." He later re-iterated "All of this back here (he pointed to the back of his head between his ears) was attached" and still later, in a second discussion close to midnight, that "The only thing keeping the skull structure intact was the scalp" and that it all collapsed when they pulled the scalp back.

This last point, as we've seen, and shall see, was supported by the words of Dr. Humes and Jerrol Custer. 

Now, for some, Custer's numerous statements regarding the head wound in the 1990's and Jenkins' supporting statements to Law and others, including myself, would be the end of the blown-out hole low on the back-of-the-head theory. But not for David Mantik. Not only did he turn around and report that Jenkins' recollections didn't jive with the official autopsy photos, but his representation of Jenkins' statements led Doug Horne to post a widely-disseminated post on his blog about Jenkins' supporting his and Mantik's claims the occipital bone was blown out. Horne then used this to support his theory holding that Dr. Humes performed a pre-autopsy on the body to conceal this from the bulk of the witnesses.

It was to my relief, then, that I got a second chance to talk to Jenkins on 11-20 and 11-21-15. He was once again in attendance at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas--this time to help promote a Blu-ray disc put together from a group interview conducted a decade earlier. David Mantik was another participant in this interview. As a consequence, he was on the panel on which Jenkins spoke.

In an effort to avoid a confrontation, then, I talked to Jenkins first, out in the hallway, on 11-20, and then second, after his appearance on a panel the next evening. When I asked him about the location of the large head wound, he once again specified that it was above the occipital bone, and did not involve the cerebellum. When I told him that this was in direct opposition to Dr. Mantik's recently-released e-book, in which he insisted, despite all the evidence, that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the cerebellum was blasted, Jenkins responded with a shrug and said something like "Well, people are gonna believe what they wanna believe." (Not a direct quote) When I then explained to him that Mantik and Horne were trying to shoehorn all the evidence into their jointly-developed theory, and then sell this to the research community, and that their theory holds both that the Harper fragment exploded from the occipital bone, and that Dr. Humes concealed this from the record via pre-autopsy surgery, he looked at me in disbelief, and told me (and others who were listening in, including Matt Douhit) that he was with the body from the moment it was taken from the casket, and that there was no pre-autopsy surgery. I then asked him if he was willing to state for the record that Mantik and Horne's theory was nonsense, and he gave me an uncomfortable look, and finally allowed that "If it happened, it was not in the morgue I was in." (And yes, that is a direct quote.) Spotting a loophole, I then asked him if the body could have been altered in some other room down the hall. He then corrected me, and said there was no other room in which it could have taken place, and that he meant that if it occurred, it would have to have taken place somewhere else entirely.

So there you have it, from the best witness still living...the best evidence available. The Mantik/Horne theory is nonsense.

And TOXIC to the credibility of the JFK research community...

Now it pains me to write this, but it seems clear Jenkins was subsequently convinced to play along with the Mantik/Horne charade. In 2018, he released At the Cold Shoulder of History, a book on his experiences and recollections of the autopsy. For this book, he made some appearances, most notably, an interview with Patrick Bet-David put up on Youtube on 11-22-18. Well, in this video, Jenkins demonstrated just where there was a gaping hole on the skull, and where the skull was fractured but intact. 

And, guess what? He'd flip-flopped from his earlier representations!

Here, see for yourself. About half-way through the video, Jenkins picks up a rubber skull, and says "The wound was here, approximately where my finger is. It was about 3 1/2 inches long and about 2 inches wide. That is where the missing bone was."

 
 
fJxOQaVJvgBfEUtikeiI2ybp3HKWUpLhBOZNqmMjo_eG4a4TUJPKT0hNlMkuthBpXIdNq_kGVuY884SaGvVdjMsXthGERqyiuzXRBowqdo8ex09J=w1280
 
 

Well, yikes, this stretches down into the occipital region--precisely where Jenkins had previously claimed the skull was fractured but intact beneath the scalp.

He then added, while pointing at the following location... "This area was fractured but it wasn't gone--it was still being kept intact by the scalp."

 
 
6O7j1cNiT6uOpF_8mAaz3J7WhoiQvF7w6TH0DyFIY3cGKOVy-BAMHaV2P4chDInIWBuMHeCMQvjFxrBGzSDXXK_rApX08jsDeEHAX5tLFl819I38=w1280
 
 

Well, gulp, this is exactly where Jenkins said there was an "open hole" years earlier.

Now, after viewing this video, I downloaded Jenkins' recently released e-book, At the Cold Shoulder of History, to see if he'd flip-flopped on the head wound location before or after its writing.

I found my answer. Before. Early in the book, Jenkins describes his first impressions of the head wound. He writes: "As Dr. Humes removed the wrappings from the head, the wound gaped open along a laceration that ran forward along the top of the head...The first appearance of the head wound was deceiving..." Well, maybe. But, if so, why did it take Jenkins more than 50 years to see through this deception, and realize the hole was really on the back of the head?

A bit later, Jenkins asserts "The scalp was torn and macerated with fractured bone fragments still clinging to the scalp. The entire area was covered with matted hair and dried blood. This made it difficult to determine the true extent of the wound." He then claims "after the scalp was reflected back from the skull, the wound that had been missing scalp and bone appeared to be more consistent with the shape and dimensions previously described by Dr. McClelland." He then describes: "The wound, missing bone and scalp, was a large gaping wound in the occipital-parietal area of the right posterior side of the head. It looked to be about 2.5 to 3 inches (5 to 7 cm) by 1.5 to 2 inches (3 to 5 cm) in size with a rounded border at the top traveling downward in an elongated rectangular/triangular shape with irregular margins."

Well, my God! Someone--seemingly Jenkins himself--but quite possibly Jenkins under the influence of his co-writer, William Law--has tried to make Jenkins' description of the wound align with the so-called McClelland drawing, and the latter-day descriptions of the wound by Dr. Robert McClelland...but has failed to note that the wound described by Jenkins is far smaller! To wit, the wound described by Jenkins could be as small as 2.5 by 1.5 in (or 3.75 sq in) and as large as 3 by 2 in (or 6 sq in) while, as of 2012, McClelland has taken to claiming the wound missing scalp and bone on the back of the head was 4 by 5 in (20 sq in--3 1/3 to 5 1/3 times as large!)

Now, to be clear, there's some confusion on this point... Jenkins returns to the subject of the wound's size later in his book, and admits "I think it is only fair to say that my given measurements--2.5 to 3 inches (5 to 7 cm) by 1.5 to 2 inches (3 to 5 cm)--of the wound, missing bone and scalp area, are approximations and not measured ones, even though the difference between 3 inches and 5 inches is obvious to most people." Well, this is curious. This reference to "5 inches" might be a reference to McClelland, and his approximation of the wound's size. But I doubt it. In the context of the sentence, it seems far more likely the "3 inches and 5 inches" was supposed to read "3 cm and 5 cm."

In any event, it's clear from the measurements provided by Jenkins that his flip-flop--his movement of the open hole he'd previously described at the top of the head to the far back of the head--was not performed in close coordination with Dr. Mantik and Doug Horne. Horne, after all, proposed that Dr. Humes expanded the size of the head wound observed at Parkland, and that the wound observed at Bethesda by those not in on this clandestine pre-autopsy surgery to the head (including Jenkins) was 4 to 5 times as large as the wound observed at Parkland. And this was nothing new. Long before Horne, Lifton had proposed that the wound seen at Bethesda was more than 4 times as large as the wound seen at Parkland. And yet, here's Jenkins, claiming that the wound he observed at Bethesda was but 1/5 as large as the wound observed by Lifton and Horne's star witness, Dr. Robert McClelland, at Parkland!

So, yeah--EEGADS--the numbers don't lie. The "open hole" described by Jenkins was roughly 1/20 as large as it needed to be to support Lifton and Horne's theories!

Now, I know, for some this is hard to believe. So, here's Horne's theory as summarized by Horne to Dick Russell in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (2008): "Dr.s Humes and Boswell...performed the post-mortem surgery that so drastically altered the head wound--enlarging it to four to five times its original size in an attempt to make it appear more or less consistent with a large exit wound caused by a shot fired from behind. In altering the head wound they not only dramatically expanded the size of the rather localized exit wound in the rear of the head seen in Dallas, to encompass the top of the skull and part of the right side, but also surgically removed from the body evidence of an entry wound in the right front of the head."

Now let's compare this to Jenkins' latter-day claims... 1. He says he was with the body from the beginning and failed to observe any pre-autopsy surgery performed by Humes and Boswell. 2. He says the open hole he saw at the beginning of the official autopsy was small--far smaller, in fact, than the wound currently described by Dr. McClelland. 3. He says he saw a bullet entrance on the right side of the head, and that this was not removed from the "body evidence" by Humes and Boswell, but, instead, briefly studied by Finck and Humes, and then ignored.

In short, then, Jenkins' recollections are thoroughly at odds with what Lifton and Horne have proposed. Central to Lifton and Horne's theories (i.e. JFK body alteration theories in general) is that Kennedy's body was altered before the beginning of the autopsy to disguise the direction of fire on the skull and that a wound on the back of the head was expanded to include the top of the head. Jenkins, however, says that at the beginning of the autopsy there was an exit wound on the back of the head, and that the wound expanded on its own to include the top of the head once the scalp was reflected. And he says as well that an entrance wound was apparent on the right side of the head.

And yet, this divide between the theories of Lifton and Horne, and Jenkins' 2018 recollections, is largely invisible to those prone to swallow the body alteration theory. Jenkins has come to believe the brain he infused at autopsy was not Kennedy's actual brain, and had somehow been switched. And Jenkins has come to disown the bulk of the autopsy photos, and come to suspect they were taken in a morgue other than the one at Bethesda. And that's mighty interesting.

But it does NOT support the theories of Lifton and Horne, which hold that the body was altered before Jenkins first viewed the body, so that the photos would reflect a different shooting scenario than the scenario apparent at Parkland.

The theories are, in fact, mutually exclusive. If Jenkins is to be believed, then Lifton and Horne are wrong. Period. No one manipulated the wounds. Period. While Jenkins supports a whole new possibility--that the autopsy photos are, yessirree, fakes, taken at some other morgue, and presumably involving a different body--this doesn't align with Lifton and Horne's thinking that a diversion of the body to a morgue before its arrival at Bethesda would have been performed to alter the body...to FOOL those at Bethesda...NOT to fake some photos and then restore the wounds to their appearance as currently recalled by Jenkins.

Of course, this doesn't stop Jenkins (and presumably his co-writer William Law) from trying to make his recollections fit into the back-of-the-head scenario pushed by Lifton and Horne et al.

In his book, Jenkins continues: "My given measurements also approximated more closely the diminutions given by Dr. McClelland at Parkland as he observed the wound in the emergency room than those listed in the official report." (Well this is a bit deceptive, seeing as Jenkins admits he believes the size of the wound described in the official report is the size of the wound AFTER the scalp was pulled back, and the brain removed.) The so-called McClelland drawing (which is shown on the Boswell and Johnson slide, above, and the JFK and the Unthinkable slide, below) is then shown the reader, after which Jenkins claims "This closely matches the wound that I saw after the scalp was retracted from the skull. The area shown was the area where both bone and scalp were missing." (Now, this, too, is deceptive. Jenkins has long claimed that fragments of skull stuck to the scalp and/or fell to the table as the scalp was retracted, and that, in any event, the wound changed appearance as the scalp was retracted.) Jenkins then tries to explain how the "McClelland" drawing of the wound (before retraction of the scalp) could match his recollections of the wound (after retraction of the scalp): "While some bone was separated from the scalp as it was being retracted, you could still readily see the true area where there was an absence of bone and scalp." He then admits "My original thought when I first saw this drawing was that the wound appeared to be a little more caudal, toward the neck, and lateral, than the wound seen at autopsy. This may be (mis)perception on my part due to the slightly turned head in the drawing." He then closes "The position of the wound in the drawing correlates well with the wound that I saw at autopsy after the scalp was retracted."

So what happened? Why did Jenkins, after decades of claiming the hole was at the top of the head,  suddenly find it necessary to make his recollections of the large head wound align with the wound as depicted in the "McClelland" drawing? And why didn't anyone tell him that a number of witnesses--including McClelland himself--had long-since acknowledged the inaccuracy of this drawing?

I mean, it doesn't add up. Probably the most interesting part of Jenkins' book is a transcript to a 1993 interview for which he'd been hypnotized. There, 30 years after Kennedy's autopsy, Jenkins described his first impression of the head wound when viewing Kennedy's body as it was laying flat on its back on the table: "From where I am standing...from the top of the head, I don't see any holes or anything. I just see tissue and scalp, actually scalp that looks like it's intact--It's kind of pressed in. Right in front of the ear, back toward the back of the head...Now, they are lifting the body up for--I can see the wound on the side. It's fairly extensive. It's fairly high in the back of the head. Really the gaping starts toward the center, back behind the ear. It's a lot of scalp and tissue. It's being held together by--a lot of the bones were held together by scalp."

Now, this doesn't match up with Jenkins' 2018 description of the wound, now does it? The "fairly high in the back of the head" open hole best viewed from "the side" above an area where the bones were  held together by scalp had become a small hole low on the back of the head not visible from the side below an area where the bones were held together by scalp.

Of course, we already knew this--that Jenkins had pulled a switcheroo--based upon his '91 interview with Livingstone, and '98 interview with Law, and numerous discussions with researchers, including yours truly in 2015.

So...I repeat. What happened? What, or who, happened to Jenkins as he was preparing to write his book?

Well, Jenkins made numerous mentions of a "neurologist friend" in the interview conducted by Bet-David. This "neurologist friend," moreover, had recently been shown the autopsy photos. Well, this could only be Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Mantik's head cheerleader, and the only doctor selected by Jenkins to write a chapter for his book. In his 2018 appearance at the JFK Lancer Conference, for that matter, Jenkins asked Chesser and Mantik to share the stage with him, and confirmed that he'd met Chesser at the 2015 conference, and had engaged in a lot of "back and forth" with Chesser whiie writing his book.

So, yikes, let's refresh. In 2013, James Jenkins came forward at the urging of William Law, and began speaking to the research community. At that time he was insistent the back of the head was intact beneath the scalp--something he had maintained for decades. Nevertheless, David Mantik and Doug Horne pounced on his statements as support for their theory the back of the head was missing when Jenkins first saw the body.  But he puttered on, and continued to claim the back of the head was intact, as late as 2015. He was then befriended by Mantik's number one acolyte, Michael Chesser, and--VOILA--he suddenly started claiming the back of the head was missing when he first saw the body. 

We don't need to connect the dots because they form a straight line....

 

Above can be seen a recent post of Mr. Pat Speer's which he promulgated in response to some of my recent efforts to refute his libelous factual misrepresentations about former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins's historical claims about the JFKA medical evidence, initiating a thread on this forum entitled "What James Jenkins Actually Said" in which he did nothing more but regurgitate the exact same fraudulent information about James Jenkins from his website that I had rebutted. A cursory review of Speer's claims reveals them to be a defamatory attack not only on James Jenkins, but also upon researchers William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser whose work concerning James Jenkins Speer claims is "TOXIC to the credibility of the JFK research community."

I have initiated this thread to conclusively demonstrate that Mr. Speer's claims about James Jenkins (as well as, in the same context, about researchers Law, Horne, Mantik and Chesser) are false, fraudulent and defamatory, and as such, are the claims that are in truth actually "TOXIC to the credibility of the JFK research community."  It is due to the perniciousness of Speer's false and hypocritical claims, as well as their toxicity to the credibility of the research community that this thread is so important, and what motivates me to invest the time and effort required to rebut Speer's claims. I contend that Speer's offenses in this regard are so serious that they justify my demands that Mr. Speer issue public apologies to James Jenkins (as well as researchers Law, Horne, Mantik and Chesser) and to the JFKA research community at large, as well as scrub his website of the defamatory claims, and discontinue disseminating them in the future.

Conclusively rebutting Speer's claims to this effect will require the presentation of a great deal of evidence, so to make same more reader accessible I will break it down into separate posts, individually addressing Speer's claims concerning Jenkins and the HSCA, Jenkins and David Lifton, Jenkins and Harrison Livingstone, Jenkins and William Law and Jenkins and researchers Horne, Mantik and Chesser.

As a brief demonstration of the nature of the fraudulent misrepresentations Mr. Speer has made about James Jenkins, this post will address Speer's deceptive and misleading use of photographic screenshots to hoodwink the research community into believing his false claims below.

______________

Essential to an understanding of the nature of Speer's fraudulent misrepresentations about James Jenkins is that Speer claims that prior to 2015 James Jenkins "was insistent the back of [JFK's] head was intact beneath the scalp" -- or in other words, that the claims of such witnesses as Dr. Robert McClelland and Nurse Audrey Bell that there was a large gaping wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head (as depicted in the medical witness sketches directly below) were false -- and that it was only after Jenkins had been persuaded to change his story by researchers William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser that Jenkins began to claim that there was an open gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region of the back of JFK's head post circa-2015.

DdkmPz0.gif

The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations Speer made on his website in which he claims that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to Speer, "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:

U8EhkmW.png

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

The following is the video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses (hosted by Harrison Livingstone) from which Mr. Speer has taken his screenshot and upon which he based his claims about the statements that he alleged that James Jenkins made ("insisting", according to Speer, "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 topic of the discussion during the segment of the video from which Speer took his screenshot 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, clearly on the back of the mannequin head, but note that the quality of the video is so poor that the drawing cannot be seen.

As Mr. Speer recited above his screenshot, when Harrison Livingstone asked Jenkins to describe the area on the head that "was opened up" when the body came into the morgue for autopsy, Jenkins replied "[y]es, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," but Speer goes on to write "[n]ote that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area."  But that is not at all what Jenkins said! Jenkins said "the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," and Speer has manipulated Jenkins's words into "scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and then concluded that Jenkins meant "that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area," " which is not even remotely similar to anything that Jenkins had said.

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

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

______________

Immediately thereafter on Speer's website is the following in which he claims 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."

BclEVhA.png

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

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which Speer has taken the above screenshot and upon which Speer has based his claims about the statements he alleges that James Jenkins made at that time:

Contrary to Speer's 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 Livingstone 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.

While Speer had claimed that Jenkins had demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," and presented hazy screenshots that appear to support his claim, the truth of the matter is that Jenkins had twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head, but the resolution of the video he took his screenshots from is so poor, that Speer was able to take advantage of the situation and present them as proof Jenkins had placed his hand on the top of his head.

In fact, as can be seen in the following GIF of the relevant segment of the video, it is clear that Jenkins had actually twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head:

fEb2AjF.gif

That this is the case is even clearer when you watch the following video clip of the segment, during which Jenkins says "[t]he whole wound extended basically ... If I place the palm of my hand a little superior anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers. Approximately (while Jenkins moves his hand closer to the rear of his ear) in this area was where the final hole was after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."

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

______________

On his website Mr. Speer presents the following commentary and screenshot from a 1998 interview of James Jenkins researcher William Law videotaped in 1998. Most notably, Speer makes the following representations about the screenshot he has taken from the videotaped interview: "Law filmed this interview, moreover, and this showed that Jenkins' hand -- the location of the "open hole" -- was entirely above the highest tip of his ear, on the parietal bone, and not on the back of the head below the highest tip of the ear, the location of the occipital bone, and cerebellum. Here, then, is Jenkins, as he said "open hole."

Mcsx410.png

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

After making extensive unsuccessful efforts to locate the videotaped interview online, I contacted William Law who told me he did not know of any place on the web where the video might be found, and that he is unable to locate his copy of the video at this time (Law also told me that he was going to contact James Jenkins to see if he wants to comment on this thread).

However, William Law published his own screenshots from the interview in his 2004 book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence  (https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/0965658287), and Law's screenshots demonstrate that Speer has cherry-picked his screenshot from the video, as well as darkened it in a manner that makes it impossible to see that in the screenshot Speer presented James Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingers. The obvious question is why didn't Speer present screenshots of any of the video in which Jenkins obviously has his outstretched hand on the back of his head? And the obvious answer is that it is because Speer is not objectively and fairly presenting evidence, he is pursuing a predetermined agenda, and is willing to mislead and defame witnesses and researchers in the process of doing so.

wowr9qG.png

kKfdJXrh.png

In the forthcoming posts on this thread, I will demonstrate how Mr. Speer's claims about the interviews of James Jenkins by the HSCA, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone and William Law all blatantly contradict the fraudulent claims made about them by Speer.

Edited by Keven Hofeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Keven Hofeling changed the title to WHY PAT SPEER OWES PUBLIC APOLOGIES TO FORMER BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECH JAMES JENKINS AND TO THE JFKA RESEARCH COMMUNITY AT LARGE
  • Replies 660
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Keven,

Thank you for spending the time and effort to research and present the case you are laying out here.

It is important that falsehoods be called out for what they are. It is especially important for respected researchers to be called out because it can otherwise result in serious damage to our cause. I'd hate to be a newbie who followed a researcher for a while only to learn that I'd been believing lies.

We all need to be made aware of people like these.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Keven,

Thank you for spending the time and effort to research and present the case you are laying out here.

It is important that falsehoods be called out for what they are. It is especially important for respected researchers to be called out because it can otherwise result in serious damage to our cause. I'd hate to be a newbie who followed a researcher for a while only to learn that I'd been believing lies.

We all need to be made aware of people like these.

 

Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. 

He is not a supporter of Horne's and I suspect both of your theories, and you should stop pretending he is. 

Here is what he had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue.

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? 

Here's why. 

In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me  years ago and you can check it for yourself. 

We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery as described by Horne took place.

Now note Horne's claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing...

 

  • “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

  • “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

  • “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

  • “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

 

But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted?

 

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding, this quote, Keven Hofeling from his post

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to protest against the use of the word fraudulently, that IMO implies "to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right"

As such, the above is ad hominem, as there is no gain, and nobody is deprived of his legal rights, by what Pat writes.

Using the term fraudlently is way out of order IMO

Pat has a different view and interpretation, that's it, that's how I see it.

Anyway, we have been here before, not?  

Going to cut his wings? Again?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that using the word fraudulent is perhaps overly dramatic I also have suspicions as to Mr Speers approach. Two examples : He repeatedley refers to his own theories as 'where the research community has got to'. This is false. Secondly in an inconsequential post he posited that researchers had made up Hawkeyeworks. That might be true as far as I know. If it isn't then its rather a naughty thing to claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Whilst I agree that using the word fraudulent is perhaps overly dramatic I also have suspicions as to Mr Speers approach. Two examples : He repeatedley refers to his own theories as 'where the research community has got to'. This is false. Secondly in an inconsequential post he posited that researchers had made up Hawkeyeworks. That might be true as far as I know. If it isn't then its rather a naughty thing to claim.

I'm sorry about any confusion. As to your first example, I don't know what you're talking about. As to the second example, I have yessiree disparaged the whole Hawkeyeworks claim as it is made out of smoke. There is simply no evidence the NPIC ever had the original film. And there is no evidence the second generation film sent the NPIC had ever been to Hawkeyeworks. The alteration of the film is all conjecture. Smoke. With the presumed goal of adding a wound to the top of the head to indicate a shot from a different direction. But that's not how Brugioni remembered it, is it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Regarding, this quote, Keven Hofeling from his post

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to protest against the use of the word fraudulently, that IMO implies "to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right"

As such, the above is ad hominem, as there is no gain, and nobody is deprived of his legal rights, by what Pat writes.

Using the term fraudlently is way out of order IMO

Pat has a different view and interpretation, that's it, that's how I see it.

Anyway, we have been here before, not?  

Going to cut his wings? Again?

 

He's obviously using the term so that he doesn't have to say "liar."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. 

 

Notwithstanding Jean Ceulemans' unsurprising pro-Speer bootlicking, Keven has unequivocally proven that Pat is wrong about James Jenkins' position regarding the large wound on the back of JFK's head, and the deceptive means Pat has used to change the meaning of what he said.

Jenkins states right there in the 1991 video that there was a fist-sized wound on the back of the head prior to the mortician reconstructing the head, after which the hole was reduced to about the size of a silver dollar.

What Pat did was cherry-picked some of what Jenkins said, and took it out of context so that it seemed like he was saying that the scalp was intact in the area. For the visuals, Pat cherry-picked frames that were most favorable to his narrative.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Here is what [Jenkins] had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue.

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? 

Here's why. 

In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me  years ago and you can check it for yourself. 

We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery of the kind as described by Horne took place.

Now note Horne's bs claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing...

  • “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

  • “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

  • “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

  • “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted?

 

This is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the large wound on Kennedy's head.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I would like to protest against the use of the word fraudulently, that IMO implies "to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right"

 

fraudulent

(ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt)

adj
1. acting with or having the intent to deceive
2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action
[C15: from Latin fraudulentus deceitful]

 

 

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

As such, the above is ad hominem, as there is no gain, and nobody is deprived of his legal rights, by what Pat writes.

 

Stating a proven fact is not "ad hominem."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I once heard a story about a lawyer type who spent a lot of time and energy trying to dishonour and discredit a person over what was basically a theory. It caused much hilarity.

Edited by Sean Coleman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

I once heard a story about a lawyer type who spent a lot of time and energy trying to dishonour a person over what was basically a theory. It caused much hilarity.

 

Gee Sean,

That sounds a lot like what we have going on here, doesn't it?

But then, the difference is that it was "basically a theory" in your story, whereas it is a proven lie in this story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry about any confusion. As to your first example, I don't know what you're talking about. As to the second example, I have yessiree disparaged the whole Hawkeyeworks claim as it is made out of smoke. There is simply no evidence the NPIC ever had the original film. And there is no evidence the second generation film sent the NPIC had ever been to Hawkeyeworks. The alteration of the film is all conjecture. Smoke. With the presumed goal of adding a wound to the top of the head to indicate a shot from a different direction. But that's not how Brugioni remembered it, is it? 

 

I thought the case for NPIC and conclusion regarding Hawkeyeworks  was rather well-presented. Brugioni, McMahon, multiple briefing boards and destruction of one. Brugioni seems quite credible and describes what is not shown on the current Z film. Those closest to the original Z film like Zapruder and Schwartz say the film looked different from what they remember. The film reeks of alteration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

fraudulent

(ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt)

adj
1. acting with or having the intent to deceive
2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action
[C15: from Latin fraudulentus deceitful]

 

 

 

Stating a proven fact is not "ad hominem."

 

Check the adverb (as used in the text) iso the adjective, there is a difference.

I have my opinion on Pat´s writings, and I do not agree with everyting he writes, but I do agree on a bunch of his chapters.

It´s NOT like you´re with me or against me (that would be childish BS).

So you say I´m bootlicking? Again not ad hominem I assume.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

I thought the case for NPIC and conclusion regarding Hawkeyeworks  was rather well-presented. Brugioni, McMahon, multiple briefing boards and destruction of one. Brugioni seems quite credible and describes what is not shown on the current Z film. Those closest to the original Z film like Zapruder and Schwartz say the film looked different from what they remember. The film reeks of alteration. 

People are just exploiting inconsistencies in memories and pretending these people saw two different things. It would be like your mom's friend saying she thought her bridesmaid's dress was a different color than it is in your mom's wedding photos, and you concluding that your mom must have gotten married twice.

To my understanding, Horne et al, claim 1) Brugioni saw the original unaltered Z-film, and 2) this film was altered to add a large wound to the top of the head.

But if memory serves, Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwldcYcAv4 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. 

He is not a supporter of Horne's and I suspect both of your theories, and you should stop pretending he is. 

Here is what he had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue.

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018):

(Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in the morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell perforrmed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? 

Here's why. 

In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me  years ago and you can check it for yourself. 

We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery as described by Horne took place.

Now note Horne's claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing...

 

  • “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003)

  • “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008)

  • “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039)

  • “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040)

  • “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048)

 

But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted?

 

 

 

Mr. Speer, by failing to even attempt to demonstrate how and why the fraudulent misrepresentations of yours that I point out in fine detail in the post that opened up this thread are incorrect or mistaken, my assertions that you have materially misrepresented the claims about the JFKA medical evidence made by James Jenkins are in essence automatically deemed correct. The rules of civil procedure throughout the United States encapsulate this principle by holding that in motion practice when an allegation is not addressed by a responsive pleading, that allegation is deemed "admitted" by operation of law. Though true that the posts made in this forum are not exactly the same as judicial motion practice, the principle is the same: Were there any defenses to the allegations I made in my initial post about your fraudulent misrepresentations about the JFKA medical evidence testimonial representations of James Jenkins, you surely would have presented them in your responsive post.

But you presented no defenses because you have none. Your factual representations about the medical evidence testimony of James Jenkins are unable to survive intensive scrutiny, which you have admitted by failing to defend them. You have not even attempted to defend those claims because you have no excuse for your fraudulent misrepresentations.

The closest you have come to mounting any kind of defense was by making the threadbare conclusory assertion that "Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed." But what you are really doing is attempting to defend your fraudulent material misrepresentations by merely restating the fraudulent material misrepresentations themselves, which is completely unresponsive, and amounts to nothing more than you doubling down on those fraudulent misrepresentations.

Therefore, I wish to provide you with another opportunity to respond to my factual allegations by presenting them to you yet again as follows:

______________

Essential to an understanding of the nature of Speer's fraudulent misrepresentations about James Jenkins is that Speer claims that prior to 2015 James Jenkins "was insistent the back of [JFK's] head was intact beneath the scalp" -- or in other words, that the claims of such witnesses as Dr. Robert McClelland and Nurse Audrey Bell that there was a large gaping wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head (as depicted in the medical witness sketches directly below) were false -- and that it was only after Jenkins had been persuaded to change his story by researchers William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser that Jenkins began to claim that there was an open gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region of the back of JFK's head post circa-2015.

DdkmPz0.gif

The following is a screenshot of fraudulent misrepresentations Speer made on his website in which he claims that James Jenkins was handed a "mannequin head marked on the low back of the head" with which he disagreed by "insisting", according to Speer, "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:

U8EhkmW.png

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

The following is the video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses (hosted by Harrison Livingstone) from which Mr. Speer has taken his screenshot and upon which he based his claims about the statements that he alleged that James Jenkins made ("insisting", according to Speer, "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 topic of the discussion during the segment of the video from which Speer took his screenshot 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, clearly on the back of the mannequin head, but note that the quality of the video is so poor that the drawing cannot be seen.

As Mr. Speer recited above his screenshot, when Harrison Livingstone asked Jenkins to describe the area on the head that "was opened up" when the body came into the morgue for autopsy, Jenkins replied "[y]es, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," but Speer goes on to write "[n]ote that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area."  But that is not at all what Jenkins said! Jenkins said "the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area," and Speer has manipulated Jenkins's words into "scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and then concluded that Jenkins meant "that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area," " which is not even remotely similar to anything that Jenkins had said.

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

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

______________

Immediately thereafter on Speer's website is the following in which he claims 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."

BclEVhA.png

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

The following is a video of the segment of the 1991 Dallas Conference of Medical Witnesses from which Speer has taken the above screenshot and upon which Speer has based his claims about the statements he alleges that James Jenkins made at that time:

Contrary to Speer's 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 Livingstone 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.

While Speer had claimed that Jenkins had demonstrated the location of the large avulsive head wound by placing his hand "on the top right side of his head," and presented hazy screenshots that appear to support his claim, the truth of the matter is that Jenkins had twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head, but the resolution of the video he took his screenshots from is so poor, that Speer was able to take advantage of the situation and present them as proof Jenkins had placed his hand on the top of his head.

In fact, as can be seen in the following GIF of the relevant segment of the video, it is clear that Jenkins had actually twisted his upper body, faced Harrison Livingstone (who was sitting next to him), and placed his hand on the right side of the back of his head:

fEb2AjF.gif

That this is the case is even clearer when you watch the following video clip of the segment, during which Jenkins says "[t]he whole wound extended basically ... If I place the palm of my hand a little superior anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers. Approximately (while Jenkins moves his hand closer to the rear of his ear) in this area was where the final hole was after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."

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

______________

On his website Mr. Speer presents the following commentary and screenshot from a 1998 interview of James Jenkins researcher William Law videotaped in 1998. Most notably, Speer makes the following representations about the screenshot he has taken from the videotaped interview: "Law filmed this interview, moreover, and this showed that Jenkins' hand -- the location of the "open hole" -- was entirely above the highest tip of his ear, on the parietal bone, and not on the back of the head below the highest tip of the ear, the location of the occipital bone, and cerebellum. Here, then, is Jenkins, as he said "open hole."

Mcsx410.png

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

After making extensive unsuccessful efforts to locate the videotaped interview online, I contacted William Law who told me he did not know of any place on the web where the video might be found, and that he is unable to locate his copy of the video at this time (Law also told me that he was going to contact James Jenkins to see if he wants to comment on this thread).

However, William Law published his own screenshots from the interview in his 2004 book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence  (https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/0965658287), and Law's screenshots demonstrate that Speer has cherry-picked his screenshot from the video, as well as darkened it in a manner that makes it impossible to see that in the screenshot Speer presented James Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingers. The obvious question is why didn't Speer present screenshots of any of the video in which Jenkins obviously has his outstretched hand on the back of his head? And the obvious answer is that it is because Speer is not objectively and fairly presenting evidence, he is pursuing a predetermined agenda, and is willing to mislead and defame witnesses and researchers in the process of doing so.

wowr9qG.png

kKfdJXrh.png

In the forthcoming posts on this thread, I will demonstrate how Mr. Speer's claims about the interviews of James Jenkins by the HSCA, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone and William Law all blatantly contradict the fraudulent claims made about them by Speer.

 

Edited by Keven Hofeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...