Joe O' Donnell statements on autopsy photographs

[Wim Dankbaar]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md231_0001a.htm

Credit to Rex Bradford and David Mantik for making me aware of this.

Comments welcome.

Wim

[Ron Ecker]

Wim,

Thanks, very interesting. Why didn't they ask O'Donnell exactly where above the right eye the small wound was located? It seems like an obvious question. He must mean what appears to be a possible entry wound at the front hairline above the right eye. If he's talking about a wound further down on the forehead and thus clearly visible, then he's talking about a wound that no one at Parkland (or anywhere else) saw. That doesn't speak well for his credibility.

Ron

[Wim Dankbaar]

Yes I think it's interesting too. There are more people indicating the temple wound above the right eye.

Dennis David said he was shown basically the same two sets of two different pictures by Bruce Pitzer (including the one with the temple wound)

We have embalmer Thom Robinson decribing the temple wound. Although he believes (mistakenly imho) that it was from an exiting fragment. Nevertheless he describes it.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

We interviewed him recently on camera where he reiterated his recollections.

Plus we have Malcolm Kilduff and Bill Newman describing how JFK was hit by a bullet in the right temple.

Malcom Kilduff was told of this by one of the Dallas doctors, I believe it was Perry.

The Dallas doctors were busy trying to save JFK's life, not detecting where small wound were. They were naturally concentrating on the gaping headwound in the back. Besides the small temple wound may have been obscured by the flap of side skull hinging out.

To me the troubling part of O' Donnell's information is that he claims to have cut out the headshot sequence of the original Zapruder film. On orders of Jackie. Did he really have the original? If he had, how do we have the headshot sequence today? Besides it doesn't strike me as responsible behaviour to destroy such vital evidence.

Wim

[Ron Ecker]

To me the troubling part of O' Donnell's information is that he claims to have cut out the headshot sequence of the original Zapruder film. On orders of Jackie. Did he really have the original? If he had, how do we have the headshot sequence today? Besides it doesn't strike me as responsible behaviour to destroy such vital evidence.

Yes, does this guy want us to believe that he somehow got the original from Life or the Warren Commission (he said this was a few weeks after the assassination) to show Jackie at the USIA, then cut out the head shot sequence and sent back an egregiously mutilated film to Life or the commission? More than irresponsible behavior, the guy would have been jailed. And all because Jackie made the remark, "I never want to see that again"? (Reminds me of the English king who said of Beckett, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Some guys take this as an order and go bump off the Archbishop of Canterbury.)

[Antti Hynonen]

Wim Dankbaar Posted Yesterday, 06:45 PM

Yes I think it's interesting too. There are more people indicating the temple wound above the right eye.

Dennis David said he was shown basically the same two sets of two different pictures by Bruce Pitzer (including the one with the temple wound)

We have embalmer Thom Robinson decribing the temple wound. Although he believes (mistakenly imho) that it was from an exiting fragment. Nevertheless he describes it.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

We interviewed him recently on camera where he reiterated his recollections.

Plus we have Malcolm Kilduff and Bill Newman describing how JFK was hit by a bullet in the right temple.

Malcom Kilduff was told of this by one of the Dallas doctors, I believe it was Perry.

The Dallas doctors were busy trying to save JFK's life, not detecting where small wound were. They were naturally concentrating on the gaping headwound in the back. Besides the small temple wound may have been obscured by the flap of side skull hinging out.

To me the troubling part of O' Donnell's information is that he claims to have cut out the headshot sequence of the original Zapruder film. On orders of Jackie. Did he really have the original? If he had, how do we have the headshot sequence today? Besides it doesn't strike me as responsible behaviour to destroy such vital evidence.

Wim

Yes, absolutely. This is the way Dennis D. David recalls the (head)wounds just as Joe O'Donnell recalls them in the 1st photos he saw. Dennis David was shown JFK photos by William Bruce Pitzer. This testimony corroborates the fact that at least one other set of autopsy photos exists, and that this suggests the first set (gaping hole in the back ) is the authentic set of the 2, as that is how the numerous Parkland physicians (first to attend to JFK), nurses and others recalled the wound. Anyone still doubting a cover-up?

Edited September 22, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Wim Dankbaar]

Here's Knudsen. I forgot which of the two is Knudsen (I recall the left one but not sure). The other may be O' Donnell but I forgot that too.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Knudsen.JPG

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

1. On the pictures I saw in Bill's office, I observed a round hole about 7/16 in. in diameter.

Draw a line from the right corner of the right eye to the hairline and that was the location

of what appeared, to Bill and I, to be an entrance wound. Why no comment was made

about this in the "Official Autopsy" report, I have no idea. You may wish to know that in

a meeting in Pittsburg, in 1992, Jerol did not disagree with me on the location. Jerol had

some rough times in later life, I will not speak disparagingly of him. I will, however, tell

you that at that particular time in my life, I could have: drawn you a picture of every bone

in the human body; named all 512 pairs of muscles,citing their origins and attachments;

and named 90% (at least) of all the nerves. Couldn't do it now, too old and too long away

from the field (LOL). You will find diagrams that I provided in The Dealey Plaza Echo, Vol.8,

No. 3, Nov 2004, which I did for Kim Reinholt. There are also some diagrams provide by

Paul O'Connor in the same article.

Dennis David.

Drawing as marked by Dennis David showing the area of the head wounds.

If you lighten the autopsy photo's you will see this small circular shadow.

[Chuck Robbins]

Yes I think it's interesting too. There are more people indicating the temple wound above the right eye.

Dennis David said he was shown basically the same two sets of two different pictures by Bruce Pitzer (including the one with the temple wound)

We have embalmer Thom Robinson decribing the temple wound. Although he believes (mistakenly imho) that it was from an exiting fragment. Nevertheless he describes it.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

We interviewed him recently on camera where he reiterated his recollections.

Plus we have Malcolm Kilduff and Bill Newman describing how JFK was hit by a bullet in the right temple.

Malcom Kilduff was told of this by one of the Dallas doctors, I believe it was Perry.

The Dallas doctors were busy trying to save JFK's life, not detecting where small wound were. They were naturally concentrating on the gaping headwound in the back. Besides the small temple wound may have been obscured by the flap of side skull hinging out.

To me the troubling part of O' Donnell's information is that he claims to have cut out the headshot sequence of the original Zapruder film. On orders of Jackie. Did he really have the original? If he had, how do we have the headshot sequence today? Besides it doesn't strike me as responsible behaviour to destroy such vital evidence.

Wim

He did not have access to every copy of the film did he?

I still wonder why we are shown the film with destroyed frames. Don't several copies exist with which to

get undamaged frames to replace those which had been damaged?

So many people report seeing something other than what the official record shows, that one has to stop,

scratch his head, and wonder.... what the heck is going on here?

[Wim Dankbaar]

I still wonder why we are shown the film with destroyed frames. Don't several copies exist with which to

get undamaged frames to replace those which had been damaged?

*************************

I don't believe we're being shown the film with destroyed frames. I believe nothing was altered in Zapruder, except the splice at the beginning, most likely to conceal the first shot(s).

I am certain the headshot sequence as we know it , is exactly what happened.

Wim

[Chuck Robbins]

QUOTE:

1. On the pictures I saw in Bill's office, I observed a round hole about 7/16 in. in diameter.

Draw a line from the right corner of the right eye to the hairline and that was the location

of what appeared, to Bill and I, to be an entrance wound. Why no comment was made

about this in the "Official Autopsy" report, I have no idea. You may wish to know that in

a meeting in Pittsburg, in 1992, Jerol did not disagree with me on the location. Jerol had

some rough times in later life, I will not speak disparagingly of him. I will, however, tell

you that at that particular time in my life, I could have: drawn you a picture of every bone

in the human body; named all 512 pairs of muscles,citing their origins and attachments;

and named 90% (at least) of all the nerves. Couldn't do it now, too old and too long away

from the field (LOL). You will find diagrams that I provided in The Dealey Plaza Echo, Vol.8,

No. 3, Nov 2004, which I did for Kim Reinholt. There are also some diagrams provide by

Paul O'Connor in the same article.

Dennis David.

Drawing as marked by Dennis David showing the area of the head wounds.

If you lighten the autopsy photo's you will see this small circular shadow.

Isn't 7/16" just about the size of a .45 bullet? If it was a .45 round, what weapons fire that calibre?

Would you have to be in close proximity to use such a weapon? Are there any sniper rifles which use a .45 round? I'll check into this, find out, and get back with the info.

[Maarten Coumans]

I still wonder why we are shown the film with destroyed frames. Don't several copies exist with which to

get undamaged frames to replace those which had been damaged?

*************************

I don't believe we're being shown the film with destroyed frames. I believe nothing was altered in Zapruder, except the splice at the beginning, most likely to conceal the first shot(s).

I am certain the headshot sequence as we know it , is exactly what happened.

Wim

HS!

If you have bought the Groden DVD. You can see the 2(!!!) splices, and the missing frames-> Altered

With regards to "we", Speak for yourself! Which headshot sequence do "we" know. Spectre's conclusion..... 1001 others.

You sound as if you were not only there, but as well organized the whole show. So sure..... "Exactly"...... HS!

Your mis-phrases are not a coincidence.

Maarten.

[Karl Kinaski]

Robin Unger said:

  

 deleted

Edited June 19, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[William Kelly]

Here's Knudsen. I forgot which of the two is Knudsen (I recall the left one but not sure). The other may be O' Donnell but I forgot that too.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Knudsen.JPG

THE LINK ABOVE DOESN'T WORK FOR ME.

CAN WIM RESET IT OR REPOST THE IMAGE?

Here's HSCA on missing material and mention of Knudsen as Mrs. Kennedy's personal photographer, and him being there when copies of autopsy photos were made.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=39033

(Thanks Rex)

DID ANYONE QUESTION "KNUTE" - HERE'S HIS "FAMOUS NEBRASKIANS" BIO:

Robert L. Knudsen (1929-1989) lived in Omaha. Photographer, served as White House photographer for five U.S. Presidents' Administrations from 1946 to 1974, the longest any photographer has served. Consult New York Times obituary, January 31, 1989, p. D-22 and Sunday /Omaha/ World Herald Magazine of the Midlands,

March 5, 1989, pp. 16-17

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OF THESE?

THANKS,

BK

Edited August 30, 2008 by William Kelly