The autopsy.. 55 years later

[Pat Speer]

I've had a number of discussions with Jenkins, and can say it is a mistake to think he's just telling CT's what they want to hear.

1. He has long insisted he was present from the beginning of the autopsy, and that the pre-autopsy surgery proposed by Horne did not happen.

2. He has long insisted the back of the head at and below the level of the ears was present, but shattered, at the beginning of the autopsy. This is a problem for CTs, such as Mantik, who insist the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and that the low back of the head was missing both at Parkland and Bethesda.

Holy smokes! I finally finished watching this new video and was saddened to find that Jenkins had caved in to pressure, and had moved the head wound down from where he used to claim it was. He'd previously claimed the top of the back of the head was missing and that the far back of the head was shattered but extant beneath the scalp, but has now switched it around.

Now, why would he have done this? Well, one can only guess, But Jenkins makes repeated references to a neurologist friend in this interview, who'd recently been shown the autopsy photos. This can only be Dr. Michael Chesser, a supporter of Dr. David Mantik. Chesser has studied my website, and is undoubtedly aware that I've used Jenkins' comments to combat Mantik's bs about the Harper fragment exploding from the middle of the occipital region. Presumably, he's talked to Jenkins on this point, and has convinced him to change his description of the head wound location.

[Oscar Navarro]

    Why not conduct some research on your own? You are currently pot shotting from a position of Ignorance.

What, can't ask questions?

[Oscar Navarro]

No I'm saying, he took photos after the autopsy. None of the HSCA experts were there at all.

Knudsen did not take any photos, period. He was told by Adm. Burkley the next day to develop negatives of photos taken of the autopsy. From the very beginning of his testimony for the HSCA he states the following

Mr. Purdy. Did all the people who were present there with you examine the prints, or did just some of them rxamine the prints?

Mr. Knudsen. Examine the prints -- they were examined for quality but not for detail. In other words, as a photographer, I can take and make a print and examine it and make sure it is good quality and ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture. You are not looking for that sort of thing. You are looking for the quality, to make sure the print is technically correct. It was examined for technical purposes, not for the subject matter.

Then 15 years later, for some reason, Knudsen allegedly remembers details of a photograph of JFK being held with his torso held up and with two, maybe three metal probes, 24" long, 3/4" in circumference, made of aluminum or stainless steel, going completely through his neck and torso. After being informed the testimony of another person (Jim Fox) does not mention anything about probes, Knudsen begins to doubt his memory and changes his recollection to possibly having seen a B/W negative of probes going through JFK. By the end of the interview Knudsen attempts to get out of his predicament by relying on what is obvious, after 15 years his memory of the events ain't so hot. Knudsen should have stuck to what he said at the beginning of the interview ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture.

[Royell Storing]

Knudsen did not take any photos, period. He was told by Adm. Burkley the next day to develop negatives of photos taken of the autopsy. From the very beginning of his testimony for the HSCA he states the following

Mr. Purdy. Did all the people who were present there with you examine the prints, or did just some of them rxamine the prints?

Mr. Knudsen. Examine the prints -- they were examined for quality but not for detail. In other words, as a photographer, I can take and make a print and examine it and make sure it is good quality and ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture. You are not looking for that sort of thing. You are looking for the quality, to make sure the print is technically correct. It was examined for technical purposes, not for the subject matter.

Then 15 years later, for some reason, Knudsen allegedly remembers details of a photograph of JFK being held with his torso held up and with two, maybe three metal probes, 24" long, 3/4" in circumference, made of aluminum or stainless steel, going completely through his neck and torso. After being informed the testimony of another person (Jim Fox) does not mention anything about probes, Knudsen begins to doubt his memory and changes his recollection to possibly having seen a B/W negative of probes going through JFK. By the end of the interview Knudsen attempts to get out of his predicament by relying on what is obvious, after 15 years his memory of the events ain't so hot. Knudsen should have stuck to what he said at the beginning of the interview ten minutes later you can ask me what it was and I cannot even tell you who was in the picture.

            The above is Not asking "questions". The above are assertions arrived at without knowing the Full story. Ask yourself why Knudsen was Not asked to testify before the WC vs being Back Roomed under Oath by the HSCA. Now get to work.

[Oscar Navarro]

            The above is Not asking "questions". The above are assertions arrived at without knowing the Full story. Ask yourself why Knudsen was Not asked to testify before the WC vs being Back Roomed under Oath by the HSCA. Now get to work.

You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I  don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face.  Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
Case closed. 

[Royell Storing]

You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I  don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face.  Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
Case closed. 

      It is obvious that you have No Idea as to the back story connected to the eventual SEALED HSCA Testimony of Knudsen.  Just do the required research. Expanding your knowledge will render better conclusions on your part. Right now, you look very foolish.

[Bill Chapman]

You're replying to two different post as if they were a single post. I'll now reply to the second "The Above". I  don't waste my time with hypotheticals. The direct evidence is staring you in the face.  Read Knudsen's interview https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666&search=%22Robert_L.+Knudsen%22#relPageId=53&tab=page
Case closed. 

This format might be handier to read

Knudsen HCSA deposition
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/Knudsen.htm

[Ray Mitcham]

In Knudsen's interview, he said he was disturbed that he remembered probe(s) in the body, but nobody else did. Well the photographer, Stringer, certainly saw them.

"Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two probes through the body that nobody else recalls, it puts a question in my mind, and yet but I could not imagine where I could get the idea from, if I had not seen it. And yet it is starting to bother me now that there is nothing in the autopsy about it. Certainly that would be in the autopsy, if it were true. At this point, I wish I had studied the negatives rather than glance at them. At this point, I am confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly that there was this photograph, yet nobody else recalls it, and it is apparently not in any report. If it is not in any report -- I cannot conceive why it would not be in the report. If it were there -- it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind so much. "