Pat Speer Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: I think that there is remarkable similarity between the occipital-parietal wound that Dr. Robert McClelland drew with his own hand on TMWKK in 1988 and the occipital-parietal wound that James Jenkins drew on a skull model in 2018, as follows: And in the following from the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference, James Jenkins tells us that the wound was like Dr. McClelland's drawing (the one in Six Seconds in Dallas), but a little higher: Thanks, Keven. Can we be civil, then, and acknowledge that Jenkins' recollections are a clear challenge to Horne's theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: BTW Pat, Jenkins didn't change the size of the wound. The McClelland-sized wound is what he saw when the head was first unwrapped. Later the morticians put the head back together again, used that rubber dam in the back to stop fluid leakage, and stretched the scalp as much as they could to cover the rubber dam. That left a remaining hole that Jenkins said was the size of a silver dollar. I can easily prove that what I'm saying is true. Both the large and the small hole description are in that 1991 Livingstone video which I partially transcribed. And both are in his 2018 book. I think you are correct in that the size of the hole as first observed, as recalled by Jenkins, was a fist, or slightly smaller, and that his recollection of the size of the wound did not vary as much as his recollection of the location of the wound. On page 93 of In the Eye of History, Jenkins shows Law the size of the hole in the skull as first observed (as opposed to the size of the hole after the scalp was peeled back and shattered skull fell to the table--which we can only assume is what he was showing in the HSCA drawing.) In the book Law described the wound size as depicted by Jenkins' fingers as "an area of about two and a half inches in diameter." I found this part of the interview on a DVD. Here it is. Edited June 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 OK, let us try a change up for something different. OK Pat follow through on Jenkins vs Horne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: OK, let us try a change up for something different. OK Pat follow through on Jenkins vs Horne. I'm not sure what you mean... Are you asking me to start a thread showing all the ways Jenkins' recollections are at odds with Horne's theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted June 9 Author Share Posted June 9 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: Thanks, Keven. Can we be civil, then, and acknowledge that Jenkins' recollections are a clear challenge to Horne's theory? I disagree with the suppressed premise of your statement: That disputing your demonstrably false factual claims and mischaracterizations is uncivil. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by Doug Horne's "theory." Would you please kindly elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Why are threads like this permitted to exist? How does it not construe stalking and harassment of forum member Pat Speer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Anyone who thinks that Duncan's forum, or the late ROKC, is equal to this one has no credibility in asking the above question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Getting back to Pat and my question about Horne. Pat brings up the fact that Horne wants Jenkins out of the morgue for about 90 minutes. I think Pat's idea and Mr. Jenkins' is that he needs this for his pre autopsy surgery to take place. And he wants Jenkins out since he saw no such thing even though he was there. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted June 9 Author Share Posted June 9 (edited) 7 hours ago, Pat Speer said: WOW. I'm sorry Sandy but I think I'm gonna have to start ignoring your posts. You're not following the discussion so to speak and are just venting about how you don't trust me. Fine. But the image you say I cherry-picked comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed...that was put up on this website by Keven to challenge a screen grab I'd made from this video from a split-second earlier, where the hand was in a slightly different location. IOW, the image you say I posted to deceive you is one Keven posted to claim I was being deceptive. It is Keven's evidence so to speak, not mine. But I am glad he posted it because it proved my point...which apparently you now concede. So... from my perspective you suspended me for claiming Jenkins pointed to the top of his head when describing the wound location, and for claiming Keven's posts had verified as much. And now, with this post, you have shown I was correct. You have conceded my point. Thanks, I think. Pat Speer wrote: Quote WOW. I'm sorry Sandy but I think I'm gonna have to start ignoring your posts. You're not following the discussion so to speak and are just venting about how you don't trust me. Fine. But the image you say I cherry-picked comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed...that was put up on this website by Keven to challenge a screen grab I'd made from this video from a split-second earlier, where the hand was in a slightly different location. You state that the following screenshot which you darkened and presented on your website as showing James Jenkins pointing to a HOLE on the TOP of JFK's "comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed": The following are the series of images in William Law's book from which you selected the particular screenshot that you darkened (evidently to obscure that Jenkins is actually touching the top of the back of his head) and put on your website: When looking at this series of photos the question that came immediately to mind is whether the captions were carefully selected to accompany each picture, so I asked William Law that question and he told me that it was not him but the editor of his book who paired the photos with the captions. The following are my questions to William Law as well as his answers: So while you are heavily relying upon the notion that William Law carefully paired the "open hole" caption with the photo in which Jenkins is placing his fingers on the upper part of the back of his head, the truth is we don't even know if the photos and the captions are precisely paired or are even in the correct order, and we don't know whether Law's editor had a good working knowledge of the issues in order to pair them correctly. What we do know is that Jenkins when demonstrating the location of what he calls the "OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL wound" moves his hand all around the area, and that renders these photographs as being taken somewhat randomly, and even William Law states that in the photo you have seized upon for your top of the head theory, Jenkins is "CLEARLY" touching the back of his head. And what does James Jenkins himself think of your interpretation of the photo? James Jenkins said it is so "ludicrous" it doesn't even deserve a comment. Pat Spear wrote: Quote IOW, the image you say I posted to deceive you is one Keven posted to claim I was being deceptive. It is Keven's evidence so to speak, not mine. But I am glad he posted it because it proved my point...which apparently you now concede. So... from my perspective you suspended me for claiming Jenkins pointed to the top of his head when describing the wound location, and for claiming Keven's posts had verified as much. And now, with this post, you have shown I was correct. You have conceded my point. Thanks, I think. NO, the photo and associated caption DOES NOT prove your point. Nobody thinks that but you, and even more importantly, William Law and James Jenkins say that you are wrong. And that can easily be demonstrated with the following video and GIF of James Jenkins demonstrating where the hole in JFK's head was when he was directly asked this very question (and NOTE that when he demonstrates the location of the hole he specifically says "it was mostly parietal-occipital"😞 Now, Mr. Speer, does this look like James Jenkins is demonstrating a hole on the TOP of JFK's head? And no, this isn't the result of Jenkins changing his story. You've made up the "changing his story" allegation out of whole cloth for which you owe James Jenkins, William Law, and the JFKA research community at large a public apology. Here is James Jenkins in 1998 demonstrating the occipital-parietal wound in exactly the same way: And Mr. Speer, we are still waiting for you to produce just one quote or other piece of evidence from James Jenkins showing that he has ever once claimed that there was a HOLE in the top of JFK's head. Just ONE, Mr. Speer, can you produce that? Edited June 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: Getting back to Pat and my question about Horne. Pat brings up the fact that Horne wants Jenkins out of the morgue for about 90 minutes. I think Pat's idea and Mr. Jenkins' is that he needs this for his pre autopsy surgery to take place. And he wants Jenkins out since he saw no such thing even though he was there. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. I knew that Jenkins said he was there the whole time and Horne claimed he was not, but failed to realize to what efforts Horne went to conceal this from his readers until this was brought to my attention by Matt Douthit, 8 years ago or so. So I was primed to spot Horne's misrepresentations of Jenkins' statements and was horrified to see Horne claim Jenkins saw a hole high on JFK's forehead, while interviewed for JFK: What the Doctors Saw. Here is Horne pointing out the location of a wound he claims was observed by Jenkins...when Jenkins actually claimed he saw no such thing, and described a gray smear by the ear which he took to be an entrance... Now, I now suspect this was just a brain fart by Horne. His theory, after all, holds that Jenkins saw the body AFTER this bullet hole had somehow been obscured by Humes. In fact, I took a quick look at your book while trying to make sense of this, and saw that Oliver was also puzzled by Horne's claim Humes cut a bullet hole off the head without leaving a noticeable hole, on the x-rays or on the body. Now, one might jump to "Well, the hole was on the frontal bone removed by Humes." But the location Horne is pointing to above is not where frontal bone is missing on the x-rays. And let's not forget that Chesser claims he can see this bullet hole on the x-rays. So the whole thing is weird, IMO. And I think this is because people we've assumed were painting a coherent picture are in fact all over the map. Heck, a few years back Sandy and I were discussing this stuff and Sandy wrote Mantik and Mantik told him the frontal bone was not removed by Humes but was blown off the skull during the shooting, and that this wasn't noticed at Parkland because the scalp drooped over the hole. Now, this is in direct conflict with Horne's theory which holds there was no defect beyond a few bullet holes on the front half of the skull prior to Humes making this defect in top secret surgery that James Jenkins failed to notice even though it was right under his nose. It's a mess. And I've been looking through Mantik's new book to see if he straightens it all out but I'm afraid he's only made it worse. While Horne (and I believe Mantik) used to claim the forehead bullet exited from the left side of the back of the skull, and left beveling on the so-called mystery photo, he is now claiming this bullet did not exit. And while Mantik only recently told Sandy the frontal bone was dislodged during the shooting (apparently from the bullet creating the EOP entrance), he is now claiming the EOP bullet did not exit (if I am understanding him correctly.) In fact I think he may be hinting it was a fragment wound from a bullet striking the street or some such thing. I don't know. But it seems clear to me that Sandy and Keven have attacked me over and over and over again to silence the criticisms I have of Mantik and Horne's theories. Because to be honest, I don't really care if people believe what I've come to believe...I'm either correct or I'm not...and time will hopefully tell. But I do care that people are being deceived by Horne, and that some are treating his deceptions as revelations. From chapter 19g: One of the first to interview Jenkins was author Harrison Livingstone. Well, In his 1992 book High Treason 2, Livingstone described Jenkins' actions or quoted him directly as follows... “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain John H. Stover told him to go eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 132) “As soon as they told us classes were cancelled, I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at 3:30.” (Page 133) “I was in the morgue all night long.” (Page 225) “I was there all of the time. The only time I was away from the table was probably five or ten minutes when I was told to get a sandwich. But I did not leave the room.” (Page 227) “Stover was the one who finally told me to go and get something to eat. I walked behind him to the three little rooms just back there, got a sandwich, took a couple of bites, and went back to the table.” (Page 228) “Jenkins was not allowed to leave the room, except once when Captain Stover told him to eat his lunch. He was only gone a few moments. He said it had to be after 3:30 P.M.” (Page 231) “As soon as they told us classes were canceled, the duty people were told to report to the morgue. I was never allowed to leave. I think that was at three-thirty.” (Page 232) “Jenkins said that he and Paul were told to go to the morgue at three-thirty to four P.M. Jenkins was not allowed to leave the morgue. “Paul was a kind of courier. He always had an escort, and was in and out the morgue.” (Page 238) “Jenkins told me that no one had access to the body in the morgue that night, or in the cold room.” (Page 247) “Jenkins insisted to me that he never once left the morgue from about three-thirty or four in the afternoon until nine A.M. the following morning.” (Page 249) Now Livingstone also interviewed Jenkins' friend and co-worker, Paul O'Connor, and quoted him as follows... “Jenkins was in there full-time.” (Page 276) And this wasn't a one-time thing. When interviewed by William Law years later, Jenkins said something similar. Law: Were you asked not to leave the morgue? Jenkins: I did not leave the morgue...We were not allowed to leave. Now, as stated, this is TOXIC to Horne's theory, which holds that Dr.s Humes and Boswell performed post-mortem surgery on Kennedy's cadaver in the very morgue where Jenkins worked,. So Horne needed to convince his readers that Jenkins, whose credentials among the research community had already been established, was in and out of the morgue that night and failed to see what Humes and Boswell were up to. Here's Horne in his Magnum Opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: “...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) Now, it should come as no surprise that Horne's persistent lies about Jenkins did not stop with his book. On 11-26-13, he blogged about Jenkins, saying: "I have concluded that it was during this 85-minute interregnum—a period of almost an hour and a half—that the clandestine surgery took place. O’Connor and Jenkins were clearly excluded from the morgue at the time, otherwise they would also remember the modified “skull cap” performed by Humes, just as Robinson and Reed did...“ He then concluded: "James Jenkins and Paul O’Connor were not in the morgue, before 8:00 PM.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Doug Horne has done a lot of good work on this case. He was kind of retired, and did not even want anyone giving out his phone and address when we got in contact with him for JFK Revisited. I think the success of that film, plus his contributions, kind of got him up and about again. I think I was one of the very few--like with Bugliosi-- to read his whole book. I gave it a decidedly mixed review. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb The other thing is, since he is so wedded to this pre autopsy surgery, he insisted that the Boyajian Report was the sine qua non for it. Oliver asked me about using it. I said, no we should not. And I gave the same reasons as I did in my review of the latest Kilgallen book, since Sara Jordan used it, as the author of Under Cover of Night did. It was not signed, no detail member ever signed it, it does not specify Kennedy's casket, and Roger B barely remembered it under questioning. So how can you make that a keystone? So we did not. I like Doug personally and, like I said, he has done some good work, but I think his devotion to Lifton made him overreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Doug Horne has done a lot of good work on this case. He was kind of retired, and did not even want anyone giving out his phone and address when we got in contact with him for JFK Revisited. I think the success of that film, plus his contributions, kind of got him up and about again. I think I was one of the very few--like with Bugliosi-- to read his whole book. I gave it a decidedly mixed review. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb The other thing is, since he is so wedded to this pre autopsy surgery, he insisted that the Boyajian Report was the sine qua non for it. Oliver asked me about using it. I said, no we should not. And I gave the same reasons as I did in my review of the latest Kilgallen book, since Sara Jordan used it, as the author of Under Cover of Night did. It was not signed, no detail member ever signed it, it does not specify Kennedy's casket, and Roger B barely remembered it under questioning. So how can you make that a keystone? So we did not. I like Doug personally and, like I said, he has done some good work, but I think his devotion to Lifton made him overreach. Thanks, Jim, for that input. I have been on the fence and back and forth for years about the nature of lying--of whether people mis-representing facts and photos to support their theories are conscious of what they are doing. I really grapple with this. Because it's clear to me there's been much of this on both sides of the conspiracy/no conspiracy divide. I spotted another problematic claim by Horne just yesterday. In presenting a new timeline in 2010 he wrote "Tom Robinson witnesses the President's body removed from the morgue and is told that the autopsy is "being moved" to another location temporarily. His agitation about this was recalled to the HSCA staff 14 years later, in 1977, when he told them that "the body was taken" and that "the body never came." Now I didn't remember Robinson's claiming as much so I went back and read his HSCA testimony, and found this... So Horne had cherry-picked Robinson's words--what he'd claimed was incorrect--and presented them as Robinson's recollections. Should the likes of Posner or Bugliosi have done this, we would have screamed and written articles about it. But we're supposed to look the other way because Horne is on Team Conspiracy Theorist. Well, I am a conspiracy theorist, and the conspiracy theory I've recently been sucked into is the conspiracy theory we've been played for chumps. Edited June 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 (edited) On 6/8/2024 at 1:51 AM, Denise Hazelwood said: You're right about my interpretation of the (2nd) photo being mis-matched to the full text of the sentence from which the caption was taken. I went back to look at the William Matson Law book In the Eye of History and the James Jenkins’ + William Mason Law book At the Cold Shoulder of History. I may have been mistaken about what the 2nd photograph apparently shows, but in the text, Jenkins described two head wounds (an “entrance”--actually, my AR-15 exit--above the right ear, and a “blow-out” exit at the back of the head), plus the shallow back wound. He didn't see the EOP entrance below his blow-out, but admitted that it might have been present. He also apparently didn't see the forehead wound that Dr. Charles Crenshaw described. So here is my “deep dive” into Jenkins' statements and the current debate… I think the root of the Jenkins debate in this thread are some apparent differences between the pictures that William Matson Law published in his book In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence, and the text of what Jenkins described. Here is a scan of those pictures published by Law and their captions (my apologies for the quality, but I scanned these from my iPhone Kindle version of the book by placing my phone on my scanner). — In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by William Matson Law I think these pictures are somewhat problematic for two reasons: 1) Jenkins is being photographed from the front, even though he is indicating the back of his head, thus making the pictures somewhat difficult to interpret; and 2) Jenkins is apparently placing his wounds by feel, not by looking at his hand placement, whereas at the autopsy, his input was visual. I think a kinesthetic rather than visual processing difference might account for some minor wound misplacement, as his pictoral placements don’t completely match his words. Here is the text from which the picture captions apparently derive, and my comments: Pictures 1 and 2: In the text sentence, it is not entirely clear if Jenkins is describing one single wound, or two separate wounds, so it is entirely possible that pictures 1 and 2 are actually placing the same wound. In Picture 1, Jenkins is putting “the heel of (his) thumb behind (his) ear.” The blow-out wound location was behind the ear. I think that if Jenkins’ head was turned to the left in the photo, we would see his hand better, and it would more clearly show his wound placement. In Picture 2, if Jenkins had been photographed from the rear or from the right side, the picture would probably be clearer. From the text, Jenkins might possibly be describing to be describing a smaller hole within an area of skull fractures and pieces that were clinging to the scalp, that when laid across the larger skull along with other pieces of skull brought in during the autopsy, left only a smaller hole. However, Picture 2 seems to indicate an area above, or at least at the top of, the larger hole of picture 1. It may also be that Picture 1 was meant to represent both “the basic part of the wound” and “the open hole” as the entire text sentence implies. I don't think Law took his pictures of Jenkins while the interview was taking place, but probably afterward Law asked Jenkins to go back after the interview was over, so that he could take pictures of wound locations, asking "Where was the basic part of the wound?" and "Where was the open hole?" and Jenkins interpreted "open hole" (out of context of the complete sentence) to be his "above the ear entrance," which is how I interpreted Picture 2, albeit placing his "entrance" somewhat too high, due to the kinesthetic/visual difference, and the fact that the text is describing "back" of the head blow-out while the photos are from the front. That's why Hofeling's post of the YouTube videos of Jenkins indicating the back-of-the-head blow-out wound--as well as the postings of the Robinson diagram with its triangle wound location (matching Jenkins' above-the-ear "entrance" wound), and and Zediker skull model marked by Jenkins showing both the back of the head blow-out and above-the-ear-"entrance" wound--are so important. Picture 3: The full text from which Picture 3's caption comes is this: From the text, Picture 3 is essentially a repeat of the same area as Picture 1 (as picture 2 might or might not be), indicating the same blow-out area. Again, we are given a picture taken from the front, while the text says “touching the back of his head above his right ear.” That text is confusing because “above the right ear” is the side of the head, not the “back.” However, Jenkins is probably trying to indicate a height location when he says "above the ear" rather than an actual “above the ear” location for his blow-out exit. Confusingly, “above the ear” is also Jenkins’ entrance at “the right side of the head,” as other text from the Law book shows. Again, the perspective of the picture is confusing, describing the back of the head while showing a picture taken from the front. And again, there may be some kinesthetic vs. visual confusion on Jenkins’ part. Notice also that in the text excerpt, Jenkins is describing 3 wounds: 1) a bullet that entered the right side of the head, 2) an exit at the back of the head above the level of the ear (the blow-out), and 3) the shallow back wound. What is missing from the collection of Law’s pictures of Jenkins is Jenkins’ “right side of the head” entrance. Herein lies my own potential misinterpretation of Picture 2, which I had originally assumed was his “right side” and “above the ear” entrance at the side of the head (rather than the hole remaining within the blow-out of the fragments that clung to the scalp, etc.) In the excerpt from the Law book below, Jenkins places the entrance for his "behind the ear" blow-out exit at “right side of the head just above the ear, a little forward.” Above the ear and “a little forward” for Jenkins’ entrance is somewhat confusing, given that “above the ear” at the backof the head is his exit hole. It’s also important to note that Jenkins never saw the EOP entrance described by the autopsy doctors, but qualifies that it might have been there, but he just didn’t happen to see it. So here are various relevant excerpts from Law's In the Eye of History and the Law + Jenkins’ book At the Cold Shoulder of History: 1) Describing Jenkins’ “above the ear” “entrance” (Denise: my AR-15 exit😞 Note, Jenkins’ “above the ear entrance” appears to be the same wound as FBI Agent Francis O’Neill’s above the ear exit. See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm, although Jenkins describes the wound as “a little forward” of above the ear. From In the Eye of History: From At the Cold Shoulder of History: From At the Cold Shoulder of History (Dr. Michael Chesser’s chapter): 2) Describing Jenkins’ “back of the head” blow-out: From In the Eye of History: From At the Cold Shoulder of History: 3) Related to autopsy photo alteration: From In the Eye of History : From At the Cold Shoulder of History : I hope this helps! -Denise Wow! You definitely did some heavy lifting writing this post. Very impressive analysis of the photos of James Jenkins from the videotaped interview, three screenshots of which appear in William Matson Law's book, which you have analyzed in depth. The following is from a post in another thread which I believe to be relevant to the analysis of those photographs, so I republish same for you as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30511-why-does-james-jenkins-say-the-gaping-wound-was-on-the-back-of-the-head-to-everybody-except-for-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=538293 Pat Speer wrote: Quote WOW. I'm sorry Sandy but I think I'm gonna have to start ignoring your posts. You're not following the discussion so to speak and are just venting about how you don't trust me. Fine. But the image you say I cherry-picked comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed...that was put up on this website by Keven to challenge a screen grab I'd made from this video from a split-second earlier, where the hand was in a slightly different location. You've stated that the following screenshot which you darkened and presented on your website as showing James Jenkins pointing to a HOLE on the TOP of JFK's "comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed": The following are the series of images in William Law's book from which you selected the particular screenshot that you darkened (evidently to obscure that Jenkins is actually touching the top of the back of his head) and put on your website: When looking at this series of photos the question that came immediately to mind is whether the captions were carefully selected to accompany each picture, so I asked William Law that question and he told me that it was not him but the editor of his book who paired the photos with the captions. The following are my questions to William Law as well as his answers: So while you are heavily relying upon the notion that William Law carefully paired the "open hole" caption with the photo in which Jenkins is placing his fingers on the upper part of the back of his head, the truth is we don't even know if the photos and the captions are precisely paired or are even in the correct order, and we don't know whether Law's editor had a good working knowledge of the issues in order to pair them correctly. What we do know is that Jenkins when demonstrating the location of what he calls the "OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL wound" moves his hand all around the area, and that renders these photographs as being taken somewhat randomly, and even William Law states that in the photo you have seized upon for your top of the head theory, Jenkins is "CLEARLY" touching the back of his head. And what does James Jenkins himself think of your interpretation of the photo? James Jenkins said it is so "ludicrous" it doesn't even deserve a comment. Pat Spear wrote: Quote IOW, the image you say I posted to deceive you is one Keven posted to claim I was being deceptive. It is Keven's evidence so to speak, not mine. But I am glad he posted it because it proved my point...which apparently you now concede. So... from my perspective you suspended me for claiming Jenkins pointed to the top of his head when describing the wound location, and for claiming Keven's posts had verified as much. And now, with this post, you have shown I was correct. You have conceded my point. Thanks, I think. NO, the photo and associated caption DOES NOT prove your point. Nobody thinks that but you, and even more importantly, William Law and James Jenkins say that you are wrong. And that can easily be demonstrated with the following video and GIF of James Jenkins demonstrating where the hole in JFK's head was when he was directly asked this very question (and NOTE that when he demonstrates the location of the hole he specifically says "it was mostly parietal-occipital": Now, Mr. Speer, does this look like James Jenkins is demonstrating a hole on the TOP of JFK's head? And no, this isn't the result of Jenkins changing his story. You've made up the "changing his story" allegation out of whole cloth for which you owe James Jenkins, William Law, and the JFKA research community at large a public apology. Here is James Jenkins in 1998 demonstrating the occipital-parietal wound in exactly the same way: And Mr. Speer, we are still waiting for you to produce just one quote or other piece of evidence from James Jenkins showing that he has ever once claimed that there was a HOLE in the top of JFK's head. Just ONE, Mr. Speer, can you produce that? Edited June 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) On 6/2/2024 at 8:25 AM, Keven Hofeling said: @Sandy Larsen @Greg Doudna @Jean Ceulemans @Pat Speer The following is a history of Pat Speer's posts about James Jenkins on the Education Forum spanning the last fourteen years which demonstrates both that Speer has relentlessly made false representations on this forum about the historical claims of James Jenkins concerning the JFKA medical evidence, and has repeatedly, mercilessly and falsely accused James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. I had promised several forum members that I would substantiate my claims with this, so here it is... The added emphasis to Mr. Speer's posts was added by me in bold black. And my commentary is in bold red. 1-15-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15238-why-tink-and-i-love-jim-and-jack/?do=findComment&comment=179038 ...BTW, Humes and Boswell would not do this themselves; they'd have an assistant or "diener" do it. In this case, I believe it would have been Jenkins, who, as I recall, told either Lifton or Livingstone that he had indeed washed Kennedy's hair. Pat Speer began commenting about James Jenkins on the EdForum in 2010, in this case claiming that Jenkins had told David Lifton or Harrison Livingstone that he had washed JFK's hair; something that I have been unable to find in Lifton and Livingstone's chapters devoted to Jenkins. In fact, Jenkins specifically told William Law that the hair wasn't washed (Is Spear telling "the hair was washed tale to attempt to explain why the hair in the back of the head autopsy photograph looks washed instead of bloody?). Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 238). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 8-12-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16388-clint-hill/?do=findComment&comment=201324 ...From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:... ...Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple…. In his earliest comments about James Jenkins, Speer seemed to be in agreement with Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple. ___________ 10-08-2010 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16717-eye-hand-witnesses-to-the-back-of-jfks-head-wound/?do=findComment&comment=208136 ...Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so. Speer again makes the claim that James Jenkins washed JFK's hair at the autopsy. ___________ 1-14-2012 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18602-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/?do=findComment&comment=243833 Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up... OfABCsandxrays.jpg When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location. Speer again asserting Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple(something about which in later years Speer will take the opposite position in the context of questioning Jenkins's credibility). ___________ 8-17-2012 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19338-lifton-and-morningstar-nice-but-no-cigar/?do=findComment&comment=258504 Oh pleez is right. You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last. If someone says something that is inconsistent with what someone else said, or with photographic evidence, and this is made known to them, they should be given the chance to either withdraw their original statement, or double down. In this case, all the key Parkland witnesses either withdrew their original statements, or tried to find some middle ground whereby their statements could be consistent with the photographic evidence. Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered). And yet many CTs are not aware of this. Why? Because a certain element tries to shout anyone down who tries to point out the simple fact that, thanks largely to your efforts, the key Parkland witnesses were indeed given a chance to clarify the record...and did so...by admitting they were wrong.... This isn't about James Jenkins, but I couldn't resist including it because of the degree of its absurdity (it is axiomatic in the law that the earliest statements carry the most probative value and evidentiary weight), and because it demonstrates how Speer's bias motivates him to take absurd positions... ___________ 12-9-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282451 I was present at both of the focus groups led by Jenkins, and asked Jenkins a number of questions. It was the equivalent of having a two-hour plus talk with him. And one thing was clear: he was telling the truth as he knew it and had no agenda. Sure, his recollections helped fuel some long-held conspiracy beliefs. As I recall, some of his recollections regarding the casket etc, supported Lifton's theories. But you can't say he supported Z-film alteration and autopsy photo alteration etc, when his main point--the point he repeated over and over again--was that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT. He, in fact, defended the authenticity of the photos and x-rays by repeating--over and over again to make sure those in the audience understood what he was saying--that the back of the head was smashed but intact, and fell to pieces when they peeled the scalp back. Jenkins is not a back of the head witness, nor an alterationist, and trying to claim him as one is just desperate. P.S. Jenkins' observation about the brain and skull was not supportive of the wound's being a large blow-out, but of it's being a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, precisely as I've been claiming for years. A transcript of the presentation given by James Jenkins and William Law at the "November in Dallas" 'JFK Lancer Conference' at the Adolphus Hotel on Friday, November 22, 2013 does not support the claims Mr. Speer made in the above post, namely that Jenkins had "repeated over and over again...that the back of the head WAS NOT BLOWN OUT," and that Jenkins had repeated "over and over again...that the back of the head was smashed but intact." What the transcript of the presentation itself indicates is that Jenkins referenced the head wounds as follows: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 Speer says that he heard Jenkins make these statements in "both of the focus groups led by Jenkins," during which he asked Jenkins questions, so one or both of said groups may have been different events than the presentation that is transcribed, but for Jenkins to have made the statements about the back of the head being "intact" as Speer claimed he would have had to have departed from everything he had told David Lifton in 1979, Harrison Livingstone in 1990 and 1991 and William Law in 1998, and it makes no sense that Jenkins would do so. By making these claims in this post, Speer was establishing a baseline for James Jenkins from which Speer will later claim Jenkins deviates post 2015 with subsequent descriptions of JFK's head wounds when Jenkins was actually being consistent with all of his pre-2016 claims. Note that Speer's tendency to claim that Jenkins "repeated over and over again" something that Speer cannot prove Jenkins actually said surfaced again in his responses to me and Sandy Larsen in recent days. ___________ 12-10-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20859-james-curtis-jenkins-in-dallas-for-the-50th/?do=findComment&comment=282477 Jenkins was consistent with his previous statements in that he got the impression from Humes that the brain just fell out in his hands. He personally infused the brain, and thought the carotids looked atrophied, as if they'd been severed for some time. So, yeah, his recollections are consistent with the brain having been removed and then replaced. This seems to be at odds with his other statements, however. He repeatedly claimed the back of the head was intact but shattered, and that it all fell apart when they peeled back the scalp. (Humes, Boswell, and Custer said essentially the same thing.) So it's hard to envision how anyone could have removed the brain and then put it back. I suspect instead that the brain stem was damaged by a bullet heading down the neck, but who knows? Jenkins repeated over and over again that he was there to tell us what he recalled, and not engage in speculation. He had an IMPRESSION the brain had already been removed. That's interesting. But not definitive. What we do know is that Jenkins does not support those claiming 1) the back of the head was blown out a la the McClelland drawing. He started his talk by describing a conversation he had with McClelland, and acknowledging that their recollections are greatly at odds. His recollection is that the back of the skull was in place, and that there was no major damage to the cerebellum. 2) the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Jenkins said there was NO wound low on the back of the skull. Period. 3) Humes expanded the head wound prior to the autopsy a la Horne. Jenkins' statements are totally at odds with the suspicion Humes expanded the wound prior to the autopsy. Jenkins saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy that grew in size when Humes peeled back the scalp during the autopsy. Aguilar showed him a number of photos and I don't recall his saying he thought any of them were fake. He pointed out the meninges on the top of the head photo, and seemed convinced that that photo was 100% authentic. Here we have Speer making the twin claims that he has been unable to substantiate in 2024, that Jenkins had said that the back of JFK's head was "intact," and that Jenkins "saw a hole at the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy." It causes me to wonder whether Speer had at this time already posted the screenshot from William Law's video in which Jenkins is touching the upper portion of the top of his head with his fingertips (but which cannot be distinguished in the screenshot on Speer's website because the screenshot has been darkened to make it look like Jenkins is instead touching the top of his head presumably by Speer), in which case, Speer's EdForum comments might be motivated by his desire to buttress the misinformation published on his website. Also of concern is Speer's claim that Jenkins had said that his description of the large head wound was "greatly at odds" with that of Dr. Robert McClelland: It seems much more likely that Jenkins had actually said something along the lines of what he said about the comparison of his head wound description with that of Dr. McClelland at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference: "The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist, or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland states in his drawing, but a little higher" (Here Jenkins say this himself in the video below): ___________ 12-12-2013 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20872-james-jenkins-recounts-what-he-saw-at-bethesda/?do=findComment&comment=282552 ...3. Horne and Mantik's theories hold that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out in Dallas. Horne's theory is that Humes expanded THIS wound--the one on the back of the head--in a pre-autopsy. Jenkins specified that the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp. THIS WAS HUMES' TESTIMONY. It's ludicrous, then, to pretend Jenkins' statements are strong support for Horne or Mantik's theories, when they are, in fact, a significant challenge. I won't say they are an insurmountable challenge, however. Heck, even I can dream up a scenario in which Humes sutures the back of the head back together so he can peel back the scalp and have the skull collapse in front of an audience. If Jenkins "specified" that "the back of the head was shattered but intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and collapsed when Humes peeled back the scalp," then it was supposedly only to Pat Speer himself, because James Jenkins said nothing like that to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone or William Law ___________ 2-20-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=284846 ...Jenkins--probably a CT, but not an alterationist. I spoke with him this past November in Dallas, and his words suggested that he believed that the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit. He was adamant, in fact, that there was NO blow-out wound low on the back of the head.... James Jenkins expressed concerns about the authenticity of the autopsy photographs to David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone and William Law, particularly about the back of the head and top of the head autopsy photographs, but Jenkins may have been adamant that there was no blow out wound low on the back of the head because Jenkins has always described the rear blow out wound as being a little bit higher than what Dr. McClelland described, but the Pat Speer of 2024 will not admit that. ___________ 3-13-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21028-did-the-autopsy-doctors-think-the-fatal-bullet-exited-the-back-of-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285617 I talked to James Jenkins about this in November. I'd thought maybe they'd rinsed some of the brain from the hair. He said that the brain soaked hair was draped down to the left side of Kennedy's head. No surprise, I think he's correct, and that the two photos are both of Kennedy. This looks like something else that James Jenkins supposedly said to Mr. Speer, but to nobody else. ___________ 3-30-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=285962 I spent a couple of hours listening to Jenkins talk this past November 22, and talked with him a bit myself, and your recollections of his recollections are not quite accurate, IMO. Jenkins said he heard Finck mention a possible entrance at the supposed exit (above the ear) and saw some discoloration of the bone in this location (suggesting an entrance). He took from this that there was an entrance in this location, which led him to be confused when the doctors concluded the bullet entered by the EOP. He never saw this entrance by the EOP, but did note that the skull was intact in that location, and that there was no blow-out wound low on the back of the skull, as claimed by so many CTs. As far as the brain, Jenkins was ADAMANT that his brother-in-law O'Connor was wrong, and that the brain was in the skull at the beginning of the autopsy. He said he heard Humes say something about the brain coming off in his hands when he peeled back the scalp and started to remove the brain, which led him (Jenkins) to wonder if the brain hadn't somehow been removed before the autopsy and placed back in the skull. (He had no explanation how or why this would have been done.) Still, he was clear that the brain was in the skull, and that he personally infused it with formalin. Speer constantly attributes this language to James Jenkins which Jenkins never used during any of his interviews. Jenkins has never said anything about the scalp being "peeled back," or about the skull "collapsing" when the scalp was "peeled back." James Jenkins has consistently told his interviewers that a skull cap was unnecessary because the brain fell out in prosector Humes's hands when the wound was expanded. Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 4-3-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21116-on-the-possibility-of-jfks-throat-wound-being-an-exit-to-a-bullet-entering-the-head/?do=findComment&comment=286033 On 4/3/2014 at 7:05 AM, David Andrews said: I've read of herniated brain stems, where the impact of a bullet has pushed the brain stem through the foramen magnum and out of the skull. It seems possible, then, that the impact of the bullet on Kennedy's skull pushed the brain downward to such an extent that the brain stem got cut by the foramen magnum... If this had actually occurred, how was it even possible that JFK had minimal vital signs and respiration in the Parkland ER? ----------------------------- Based on Jenkins' statements, there were two cuts, one on each side. It seems possible, then, that an incomplete cut had damaged one side of the brain stem, and that Humes completed the cut with ease. He thereby made a remark about how easy this was. Which Jenkins recalled more or less correctly... This is just speculation on my part, of course. If you have information that even a partial cut of the brain stem will put an immediate stop to all vital signs, I'll be forced to reconsider. This is one of the rare examples when Speer actually admits he is just speculating rather than reciting facts. ___________ 12-4-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=292606 ...I spoke to James Jenkins extensively last year. He insisted there was no blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's skull, and that the occipital bone was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy.... It's true that James Jenkins places the blow out wound slightly higher than the occiput on the back of the head, but in recent years this has evolved into Speer saying that the large gaping head wound was on the top and not the back of JFK's head. ___________ 12-14-2014 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/21535-video-pat-speer-on-jfks-fatal-head-shot-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=293180 ...You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair.... Here, Speer is misstating both Dr. William Zedlitz's and James Jenkins's positions about the back of the head wound. Courtesy of @Vince Palamara ___________ 10-9-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22096-the-eop-entrance-revealed/?do=findComment&comment=315978 Many if not most of the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses described a large defect on the back of the head. A number of them specified that this large defect became apparent after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Well, guess what? That's what the doctors said from day one. That's the official story. And yes, in this instance I have some hands-on experience on this issue. James Jenkins showed up at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference to take questions and relate what he observed during the autopsy. I spoke to him several times, and observed him speak to crowds on three separate occasions. He was crystal clear on this point: the back of the head appeared to be intact, but the skull was like a shattered egg beneath the skin. Well, this confirmed my impression. A few days later, however, Doug Horne pumped out an article telling everyone Jenkins had said there was a big hole on the back of the head. It's like a religion, I suppose. James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact." ___________ 10-13-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22327-back-of-head-wound-again/?do=findComment&comment=316117 Yikes, Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was as depicted in the autopsy photos, and not as depicted in the McClelland drawing... ...When pushed, he explained it at the end. He said "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not." He had thereby supported the statements of the autopsy doctors, and James Jenkins, etc, and the authenticity of the x-rays. The scalp at the back of the head was intact but the bone was shattered beneath the scalp. Mr. Speer is here explicitly misrepresenting Dr. William Zedlitz's testimony about the large head wound. Courtesy of Vince Palamara ___________ 12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319965 Jenkins tries to be very careful, and consistent. But he's only human, and sometimes reverses himself, or at least appears to reverse himself. One attendee at the conference tried to play "gotcha" with him, and pointed out to him that Livingstone had claimed he'd said one thing, and that he was now saying something else entirely. To which Jenkins responded by claiming that Livingstone sometimes had trouble understanding what he'd been telling him. Jenkins doesn't have a "theory" per se, or one he cares to share. From what I can gather, and I've read his interviews and talked to him several times now, he suspects there was more to it than Oswald, and that at least one shot impacted on the side of the head. He also believes the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that the bullet creating this wound didn't even enter the body. And then there's his recollection regarding the brain. He says his impression was that the brain stem was at least partially cut before Humes went to cut it, and that when he transfused the brain it was apparent to him that the cut along the brain stem was uneven, like it had been cut, and then cut again. So, yes, it would SEEM like Jenkins would readily accept that the head had been reconstructed before he saw the body. And he has never ruled that out, as far as I am aware. He is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.) James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that there was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head upon the arrival of the body at Bethesda. Jenkins consistently stated that there was. ___________ 12-10-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=319957 ...4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there. 5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound.... James Jenkins never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's head "appeared to be intact".... ___________ 12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320032 Yikes. Let's be clear. Jenkins' recollections do not support the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He doesn't flat out say they are fakes but he readily acknowledges they don't reflect what he remembers. His recollection is of a head wound further back on the head. But he is also adamant that the back of the head between the ears was intact, and that the cerebellum was basically intact and not exposed by a hole on the back of the head. Now, he was the guy who handled the brain. If there was a gaping hole through the cerebellum one would think he would have noticed.... Speer is here being unusually candid. ___________ 12-11-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22522-jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/?do=findComment&comment=320030 I think they joked about it. Jenkins was involved in two presentations in Dallas. The first was promoting a new blu-ray comprising the interviews conducted by William Law for In the Eye of History. Well, I have the book, and saw several of these interviews at the 2005 Lancer conference, so I flinched at the prospect of paying 35 bucks for a blu-ray, when I don't even own a blu-ray player. But the blu-ray has an extra which aroused my curiosity, so I gave in. The extra? A three-hour interview where O'Connor, Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Jim Sibert pass around the autopsy photos, and compare what is shown to what they remembered. The snippet shown was fascinating. They were all obviously doing their best--but their memories were obviously at odds on a number of points. I hope to watch it within a few days. I'll let you know if there's anything ground-breaking. ___________ 12-14-2015 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=320201 Oops. As far as Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole, they all signed off on autopsy photos in which the scalp at the back of the head is intact, and never retreated from that position. Now, they said from the first that the back of the head was fractured, and that when the scalp was peeled back bone fell to the table, and this revealed a large defect stretching into the occiput. And this has allowed some to pretend they claimed or suggested or supported that there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. So, let's be clear. Mantik is not only claiming the back of the head was fractured beneath the scalp, but that it was MISSING, with a huge hole in the scalp. That the doctors thought this was bunkum is revealed both in the drawing they made during the autopsy (which is credible due to its placement of a back wound at a location too low to support the single shooter scenario), and in the drawing they made for the Warren Commission (which is credible due to its placement of the head wound in the middle of the top of the head, whereby it could be an exit from the front or the rear). As far as Jenkins, he was most certainly pointing out a hole observed after the scalp was reflected, and not a hole on the back of the head observed upon the body's arrival. In 2013, and then again in 2015, in front of multiple witnesses, he explained that the bone at the back of the head between the ears (where Mantik claims a large hole of scalp and skull was located) was fractured, a la an eggshell, but still extant beneath the scalp. Jenkins has been crystal clear in all of his interviews that he saw the large gaping head wound in the back of the head when he first saw the body, and not when the scalp was reflected (Jenkins says nothing about the scalp being reflected). Jenkins also never claimed that the back of JFK's head was extant or intact. ___________ 12-10-2016 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17203-the-trach-incision/?do=findComment&comment=338872 The doctors always acknowledged that essentially the whole right side of the brain case was fractured beneath the scalp, and that skull fell to the table when they refracted the scalp. This was confirmed to me personally by James Jenkins. And Jerrol Custer said much the same. This allowed the doctors to remove the brain with minimal sawing. When the skull was reconstructed, mortician Ed Stroble was pretty much starting from scratch, under orders to make the president presentable for an open casket viewing. So, of course, the hole at the end of the reconstruction was on the back of the head. Where else could he put it where it wouldn't be seen at the funeral? P.S. The majority of the Parkland witnesses described and pointed out a wound location at the top of the back of the head, along the right side. This is not where the hole was at the end of the reconstruction. That hole, according to Tom Robinson, was centered in the middle of the back of the head, and not visible when the head was resting on a pillow. So, whether or not you think the Parkland witnesses were correct or not in their original statements, the evidence strongly suggests that the hole at the end of the reconstruction was not where the hole was at the start of the autopsy.... So James Jenkins said this to Pat Speer, but not to any of his interviewers? How credible is that? ___________ 3-12-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=346814 Doug Horne's spin on Jenkins' appearance at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference was misleading, to say the least. Horne did not talk to Jenkins at that conference. I did. I spoke to him again in 2015. While Jenkins' recollections do not support the official story, so to speak, neither do they support what Horne wants people to believe. Jenkins disputed his friend Paul O'Connor's claim there was very little brain in the skull. Jenkins held the brain and infused the brain. Paul did not. What Jenkins found so unnerving about the brain was the ease with which Humes removed it. This led him to speculate it was cut loose from the spine along the base. Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. I asked Jenkins, moreover, why he didn't speak up and denounce those who kept claiming his recollections prove the back of the head was missing. He replied "Ah heck, people will say whatever they want--what you gonna do..." James Jenkins repeatedly referred to the head wound as being occipital-parietal throughout his various interviews. ___________ 3-17-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23591-on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-part-23-closing-arguments-and-verdict/?do=findComment&comment=347290 On 3/16/2017 at 7:22 PM, James DiEugenio said: Pat: What you have Jenkins saying at the Lancer Conference is opposed to what he told Purdy back in 1977 for the HSCA. In an August 29. 1977 phone interview he told Purdy that he recalled a hole in the rear skull that was much bigger than the one depicted in the pics we have today. (see p. 12) This interview is listed as ARRB exhibit number 65 over at History Matters. As per DVP and Rosemary, then I guess we do not have a lot of hope in getting the full transcript That is really unfortunate as I really would have liked to have seen the whole thing. --------------------------------- I talked to Jenkins about this in both 2013 and 2015. He does indeed believe the hole on the head extended to the back of the head. But the top of the back of the head, not the bottom--where way too many CTs want to believe there was a "blow-out" wound. To be clear, in 2013 Jenkins showed me...and Aguilar, and Mantik, and Tink Thompson if I recall...where he believed the skull was shattered beneath the scalp, and where the scalp above this shattered skull was intact. And he pointed out the area behind his right ear on the back of his head. He was claiming, therefore, that there was no blow-out wound where Mantik and others claim there was a blow-out wound. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins again in 2015, with a young researcher (and writer) in attendance. He told us the same thing. When asked (I think by myself but perhaps by the young writer) why he didn't say anything when Mantik and Horne, etc, claimed him as a witness for something he insists he never witnessed, he said something along the lines of "People will believe what they want to believe...what'cha gonna do?" P.S. I just looked and Jenkins told Purdy the head wound stretched from the middle-temporal region back to the occipital." That's pretty much what he told me. Here, in response to @James DiEugenio, Speer is being unusually candid. One gets the feeling that the version of "the truth" that Speer tells often has much more to do with who his audience is than what "the truth" actually is. ___________ 12-1-2017 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24456-chessermantik-cut-from-mock-trial/?do=findComment&comment=365427 Jenkins was a no-show. They claimed he'd had transportation problems. But I'm not so sure. I spoke to him in 2013, and then again in 2015. He was clear on two points that some might find surprising. One is that there was no pre-autopsy or whatever performed by Humes. And two is that the low back of the head was shattered but held together by the scalp. i.e. there was no occipital blow-out wound where all too many claim there was an occipital blow-out wound. ___________ 12-2-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388827 McClelland did not fill out a death certificate. But he has said an awful lot of stuff at odds with what most CTs presume he has said. And in this regard, he's not unlike Jenkins, who moved the large head wound to the back of the head for his book.... And this is the first instance of Mr. Speer implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming, when the fact is that James Jenkins has always maintained that the large gaping wound was on the back of JFK's head. ___________ 12-3-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=388862 ...To bring this back to topic, moreover, it should be noted that, with his new book, James Jenkins has changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists. And by stating that "James Jenkins changed his recollections of the head wound location to a more agreeable location to these conspiracy theorists," Pat Speer was accusing James Jenkins of telling falsehoods. ___________ 12-10-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389226 ...Here is where Jenkins claimed he saw the "open hole" when speaking to William Law in 1990. And here is where he now claims he saw the wound. "They" --and by "they" I mean a parade of "researchers" desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head--got to him. And by saying that the researchers "desperate to sell the public there was a blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head" got to him, Pat Speer is in addition to alleging that Jenkins changed his story -- when he actually never did -- implying that James Jenkins was less than forthcoming. Secondly, note above the screenshot of James Jenkins that Speer took from William Law's video interview of James Jenkins and darkened to make it appear like Jenkins is touching the top of his head to indicate there was a hole on the top of JFK's head. That screenshot was cherry picked out of the entire sequence of Jenkins demonstrating the head wound which included the movements shown in the following screenshots from William Law's book (and note that in the clear version of the screenshot that Mr. Speer used it is clear that Jenkins is touching the back of his head with his fingertips rather than the top of his head): ___________ 12-11-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389242 Read those words carefully. There's some deception involved. For decades, certain CTs--including the CTs helping Jenkins with his book--have been claiming the head wound was on the back of the head at Parkland, and is accurately depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing (which was not actually drawn by McClelland). Jenkins, however, has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head, and that the skull on the back of the head in the location of the wound in this drawing was present., but shattered beneath the scalp. Jenkins was thereby a huge obstacle for those claiming the witnesses suggest the photos are fake and that the head wound was really on the back of the head. So Jenkins has thrown them a bone, and is now claiming the wound he saw resembled the wound in the drawing AFTER the scalp was reflected. Well, think about it. This is as much as admitting that the wound he saw before the scalp was reflected did not resemble this wound. It's all gobbledy-gook designed to sell that the wound was on the back of the head, and that witnesses (such as Jenkins and McClelland) share the same recollection. But it's all smoke and mirrors. I mean, think about it. Jenkins says the hole he saw was 2.5-3 by 1.5 to 2 in (3.75 to 6 sq in), while McClelland says the hole he saw was 4 by 5 in (20 sq in)... So...yes... the hole as described by McClelland was 3 1/3 to 5 1/3 times as large as the hole described by Jenkins. The wounds they describe are not remotely similar, and it's foolish to pretend that they are... In this post, Mr. Speer in SIX separate instances implies that James Jenkins has changed his story. This is also the first post in which Speer claims that Jenkis "has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head" after eight years of posting about Jenkins. Speer evidently felt confident posting this because of the deceptive darkened screenshot on his website which, according to Speer, and only to Speer, shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head as the location of JFK's head wound. ___________ 12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389393 ...I have witnessed Jenkins discussing this with others. When asked how he could explain the brain's being placed into the skull, when the hole he saw at the beginning of the autopsy was too small for the brain to pass through, he said he had no explanation, but that that was his impression--that the brain removed by Humes had been placed back in the skull. In his new book, written with the help of body-alteration theorists, however, he makes out that he saw incisions along the head which marked where scalp and skull could have been pulled back to facilitate the replacement of the brain. I'm fairly certain this is a new addition to his story. Mr. Speer is being disingenuous in this post. He knows full well that in 1998 James Jenkins told William Law about the incisions he saw on JFK's head that he had come to believe had been used to remove and replace the brain, yet he is here pretending that this is some new development in Jenkins's 2018 book. Speer's insinuation that this "is a new addition to his story" is yet another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of falsely amending his claims about the medical evidence. Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 231). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. ___________ 12-12-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25328-james-c-jenkins-jfk-autopsy-pathologist/?do=findComment&comment=389359 Nope. As demonstrated on the images above, Jenkins has routinely pointed to the top of his head above his ear as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy. He has long-claimed as well that the back of the head--meaning the far back of the head at the level of the ears--was shattered but intact beneath the scalp, but that it fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp. This is, for that matter, the official story, and is backed up by, among others, Jerrol Custer. There was no gaping hole on the far back of the head at the level of the ears. Very few witnesses claimed to see as much, It is a CT myth, that, apparently, was recently sold to Jenkins. Jenkins not only has not "routinely" pointed to the top of his head as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy, he has NEVER once done so. And Jenkins has never indicated that the back of JFK's head was "intact beneath the scalp," or that the shattered back of the head "fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp." Secondly, Speer's claim that the existence of the gaping back of the head wound "was recently sold to Jenkins" is another example of Speer questioning Jenkins's veracity. ___________ 12-19-2018 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25386-pre-autopsy-surgery/?do=findComment&comment=390385 A little food for thought... Lifton and Horne et al have long claimed the body was altered, and that the wound as seen at Bethesda was 4-5 times larger than the wound seen at Parkland. Now Jenkins comes along and says no, the wound he saw was small, about 1/5 the size of the wound Dr. McClelland says he saw at Parkland. And he says as well that the large hole seen at Bethesda was seen after the scalp was pulled back and skull fell to the table. And that, furthermore, he was with the body from the beginning, and no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda. So now, Horne, who claims the body was altered at Bethesda, and Jenkins are totally at odds. But Lifton and Jenkins are also at odds. While Jenkins has a feeling the brain he saw was not Kennedy's actual brain, and had surreptitiously been placed back in the skull before the autopsy, his statements force those believing the body was altered into a corner. If they find Jenkins credible, Lifton and Horne's theory is finito, and there was no pre-autopsy surgery performed to disguise the nature of the skull wounds. (Jenkins, after all, now claims he saw an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear). And if they find Jenkins not credible, well, then, that shoots down the alterationist argument we need to listen to the witnesses and ignore the photos and x-rays. So...which is it? That Speer insinuates that Jenkins "now claims" that there was an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear is another example of Speer accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. And when Speer alleges that these claims of Jenkins's are new, it is Speer who is lying. ___________ 6-3-2019 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25809-11221991-jerrol-custer-tom-wilson-and-harry-livingstone/?do=findComment&comment=401403 …P.S. I don't think Custer saw the "chat" as friendly. Few realize that after being subjected to a number of such chats with men like Wilson and Mantik, Custer turned his back and told the ARRB the x-rays were the genuine article, and that the back of the head was not missing at the beginning of the autopsy, but broken like an egg shell. Strikingly, this is exactly what James Jenkins told me a number of times, before someone (almost certainly Michael Chesser) convinced him to "change" his impressions for his book. Mr. Speer again alleges Jenkins changed his story by insinuating that Dr. Michael Chesser convinced him "to change his impressions for his book," and Speer's contention that Jenkins told him that there was not a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head but not any of his interviewers is just not credible. ___________ 10-2-2021 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26802-a-little-factoid-about-parkland-doctor-marion-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=447954 …There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back…. ___________ 1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453341 ...Within the hour of my conversation with these men, I had talks with William Newman and James Jenkins. They also claimed the large wound they saw was on the top right side of the head where it is shown in the autopsy photos.... James Jenkins has never said to any of his interviewers that the autopsy photographs show the back of the head blow out, so why would he have made such a claim to Pat Speer? ___________ 1-23-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27466-jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/?do=findComment&comment=453308 ...What a lot of researchers miss is that many witnesses have succumbed to pressure from the research community. I personally witnessed people try to bully James Jenkins into saying the back of the head was missing, which he vehemently denied, only to later publish a book in which he succumbed to their pressure and wrote that the back of the head was missing.... And yet another example of Mr. Speer insinuating that James Jenkins changed his story. ___________ 4-9-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27693-rare-hsca-testimony-of-jfk-autopsy-dr-james-j-humes-1978/?do=findComment&comment=457468 ...Humes, Boswell, Jenkins and Custer, at the very least, were in agreement that the skull on the back of the head was badly shattered, but intact, at the beginning of the autopsy, and that it fell apart when Humes peeled back the scalp.... James Jenkins has never made such a claim... ___________ 7-5-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27861-message-from-david-von-pein/?do=findComment&comment=463419 ...I once asked James Jenkins how it was that so many people think he said the back of the head was blown out when he had repeatedly told them it was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp. And he told me with a world-weary voice... "People will believe what they want to believe." He then put out a book in which he moved the wound he said was on top of the head to the back of the head... And received tons of praise for sticking to his story, and telling the truth, when he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe. This is an example of Pat Speer getting sloppy with his anecdotes in that it differs from all the previous versions of this story told in his previous posts, and is falsified by the fact that James Jenkins had never claimed that the back of JFK's head was intact. Secondly, this is another example of Speer alleging that Jenkins changed his story about the location of the wound, thereby yet again accusing Jenkins of being less than forthcoming. ___________ 8-13-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/?do=findComment&comment=467917 ...While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe." But given that James Jenkins never claimed there was not a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, how could this homily of Speer's possibly be true? ___________ 9-5-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28107-parklands-dr-paul-peters-to-gerald-posner-dr-robert-mcclelland-wasnt-in-the-best-position-to-see-the-head-wound-because-he-was-on-the-other-side-of-the-table/?do=findComment&comment=470682 Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.) James Jenkins has been pointing out that there are major problems with the back of the head autopsy photographs since his 1979 interview by David Lifton, and in every interview since that I am aware of. Once again, Speer's story makes no sense. ___________ 10-21-2022 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28244-patrick-bet-davids-interview-with-james-curtis-jenkins/?do=findComment&comment=475480 ...So...back to Jenkins and O'Connor. Having met Jenkins, I think he has always told the truth as he saw it. At the 2013 Lancer Conference, in a side room discussion which was unfortunately not recorded, he was asked over and over about JFK's large head wound. And, much to the dismay of those claiming it was on the far back of the head, he said over and over again that it was at the top of the head, and that the back of the head was shattered but in place beneath the scalp. A few years later I met him at another conference--this was witnessed by Matt Douthit--and I pointed out to Jenkins that some of those with whom he was appearing had long claimed the back of the head was blown out and that there was a conspiracy to hide this from the public. He said something like "Yeah, well, what can you do? People are gonna believe what they want to believe." So I was shocked when he later put out a book, with a forward by Mike Chesser, who evidently helped him on the book, claiming the back of the head was blown out. This was in opposition to not only what Jenkins had said at the 2013 conference, and later to me personally, but what he told William Law in the their taped conversations. And yet there he was, reversing himself.... This is another example of Mr. Speer questioning James Jenkins's veracity by alleging that he changed his story about the nature of the large head wound, supposedly "reversing himself." Another problem with this post, in addition to those with Speer's anecdotal stories already pointed out above, is that Speer claims that the interview of Jenkins taped by William Law in 1998 supports his anecdotal stories which is definitely does not. Just as David Lifton reported in 1979, and Harrison Livingstone reported in 1990 and 1991, William Law's taped 1998 interview shows James Jenkins describing the large gaping head wound in the back of JFK's head as being occipital-parietal. ___________ 2-27-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28849-confused-looking-for-opinions-on-jfks-brain/?do=findComment&comment=492494 I talked to Jenkins a number of times at several conferences, and he insisted the back of the head was not missing--that it was shattered but intact under the scalp. Jerrol Custer said much the same thing--that the back of the head was like a shattered eggshell beneath the scalp. In Jenkins' case, he said this a number of times until he finally switched the wound on top of the head to low on the back of the head, while under the influence of Chesser.... In addition to again reciting his discredited anecdotal story, this is also another example of Speer accusing James Jenkins of being less than forthcoming by alleging that he changed his story under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser. ___________ 9-1-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512581 FWIW, I saw Jenkins speak at a couple of conferences, and spoke to him in person on two occasions. He was consistent from day one that NO body alteration occurred prior to the start of the autopsy. He was clear that this did not happen, and when I offered that maybe it had been done in another room he corrected me and pointed out that there was no other room in which it could have occurred. He said the ONLY way it could have occurred was if it occurred prior to the body's arrival at Bethesda, and by someone other than Humes. Well, this sinks Horne's boat. I was surprised for that matter when Horne wrote an article making out that Jenkins' statements supported that the back of the head was blown out and that Humes performed surgery to the head before the beginning of the autopsy. This was bizarre. Jenkins had told myself and others, including the source for Horne's article, the exact opposite of what Horne claimed he'd said. . The article by Doug Horne that Speer is referencing can be accessed via the following link: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html Doug Horne's references to "the posterior head wound" in his article are consistent with the transcript of Jenkins's Lancer Conference presentation, a transcript which contradicts Speer's anecdotal stories about the conference. What that transcript indicates that James Jenkin said about the large gaping head wound is as follows: "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." The transcript of that presentation was prepared for William Law by EdForum member Pete Mellor and posted on the EdForum. See transcript via the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 Every indication is that it is Speer's account of the Lancer Conference presentations that is false, not Horne's. Furthermore, Speer also claimed that Jenkins was clear that body alteration did not occur before the autopsy, but the truth is that Jenkins does, and has historically believed that body alteration did take place before the autopsy, just not at the Bethesda morgue. ___________ 9-2-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29554-the-mystery-of-kennedys-brain-deepens/?do=findComment&comment=512606 To be clear, I don't think Horne was pulling a con. Just desperately flailing. He was not in attendance at the conference, nor at the break-away session with 20 or so of us in a room. His source was Mantik. As I recall, Jenkins said he wasn't sure the photos were legit, and Mantik told this to Horne, who turned around and rushed out an article/blog post claiming Jenkins's statements supported his own theories. Well, this was nonsense seeing as Jenkins had specified that the back of the head was not blown out and that the body was not altered at Bethesda. Again, it is Speer's anecdotal story not Horne's article that is contradicted by the transcript of the Lancer presentation, and James Jenkins has been on record since 1977 that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out, as can be seen in the following sketch of JFK's body Jenkins executed for the HSCA in 1977: ___________ 10-1-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29693-victory-for-the-credibility-of-parkland-nurse-audrey-bell/?do=findComment&comment=515463 ...Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head.... Again, James Jenkins has always been consistent that there was a large gaping wound at the back of JFK's head... ___________ 11-14-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29796-jfk-what-the-doctors-saw/?do=findComment&comment=519512 ...I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos. (Correction:. Jenkins did express some disagreement with the photos but nevertheless insisted that the back of the skull, while shattered, remained beneath the scalp.) And yet certain people--pretending to stand in support of the Parkland witnesses--continue to push that the back of the head was missing. It's a red herring, folks. IF people had spent as much time READING and LEARNING as they had pestering old people into confirming their pet theory, the case would have been re-opened decades ago. But we instead ended up in this divide where people sift through the evidence without actually seeing, and claim the very evidence PROVING more than three shots were fired must be fake...because because because... James Jenkins has always been a back of the head wound witness, it is Speer's revisionist claims that are false... ___________ 12-23-2023 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30010-two-head-shots-and-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=524034 ...P.S. You are correct about my bias. In 2013, in a breakout session at the Lancer Conference, Aguilar, Mantik, Thompson, myself and maybe 15 others bombarded James Jenkins about the head wound. Jenkins insisted under repeated questioning that the skull was damaged at the back of the head but intact beneath the scalp. Mantik then contacted Horne about this session, and within a day or two Horne put up an online article stating that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos weren't precisely as he remembered, and then presented this is as proof the back of the head was blown out...PRECISELY what Jenkins said was not true. And then there's the new film on what the doctors saw. Jenkins repeats his belief there was a bullet entrance by the ear. Horne then jumps in and says he is describing a bullet hole high up on the forehead, where ding ding ding...it just so happens he, Mantik and Chesser have taken to claiming a bullet entered. Well, heck, Jenkins said no such thing, and has specifically ruled out such an entrance in his book and in interviews. So, no, I don't trust anything Horne comes up with anymore... James Jenkins has never told any of his interviewers that the back of JFK's skull was "intact beneath the scalp," so what was so different about this Lancer Conference? Could it just be that the difference is Speer is telling the story? ___________ 1-4-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525054 Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame. This was Mr. Speer's first post to me about James Jenkins, in which he advised me to research James Jenkins, which I have, leading me to conclude Speer has falsely questioned Jenkins's veracity. This post pretty much contains the whole gambut of his lies, and also accuses James Jenkins of being less than honest by alleging that Dr. Michael Chesser persuaded him to change his story about there being a hole on the top of JFK's head. At the time, Speer was relying upon his darkened screenshot from the videotape of William Law interviewing Jenkins on his website that is discussed above as well as the following screenshots with utterly terrible resolution of Jenkins demonstrating the location of the large head wound at the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference (Note how the terribe resolution makes it appear as if Jenkins has his hand on the right side of his head covering his ear): When I located the video of the 1991 Dallas Conference I cleaned it up and color corrected it as well as I could and made the following GIF which makes it clear that Jenkins was IN FACT placing his hand on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large gaping head wound: And the video of that segment with the audio makes it even more clear that Jenkins has placed his hand on the back of his head, proving that Speer's website presentation was fraudulent: ___________ 1-6-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525289 ...P.P.S. I spoke to Jenkins on multiple occasions and he steadfastly insisted that the back of the head was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. That's just not true. ___________ 1-9-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525614 Oh my. For those confused by all this, this character is citing a James Jenkins drawing showing a wound on the back, top and side of the head which stretches to the front...as evidence for a comparatively small blowout wound on the far back of the head. No matter what you think the head wound looked like when first viewed at Bethesda, this is clearly the wound as observed after the removal of the brain, and not the wound as first viewed. The least bit of research, moreover, would have proved what I have claimed for roughly a decade...that Jenkins told Livingstone and later Law and eventually a roomful of researchers, including myself, that the far back of the head at the level of the ear--the occipital bone--was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. Still, he doesn't dispute that, really, does he? No, he makes out instead that the only evidence for this is my say-so. That's not research. That's whining. "I don't like what you say, so I'm gonna tell everyone you're a xxxx, without even checking out what you've said against the multiple sources you provide." What a crock. Another response of Speer's to a post of mine which demonstrates his hubris, and Speer again fraudulently misrepresents what Jenkins told Livingstone and Law, then tries to combine same with his corrupt anecdotal story about the Lancer Conference... ___________ 1-23-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30096-the-back-of-head-wound-as-sketched-by-dr-mcclelland-in-tmwkk-1988/?do=findComment&comment=526717 ...As far as Jenkins...whoa. Now I owe Jim Jenkins an apology? For what? I was in the room with Jenkins alongside Thompson, Aguilar, and Mantik...when he stated under repeat questioning that the back of the head was damaged beneath the scalp, and that the hole was at the top of the head. It wasn't me that turned around and misrepresented what he said as supporting that the back of the head was blown out. That was Doug Horne, after being briefed by Mantik. And it wasn't me that coerced him into flipping it around and claiming the hole was on the back of the head and the damaged skull was at the top of the head. That was Mike Chesser.... Speer writing his top of the head lie again, and then accusing James Jenkins of lying by changing his story about the location of the large head wound under the influence of Dr. Michael Chesser... ___________ 4-20-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135 It's not my conjecture. Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite. Now, the next year, he made an appearance with Mantik and Chesser and I spoke to him a bit with Matt Douthitt, and I told Jenkins these guys were taking his words and twisting them into support for their belief the back of the head was blown out. And he said "What are you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe..." So I was as shocked as anyone when I saw Jenkins pull a flip-flop on all this but when I looked closely at his book I found my answer--he credited Mike Chesser with help on the book. So, yeah, from where I stand--and from what I have witnessed personally--Mantik, Horne, and Chesser are in the deception business. Now they may be deceiving themselves first and foremost, but they are not particularly interested in the truth, IMO. The above post contains practically every falsehood that Speer now routinely tells about James Jenkins, but Speer actually has the nerve to conclude it by accusing Jenkins, Mantik, Horne and Chesser of being fabricators. ___________ 4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST OF KEVEN HOFELING TO PAT SPEER https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146 Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference: You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." Now this transcript was made by Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633 Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying. ___________ 4-21-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534158 What the??? As stated, Jenkins is on camera saying the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp but not blown out of the skull. He has said a lot of things that are problematic for the official story, that's for sure. But he has claimed this part of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy.... ...P.S. I notice that you mention Jenkins' claim he saw a bullet wound by the ear. Well, he initially said this was a gray smear on the bone, which helped convince me I was correct about a bullet's entering at this location. Then, after being pounded for years by your heroes, he started claiming he saw a bullet hole by the ear and not just a gray smear. And then, with the release of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, these years of manipulation paid off--as Horne was now claiming this bullet hole, which was originally not a bullet hole, was actually a bullet hole high on the forehead. Which Mantik and Horne had conjured up from almost nothing... In any event, it's nice to see you acknowledge Jenkins said this was by the ear, and that Horne's claim it was really high on the forehead is nonsense. Pat Speer doubling down on his lies and concluding by again accusing James Jenkins of being deceptive... ___________ 5-5-2024 ED FORUM POST 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... Unbelievable... ___________ 5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536947 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? Speer demonstrating his failed strategy calculated to defend his lies: Claiming that the photo of James Jenkins out of William Law's book shows Jenkins pointing to the top of his head rather than the back of his head, and throwing out straw man arguments and red herrings about Doug Horne... ___________ 5-27-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=536985 Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense. To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body. But here's the problem... Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book: 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." SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory. So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this? Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology... Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. So stop the theatrics, already... You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not... But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not... Speer fraudulently misrepresents that I agree that James Jenkins was pointing to the top of his head in the William Law screenshot, and attempts a wider variety of straw man arguments and red herrings to deflect attention from his lies about James Jenkins which I have been showcasing... ___________ 5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537022 Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head... Speer again erroneously claims that the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video proved he is pointing to the top of his head (when it is obvious Jenkins is pointing to the back of his head), and claims Jenkins said "NUMEROUS TIMES" that the open hole was at the top of the head, but when Sandy Larsen and I call for Speer to provide just ONE example of Jenkins stating that the open hole was at the top of JFK's head, Speer is unable to come up with even ONE example... ___________ 5-28-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537008 Look at the second photo from Law's book that you posted... As Jenkins says "with the open hole in this area" he points to the top of his head. Here is Horne pointing out what he claims was the hole as first viewed by Humes. This is not where Jenkins pointed out an "open hole." And that's okay. Horne and Mantik claim Jenkins viewed the wound AFTER Humes performed the post-mortem surgery. Speer again tries to float the screenshot of James Jenkins from the William Law video as proof Jenkins is pointing to the top of his head (when Jenkins is actually pointing to the back of his head), and attempts more Doug Horne deflection... ___________ 5-30-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537225 Well, you've confused me once again, Keven. Are you really trying to claim James Jenkins is NOT pointing to the top of his head in the photo above? And, if so, where the heck is he pointing? Here? My response to this post of Speer's was to post William Law's response to his interpretation of the William Law screenshot from Law's video interview of Jenkins, as follows: ___________ 5-31-2024 ED FORUM POST https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30471-why-pat-speer-owes-public-apologies-to-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-and-to-the-jfka-research-community-at-large/?do=findComment&comment=537289 As far as Keven's claim I called James Jenkins a liar. It's not as simple as that. James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time. And the fact Jenkins' story has changed was not something I drummed up...this was something David Lifton started complaining about over 20 years ago, and recorded in a long detailed memo. Now I spoke to Lifton about this and he claimed that several aspects of Jenkins' story were added in later, 10 years or more after he was first interviewed by Lifton. To wit, Jenkins made no mention of a bullet wound by the ear to the HSCA or Lifton...and only began claiming this after talking to Livingstone, if I recall. And I am fairly certain there were several other additions pointed out to me by Lifton, who said Jenkins was so malleable that he agreed with the depiction of the wound in the Ida Dox tracing of the BOH photo when first shown this by Lifton...in an interview filmed at Lifton's expense. Now, I like you, was surprised by this, and went back to view Lifton's interview of Jenkins in the Best Evidence research video...only to find that there is no interview of Jenkins in the video. And I wish Lifton was here to ask about this, but I can only assume Lifton felt Jenkins' statements weren't particularly important. By voicing agreement with the Dox drawing, after all, Jenkins had simply said what Lifton had already come to believe...that the autopsy photos were legit and reflective of the body after it was altered. In any event, I was there in the room in 2013 when Jenkins told a small audience the very top of the back of the head was missing but that the skull between the ears was fractured, and that this fractured skull fell to the table when Humes retracted the scalp, and left a much larger hole. And I was dismayed when years later, while promoting his book, he said the exact opposite--that the hole was on the far back of the skull and the top of the head was fractured and fell to the table. Now Keven doesn't want to believe this--that Jenkins changed his story. But here he is with Law pointing out the location of the hole... And here he is in 2018, while pointing out the location of the hole... It moved, right? And you don't have to trust me on this. Jenkins said the wound pointed out by his finger was 2 in wide by 3 1/2 in high. Well, look where his finger-tip is. Just above the lambdoid suture which forms the boundary between parietal and occipital. So the majority of this wound according to 2018 Jenkins was on the occipital bone, right? Well, if you have High Treason 2, your can check this for yourself. On page 228 he tells Livingstone the wound was "just above the occipital area." Now some people use the term "occipital area" as a broad brush which includes the parietal bone at the top of the back of the head. But no one uses the term to mean the bottom of the occipital bone--that is, no one would say something was above the occipital area that still overlay the occipital bone. So in 1990, when speaking to Livingstone, Jenkins specified that the wound was inches higher than he would later come to claim. It moved, right? Mr. Speer made a full on frontal assault on James Jenkins's credibility in his last post on this matter, essentially calling him a fabricator in a variety of ways, and all of these allegations can be defended, but after spending three days on this post virtually around the clock I am just going to conclude with the response of James Jenkins himself to all of this, which was to say that it's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a response: Where are the promised synonyms? Keven, you said you had found about a half-dozen synonyms for "liar" which you had personally seen Pat Speer call James Jenkins. Having read your lengthy post which you tagged to me and identified as "comprehensive", I do not find any synonym for "liar" used with reference to Jenkins in any quotation you have quoted from Pat Speer. If you will recall, on another thread on May 30 in response to my question, "Keven you say Pat Speer accused Jenkins of lying but in your massive repeat dump which I just waded through for the nth time I could not find you ever quoted Pat using that word of Jenkins ... Can you clarify in simple declarative sentences?" Your first answer declined to answer, called it a "monumental task" I had imposed on you to document the accusation you had made that Pat had called Jenkins a liar. "So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator … As you have imposed upon me such a monumental task …" When I pressed, asking you to clarify did you mean the literal word "liar" ("Will you clarify whether you have a quote—evidence—that Pat has called Jenkins a liar using that word, or will you clarify he never used that word that you put into his mouth? Simple question, straight answer requested") you repeated the accusation and answered, second answer: "Can't you read, Mr. Doudna? … I am in the process of going through ALL of those posts, and that is going to take some time … So while I am cataloguing all the instances that Mr. Speer has accused James Jenkins of being a prevaricator . . . such a monumental task ..." With still no straight answer to the question of whether you meant use of the L-word itself, I pressed again for a straight answer to whether you meant use of the L-word ("If you don’t have any quotation of Speer calling Jenkins that, why not just say so? Doesn’t it bother you that some might misunderstand, when you repeatedly say Pat called some luminary a liar, that some people might believe Pat called that person a “liar”, because that is how your wording sounds? Why your reluctance to just tell the accurate truth on this detail in the interests of being clear with the truth and avoiding misrepresentation of Pat?") Your third answer repeated the accusation and said you would begin tomorrow a search for evidence to support the published, public accusation: "Pat Speer has been claiming that James Jenkins started lying about his descriptions of the head wound starting in 2016, and so I've got eight years of posts to go through starting tomorrow morning ..." On May 31 Pat said he did not remember calling Jenkins a liar, said he regards Jenkins as sincere: "James Jenkins story changed but I suspect he's not even aware of it. I don't recall calling him a liar. And if I did I publicly apologize for that. As stated, I have met Jenkins and consider him a sincere person...doing his best. Now Keven was a lawyer--he surely must know that people's stories change all the time." The next day, June 1, you now gave a first straight answer to the question of use of the L-word itself: after going through 14 years of Pat's past history, you reported finding no instance of Pat using the L-word of Jenkins, but you had found, you reported, "about a half dozen synonyms for 'liar'" which Pat had called Jenkins, which you said was just as bad. "Mr. Doudna, I've now collected all the examples of lies that Pat Speer has told about James Jenkins on this forum during the last fourteen years and have found that he didn't use the specific word "liar" in any of them. He used about a half a dozen synonyms for "liar,' ... I don't know what they taught you about that particular word in divinity school, but I can assure you, that in all other branches of education, it is just a word, and is no more serious nor severe than its synonyms ... It's as serious to me when Speer uses synonyms..." At last a straight answer: not "liar" but synonyms for "liar". It did somewhat puzzle me that you did not give an example or name any of those synonyms you had seen. But I thanked you for clarifying you had synonyms that you were capable of showing ("I note you do not give any examples of such synonyms, but you do say you now have them in your hip pocket and are able to show the synonyms in the future. OK, thanks for clarifying."). That was followed by your opening post of the present thread, which presents itself as your exhaustive production of the evidence you had promised on the synonyms. It was a daunting ordeal for me to read through miles and miles of autopsy of Pat's past history, 14 years worth of quotations and accusations of Pat you catalogued, but I was single-minded focused on finding the elusive Holy Grail--the promised synonyms which surely you had put in there somewhere. I went the distance, yes I did. Read it all the way through. At the end, exhausted, alas, no synonym for L-word used by Pat of Jenkins, inside quotation marks written by Pat. At least none that I could see. (I did not have the energy to gear up for a second exhausting read-through to double-check.) May I ask in the interests of fairness to Pat, and in fairness to Jenkins now in his 80s, that you make the record clear on your synonyms claim. So that perchance Jenkins may not be falsely informed Pat has been calling him synonyms for "liar" if Pat did not do so--a horrible thing if it is not true. I have just obtained and read Jenkins' 2018 book yesterday, a decent man and I respect him--Jenkins does not deserve that, and neither does Pat. What synonyms for "liar" did you see Pat call Jenkins? Would you identify where in your post you reported those synonyms? Would you do so in a small number of straightforward, to-the-point sentences or paragraphs? Edited June 10 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 16 hours ago, Pat Speer said: 23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: That's a cute trick that you did... cherry pick a frame from a video where Jenkins is pointing nearest the top of his head. 16 hours ago, Pat Speer said: The image you say I cherry-picked comes from a taped interview by Law, and the image you say I cherry-picked is one Law picked out and put in his book to demonstrate where Jenkins pointed when he described the open hole he first observed... Yes, you took that video frame from Law's book. So Law is the one who picked it. BUT... Law printed THREE related frames of the video for his book. And YOU cherry-picked the one that shows Jenkins pointing closest to the top of his head! Regardless, this video frame without any sound and no transcript is NOT evidence of any kind the Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head. As I have shown, Jenkins ALWAYS said the gaping wound was at the back of the head. And you have nothing to show otherwise. 16 hours ago, Pat Speer said: IOW, the image you say I posted to deceive you is one Keven posted to claim I was being deceptive. It is Keven's evidence so to speak, not mine. But I am glad he posted it because it proved my point...which apparently you now concede. Wow... just wow! I post the Jenkins frame, pointing out that you had cherry picked it to suit your needs... and you say therefore I have conceded your point! You have a lot of nerve to make such a ridiculous claim! (I'd penalize you for lying again, if I could! Though, of course, I'd give you a chance to correct it first. Like I did last time.) 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