Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 28, 2018 17:29:52 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/production/podcast_uploaded_episode/492728/492728-1591224073206-833e3acd1717c.jpg
We will continue our look at researcher Wallace Milam’s review of Gerald Posner’s book “Case Closed” to see the discrepancies between what Posner was told and/or wrote to what the actual evidence on the record shows.
***********************************************
On 11/22/63 President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was taken to Parkland Hospital (PH) following the shooting in Dealey Plaza (DP). He was worked on feverishly by the doctors and nurses to try and save his life. Despite these efforts, and their obvious close proximity to JFK, Posner would say this is his book, "Case Closed", about them:
Quote on
...it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertions about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail." (p. 308)
Quote off
Like an examination is needed to see a gaping hole, right? Posner is using total obfuscation and misleading the reader with this comment. Wallace Milam showed how erroneous this comment really is in one of his many Posner reviews. Are the statements made to Posner and included in his book "Case Closed" consistent with the previous statements, made under oath as parts of official investigations? Let’s see.
Dr. Marion Jenkins
A. The issue of observation and examination
Dr. Marion Jenkins told Posner: "We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds." (p. 309)
But Milam points out THE RECORD IS QUITE DIFFERENT! On Friday afternoon, just hours after treating Kennedy, Jenkins wrote these words:
Quote on
These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidence of injury." **He then proceeds to describe the head wound.** (CE 392, Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0277b.gif
Testifying before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964, Jenkins stated: "Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all these other activities were under way..." He then lists some of the activities he helped with before noting: **"and then turned attention to the wound in the head."** He also stated. "...my mental appreciation for a wound--a wound in the neck, I believe, was sort of-was overshadowed by recognition of the wound to the scalp and skull plate." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pages/WC_Vol6_0029b.gif
In a deposition for the House Select Committee on Assassinations on November 10, 1977, this report is made:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0148b.gif
He [Jenkins] said the President's thick shock of hair largely covered up the head wound. However, **Dr. Jenkins was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the clearest views of the head wound (believes he was "...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.")** His location was customary for an anesthesiologist. (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 286, emphasis added)
In addition to Dr. Jenkins' sworn statements concerning his ability to see the head wound, we have this from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Paul Peters, who was also present in the emergency room:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pages/WC_Vol6_0040b.gif
PETERS. "It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. Dr. Jenkins had observed the brain and Dr. Clark had observed the brain and it was pointed out to Dr. Perry that it appeared to be a mortal wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, VI, p. 70)
B. The issue of the damaged cerebellum
Jenkins told Posner: "The description of the cerebellum was my fault. When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum." (p. 311)
Again the record is quite different:
On Friday afternoon, in CE 392 Jenkins wrote that the brain was damaged **"to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound."** (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
Four months later, long after he had had time to "read his report over," Jenkins testified before the Warren Commission: "Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)
Fourteen years later, in his HSCA deposition, Jenkins still had not corrected his "mistake." "He [Jenkins] noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) was hanging out from a hole in the right-rear of the head." (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 287)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0149a.gif
Jenkins, according to Posner, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and the protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (p. 312)
C. The issue of the location of the head wound
Jenkins, according to Posner, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and the protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (p. 312)
CE 392, November 22, 1963: "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital).” (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
In his HSCA deposition in 1977: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone." (HSCA, Volume VII, p. 287)
Milam says, "It is almost humorous that, of the bones of the sides and rear of the head, the parietal bone (where he now locates the wound for Posner), far from being where he had located the wound previously, is a bone that Jenkins did not even mention in his sworn testimony!”
Quote off
Again we see that like the WC, Posner made claims in his book that were NOT supported by the evidence on record. IF he was a serious researcher this should have given him pause to the point of at least trying to clarify these differences, but it does NOT appear he did this. Instead he used obfuscation and confusion to mislead people. IF LHO really did murder JFK and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) this would NOT be needed as the evidence for the most part would support this conclusion. The FACT is it does NOT do this at all.
d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/production/podcast_uploaded_episode/492728/492728-1591224073206-833e3acd1717c.jpg
We will continue our look at researcher Wallace Milam’s review of Gerald Posner’s book “Case Closed” to see the discrepancies between what Posner was told and/or wrote to what the actual evidence on the record shows.
***********************************************
On 11/22/63 President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was taken to Parkland Hospital (PH) following the shooting in Dealey Plaza (DP). He was worked on feverishly by the doctors and nurses to try and save his life. Despite these efforts, and their obvious close proximity to JFK, Posner would say this is his book, "Case Closed", about them:
Quote on
...it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertions about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail." (p. 308)
Quote off
Like an examination is needed to see a gaping hole, right? Posner is using total obfuscation and misleading the reader with this comment. Wallace Milam showed how erroneous this comment really is in one of his many Posner reviews. Are the statements made to Posner and included in his book "Case Closed" consistent with the previous statements, made under oath as parts of official investigations? Let’s see.
Dr. Marion Jenkins
A. The issue of observation and examination
Dr. Marion Jenkins told Posner: "We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds." (p. 309)
But Milam points out THE RECORD IS QUITE DIFFERENT! On Friday afternoon, just hours after treating Kennedy, Jenkins wrote these words:
Quote on
These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidence of injury." **He then proceeds to describe the head wound.** (CE 392, Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0277b.gif
Testifying before the Warren Commission on March 25, 1964, Jenkins stated: "Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all these other activities were under way..." He then lists some of the activities he helped with before noting: **"and then turned attention to the wound in the head."** He also stated. "...my mental appreciation for a wound--a wound in the neck, I believe, was sort of-was overshadowed by recognition of the wound to the scalp and skull plate." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pages/WC_Vol6_0029b.gif
In a deposition for the House Select Committee on Assassinations on November 10, 1977, this report is made:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0148b.gif
He [Jenkins] said the President's thick shock of hair largely covered up the head wound. However, **Dr. Jenkins was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the clearest views of the head wound (believes he was "...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.")** His location was customary for an anesthesiologist. (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 286, emphasis added)
In addition to Dr. Jenkins' sworn statements concerning his ability to see the head wound, we have this from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Paul Peters, who was also present in the emergency room:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pages/WC_Vol6_0040b.gif
PETERS. "It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. Dr. Jenkins had observed the brain and Dr. Clark had observed the brain and it was pointed out to Dr. Perry that it appeared to be a mortal wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, VI, p. 70)
B. The issue of the damaged cerebellum
Jenkins told Posner: "The description of the cerebellum was my fault. When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum." (p. 311)
Again the record is quite different:
On Friday afternoon, in CE 392 Jenkins wrote that the brain was damaged **"to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound."** (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
Four months later, long after he had had time to "read his report over," Jenkins testified before the Warren Commission: "Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." (Hearings and Exhibits, Volume VI, p. 48)
Fourteen years later, in his HSCA deposition, Jenkins still had not corrected his "mistake." "He [Jenkins] noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) was hanging out from a hole in the right-rear of the head." (HSCA Hearings, Volume VII, p. 287)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0149a.gif
Jenkins, according to Posner, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and the protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (p. 312)
C. The issue of the location of the head wound
Jenkins, according to Posner, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and the protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (p. 312)
CE 392, November 22, 1963: "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital).” (Warren Report, p. 530, emphasis added)
In his HSCA deposition in 1977: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone." (HSCA, Volume VII, p. 287)
Milam says, "It is almost humorous that, of the bones of the sides and rear of the head, the parietal bone (where he now locates the wound for Posner), far from being where he had located the wound previously, is a bone that Jenkins did not even mention in his sworn testimony!”
Quote off
Again we see that like the WC, Posner made claims in his book that were NOT supported by the evidence on record. IF he was a serious researcher this should have given him pause to the point of at least trying to clarify these differences, but it does NOT appear he did this. Instead he used obfuscation and confusion to mislead people. IF LHO really did murder JFK and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) this would NOT be needed as the evidence for the most part would support this conclusion. The FACT is it does NOT do this at all.