Charles Crenshaw M.D
Thalia
Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
enlighten me.
John McAdams
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Nov 2009 10:54:49 -0500, Thalia<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
>> enlighten me.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
JAMA has credibility problems and so do The Three Stooges who lied and
said that Crenshaw was never in the room. Crenshaw sued and they had to
pay some big bucks. And YOU want to talk about credibility? Do you know
the difference between slander and libel?
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
They simply LIE about what Crenshaw claimed. Have you ever talked to
him? I did. He was a very sweet man. Just mistaken in what he saw, like
almost all the other Parkland doctors.
John Fiorentino
The case was settled by JAMA.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4af5cc39$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
My standard for what "Crenshaw claimed" is his book.
Did he back off some of the stuff in the book when you talked to him?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/7/2009 11:40 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2009 10:54:49 -0500, Thalia<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
>>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
>>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
>>> enlighten me.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
>JAMA has credibility problems
Doesn't help Crenshaw's credibility.
>and so do The Three Stooges who lied and
>said that Crenshaw was never in the room.
Nobody lied. The JAMA apparently talked to doctors who didn't
remember him in the ER.
>Crenshaw sued and they had to
>pay some big bucks.
They settled, doubtless because that was cheaper.
They could certainly have won at trial, because Crenshaw was a "public
figure."
>And YOU want to talk about credibility? Do you know
>the difference between slander and libel?
>
>
Ever hear of the Sullivan decision?
By he way, want to try rebutting anything on my Crenshaw page?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu//crenshaw.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA article.
>The case was settled by JAMA.
>
>John F.
Crenshaw was known to be a very nice and sincere man, but some of his
claims were pretty farfetched and exaggerated, imo. BUT ... when it
comes to the JAMA article, they were in the wrong ... got sued ... and
indeed did settle ... paying Crenshaw to settle and drop the suit. He
was, indeed, seen in TR1 that day .... and is mentioned as having been
there in WC testimony. He did participate in treating JFK (he did a
cut down on an ankle). The JAMA article, as I recall, claimed he
wasn't even in the room. They were wrong ... and didn't do the
simplest bit of fact checking which would have told them otherwise.
On that, Crenshaw was quite right, they were quite wrong.
You make it sound like JAMA made some magnanimous gesture to Crenshaw.
They got their butt in a ringer, were dead wrong, and, of course,
agreed to settle with Crenshaw by paying him $$$. Crenshaw accepted
the settlement, he did not have to.
Barb :-)
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:6n8bf5lve35pn03og...@4ax.com...
The AMA published some "Disparaging" information about Crenshaw's
Credibility.
Crenshaw SUED the AMA.
Crenshaw WON that Lawsuit ! ! !
Always Half a story from McAdams ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Nov 2009 15:44:36 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2009 11:40 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov 2009 10:54:49 -0500, Thalia<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
>>>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
>>>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
>>>> enlighten me.
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>>
>> JAMA has credibility problems
>
>
> Doesn't help Crenshaw's credibility.
>
Calls into question YOUR credibility.
>
>> and so do The Three Stooges who lied and
>> said that Crenshaw was never in the room.
>
> Nobody lied. The JAMA apparently talked to doctors who didn't
> remember him in the ER.
>
JAMA lied. The Three Stooges lied. Crenshaw sued. They paid. End of story.
>
>> Crenshaw sued and they had to
>> pay some big bucks.
>
> They settled, doubtless because that was cheaper.
>
> They could certainly have won at trial, because Crenshaw was a "public
> figure."
>
>
>> And YOU want to talk about credibility? Do you know
>> the difference between slander and libel?
>>
>>
>
> Ever hear of the Sullivan decision?
>
> By he way, want to try rebutting anything on my Crenshaw page?
>
Where on that page do you cite the dollar amount that they had to pay
Crenshaw?
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Nov 2009 15:45:04 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2009 10:54 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
>>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
>>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
>>> enlighten me.
>>>
>>
>> They simply LIE about what Crenshaw claimed. Have you ever talked to
>> him? I did. He was a very sweet man. Just mistaken in what he saw, like
>> almost all the other Parkland doctors.
>>
>>
>
> My standard for what "Crenshaw claimed" is his book.
>
Or JAMA lies.
> Did he back off some of the stuff in the book when you talked to him?
>
No, and I told him that he was simply wrong. He had not seen the
original autopsy photographs.
Anthony Marsh
> Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA
> article. The case was settled by JAMA.
>
> John F.
>
I just installed Windows 7 so maybe there is a bug in its SEARCH
function. Can you point out where McAdams cites the JAMA article and
where he explains that they LIED about Crenshaw, got sued and had to
settle out of court?
The Long Suppressed Truth?
Or a Bunch of Fibs?
Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book Conspiracy of Silence caused a minor
sensation when it was released in 1992, even attracting the attention of
the New York Times. Coauthored by Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, it told
several conspiratorial stories about the assassination, and especially
about the role of Dr. Crenshaw, then a resident physician at Parkland
Hospital, in the care of John Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald.
It has since been reprinted as Trauma Room One.
Among the "interesting" things that Crenshaw claims are:
* The back of Kennedy's head was blown out, clearly implying a shot
from the Grassy Knoll in front of Kennedy.
* A small wound in Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound, proving
a shot from the front, and not from the Sniper's Nest behind Kennedy.
* Parkland doctors, knowing there was a conspiracy, have feared to
speak out.
* The President's body was altered between Parkland Hospital and
the autopsy at Bethesda.
* And the most sensational: Lyndon Johnson called the operating
room were Oswald was being treated and demanded a confession be
extracted from the accused assassin.
Conspiracy authors, wanting to push the idea of a shot from the Grassy
Knoll, have lapped up Crenshaw's account. For example, Gary Aguilar
quotes Crenshaw as follows:
He, with co-authors, Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published
a book, "Conspiracy of Silence" (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G.
"Conspiracy of Silence". 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed
both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head
wound was posterior on the right side. In "Conspiracy of Silence" he
wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His
entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a
crater�an empty cavity. "
Conspiracy writer Gary Aguilar accepts Crenshaw's account. His essay on
supposed "back of the head" witnesses is useful and interesting �
although many of his assessments of the testimony are to be treated
skeptically.
How does Crenshaw know such things? According to the book, he had a
central role in treating Kennedy. Yet when the New York Times called up
Crenshaw in reponse to his book, he backed away from the book's claims
as to how central he was, saying that Hansen and Shaw "took poetic
license" on this issue. Crenshaw "admitted . . .that the role he played
in Kennedy's case was minor." See the Times of May 26, 1992.
It hardly inspires confidence in the book when Crenshaw says things like
this.
Aguilar then quotes the following passage, where Crenshaw further
described the wound:
All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I
saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head
through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the
missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and
occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum. (Emphasis added, p.
86).
In the first place, as Hank Sienzant has pointed out, Crenshaw cites
several descriptions of the head wound in his book, and they are far
from being "back of the head" descriptions:
* Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain
was obliterated. . . . "
* Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his
brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way
behind his right ear."
* Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone.
It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
* Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his
head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
* Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who
loses the entire right side of his brain."
In some passages (see p. 132), Crenshaw says that the damage extended
around to the back. But his description is mostly "side."
Even more striking is Crenshaw's claim that there was "no doubt in his
mind" about the trajectory being front-to-back. Compare this to other,
more senior doctors, in the ER.
In another part of the essay, Aguilar quotes Ronald Jones:
Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature
of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative
thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you
observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were
treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered,
"With no history as to the number of times that the President had been
shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing
the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit
wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I
could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would
be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral
body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior
portion of the head." (WC.V.6:56)
And then there was Paul Peters:
Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how
he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the
only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in
through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the
back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of
entry." (Lifton D. Best Evidence. p317. Peters repeated this speculation
in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed
JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk- Amite Medical
Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to
a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)
So while doctors like Jones and Peters were engaging in rather wild
speculation as to the trajectory Crenshaw, a very junior bit player, had
"no doubt."
In fact, nobody at Parkland could offer more than a wild guess about the
trajectory, since nobody did (or had any need to do) the sort of
forensic examination that would have allowed determining trajectory.
Crenshaw's assurance here is necessarily bogus, and detracts from his
credibility.
Conspiracy of Silence?
Then there is Crenshaw's "Conspiracy of Silence" thesis. For Crenshaw:
Every doctor who was in Trauma Room 1 had his own reasons for not
publicly refuting the 'official line' . . . . I believe there was a
common denominator in our silence � a fearful perception that to come
forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking
for trouble. . . . Whatever was happening was larger than any of us. I
reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President
of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (pp.
153-154.)
This is almost breathtaking in its absurdity. Crenshaw published a book
in 1992 claiming he was breaking a "conspiracy of silence." Yet the
other Parkland doctors had been talking their heads off for nearly 30
years by this time. Many have talked to conspiracy authors like Groden,
Lifton and Livingstone. Their statements can be seen in books like Six
Seconds in Dallas, High Treason, High Treason II, and Best Evidence.
They can be seen in videos such as The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Bob
Groden's The Case for Conspiracy, and NOVA's Who Shot JFK? Most have
given statements that � if they have been quoted accurately � imply a
conspiracy. The conspiracy writers (including Gary Aguilar) know this,
because the have been quoting these doctors extensively!
If the thesis of the book is bogus, the details aren't any better.
In the first place, the book is littered with silly conspiracy book
factoids. To give just a very few examples:
1. The Julia Ann Mercer story (p. 55).
2. The claim that seventy-five percent of the witnesses in Dealey
Plaza who identified the source of the shots said they came from the
Grassy Knoll (p. 66).
3. Crenshaw accepts Seth Kantor's testimony that Ruby was at
Parkland Hospital about 1:30 (p. 108). This is perfectly reasonable, but
then Crenshaw reports that Jack Ruby was in the Texas Theater at the
time of the Oswald arrest! (p. 117) Although this doesn't exactly put
Ruby in two places at one time, it implies an absurd mad dash by Ruby
from the Dallas Morning News to Parkland Hospital to the Texas Theater
and back to the Carousel club (where he returned about 2:00 pm.) in well
under an hour.
4. Crenshaw recounts how Dallas cops and Federal agents descended on
the Texas Theater "all to capture a man suspected of entering the
theater without paying" (p. 115).
5. Jack Ruby's correcting DA Wade about Oswald's role in the "Fair
Play for Cuba" committee indicated he was "a person very familiar with
Cuban politics" (p. 145).
6. The bogus Bobby Kennedy "only the powers of the presidency" quote
(p. 138).
All these silly conspiracy factoids could be blamed on Crenshaw's
conspiracy-oriented coauthors Shaw and Hansen. But Crenshaw's own
supposed account (it's set in a sans-serif typeface) is full of
Crenshaw's claims to have seen things that he could not in fact have seen.
As Roger Bynum has pointed out, Crenshaw provides the following tidbit
about his actions on the morning of the assassination:
Having visited all my patients, I went to the dining room on the
first floor, and was eating two hardboiled eggs, toast, and coffee while
reading the newspaper. The Dallas Morning News was full of information
and stories about President Kennedy and the First Lady. . . .
With sickening clarity, I recall a full-page editorial purchased by
an extremist group that viciously attacked the integrity of President
Kennedy by claiming he was a Communist. The President was posed in a
frontal and side mug shot atop the message, "This man is wanted for
treasonous activities against the United States." The article further
claimed President Kennedy was " . . . turning the sovereignty of the
U.S. over to the communist controlled United Nations." p. 33
But Crenshaw could have seen no such editorial, since none existed! The
ad attacking Kennedy in the Dallas Morning News was quite different from
Crenshaw's description. It was headlined (sarcastically) "Welcome Mr.
Kennedy." Crenshaw provides an accurate description of a handbill that
was distributed in the Dallas area.
* Here is the handbill.
* Here is the advertisement.
Is this issue � handbill versus advertisement � one that could be easily
confused? Yes, if you are getting your information from reading books on
the assassination. But Crenshaw claims that he remembers "with sickening
clarity" an ad in the Dallas Morning News which never appeared!
This raises the issue of other things he claims to remember "clearly."
For example, Crenshaw claims he literally ran to the Emergency Room with
Dr. McClelland, and that he and McClelland approached Dr. Perry (who was
already treating Kennedy) together. See pages 73-78. He describes the
head wound, and then recounts:
I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at
the midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt
in my mind about that wound. I had seen dozens of them in the emergency
room. At that point, I knew that he had been shot at least twice. (p. 79)
Unfortunately for Crenshaw, McClelland told the Warren Commission that
the tracheostomy was already begun and the throat wound obliterated when
he arrived. The following is from 6H32:
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of
the neck wound when you first arrived?
Dr. McCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this
time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been
made by Dr. Perry, and he told me�although I did not see that�that he
had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one
quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.
Perry confirmed McClelland's account when he told the Warren Commission
that, at the time he began the tracheostomy, McClelland was not present
and he (Perry) instructed that he be called (3H369). He also said that
McClelland arrived "shortly after" he had entered the neck (3H370). And
further that Perry and Carrico were the only people who saw the
unaltered wound (3H377).
So either Crenshaw's claim to have entered the ER with McClelland is
untrue, or his claim to have seen the unaltered neck wound is untrue.
Since McClelland confirms that he entered the Emergency Room with
Crenshaw (6H31), it seems that Cranshaw gave a vivid description of a
throat wound he never saw.
Crenshaw the Liftonite
Instead of going on and on about silly conspiracy-book factoids that
Crenshaw repeats, it might be good to focus on one particular class of
factoids that Crenshaw repeats. Those of David Lifton.
1. Crenshaw recounts how J. Gary Shaw showed him photos from the JFK
autopsy. He says: "I was amazed. . . . One picture showed President
Kennedy's neck at the point where the bullet had entered, the spot where
Dr. Malcolm Perry had performed a tracheostomy at Parkland to help the
President breathe. The opening was larger and jagged � significantly
different from the way it looked to me in Dallas. There was no doubt in
my mind � someone had tampered with the body, or the photographs." (p.
10-11)
He continues: "After studying the pictures for several more moments, I
said, "No, these aren't the wounds I saw at Parkland. From these
pictures it appears that someone performed some surgery on the President
between the time his body left Parkland Hospital and when these
photographs were taken." (p. 11).
He returns to this theme on page 111, when he again discusses looking at
the autopsy photos, at which point he " . . . realized there was
something rotten in America in 1963. . . . Great effort had been made to
reconstruct the back of the President's head, and the incision Perry had
made in his throat at Parkland had been enlarged and mangled, as if
someone had conducted another procedure. It looked to be the work of a
butcher."
2. Crenshaw says the body left Parkland in "a bronze casket . . .
wrapped in white cloth" but arrived at Bethesda in "a gray shipping
casket, not swaddled in white cloth, but instead zipped in a body bag
like the ones from Vietnam" (pp. 11-12). He repeats this story on page 111.
3. Crenshaw tells about a medical student who saw a bullet hole in the
windshield (p. 105).
4. He says that " . . . there were two eyewitnesses present at the
autopsy, James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor, who swear that President
Kennedy arrived at the Naval medical facility zipped in a gray body bag
. . . . And even more astounding, these men, who have gone through
numerous tests and substantial harrassment to be proved credible, claim
there was no brain when the body came out of the gray bag. As the last
doctor to see President Kennedy before the body left Parkland, I can
unequivocally report that there was no gray body bag, and that he still
had the left side of his brain." pp. 111-112.
All these are part of author David Lifton's "body alteration"
hypothesis. Lifton, in Best Evidence, claims that Kennedy's body was
stolen between Parkland Hospital and the autopsy at Bethesda and his
wounds surgically altered to conceal shots from the front. If this
sounds absurd it's because it is absurd, and few if any among even
conspiracy authors believe it � except for Crenshaw.
The Supposed Call from LBJ
The most explosive claim made by Crenshaw is that Lyndon Johnson called
the ER during the attempt to save Oswald's life, and demanded that a
confession be extracted from Oswald. Supposedly, the confession would be
taken by an "Oliver Hardy" figure who was standing by in the ER.
Aside from being absurd on its face, Crenshaw has credibility problems
on several fronts with this claim:
1. The White House phone logs do not show any call from LBJ to Parkland
Hospital that day. See: Case Closed, paperback, p. 396.
2. Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to make a phone call at the
time Crenshaw describes. The operation on Oswald began at 11:44 Central
Time. At 11:55 Central Time, Manchester (The Death of a President) notes
that the Kennedys and the Johnsons met in the East Room of the White
House and then proceeded to the ceremonies moving Kennedy's body from
the White House to the Capitol. But Crenshaw explicitly said the phone
call came a little under an hour into the operation (p. 188). As Gary
Mack explains:
It has always been known that there was a call from Washington, but
apparently not from LBJ as Crenshaw's book claims. My own research,
conducted at the request of KXAS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Dallas, found
that LBJ was in his limo at the very moment Crenshaw's book indicates
the call came in. There is no record of any such radiotelephone call
which, according to the procedures in place, would have to have been
routed to Dallas through the White House switchboard where all calls
were logged. Nor is there an account from any of the people in the car
that LBJ said "Excuse me, I have to call the hospital." And there would
certainly be no need to keep such an event, if it happened, secret.
(Post on newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk on 10/9/98.)
3. Crenshaw claims (p. 188) that he told Shires about the call in the ER
immediately after it was made. But neither Shires nor any of the other
doctors there have ever mentioned such a statement.
Crenshaw supporters claim corroboration of Crenshaw's tale from a Doctor
Phillip Williams. According to the New York Times of May 26, 1992,
Williams said that he remembered reports of two White House telephone
calls to the operating room.
Quoting Williams: "I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who
it was, the White House is calling and President Johnson wants to know
what the status of Oswald is."
It's interesting that Crenshaw supporters claim "corroboration" when
this account flatly contradicts Crenshaw's! It does not confirm LBJ
personally calling, and is not about getting a confession. According to
the Times: " . . . Dr. Williams said he had never heard that Johnson
wanted to get a confession. He also said he did not know whether it was
Johnson or an aide who spoke on the phone." It seems unlikely that
anything as memorable as a demand for a confession would be forgotten �
if it actually happened.
Crenshaw supporters have cited one Phyllis Bartlett, telephone operator
at Parkland, who claims that a man who identified himself as Lyndon
Johnson called Parkland during the time Oswald was in surgery, and she
patched him through to the operating room. Given Johnson's whereabouts,
this is vastly implausible. And there is another problem with her story.
As Gary Mack explains:
Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities
that weekend, and they are here in our collection [at the Sixth Floor
Museum] and in the documents we duplicated for the ARRB. Neither
Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else mentioned that there was either a call
from LBJ or a call from Washington. They did mention getting more than a
few crank calls, though. (Newsgroup post on alt.assassination.jfk,
10/15/98)
As wild as Crenshaw's most recent story is, it appears to have been
toned down compared to the original. Harrison Livingstone, for example,
has claimed that the first version of Crenshaw's manuscript had Johnson
calling and demanding, not that Oswald be gotten to confess, but that
Oswald be killed. The Kennedy Assassination Home Page has been unable to
confirm the existence of that manuscript, but the early version of the
story was as Livingstone describes.
One of the researchers who was privy to this early version was Gus
Russo, author of Live By The Sword. As Russo describes it:
When Oliver Stone was in Dallas prepping for JFK, a number of us
were around as "technical advisors," which was a bit of a joke, since
Stone only listened to people with crazy conspiracy info.
One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], Stone was having a slew of top
secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone
paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly
Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and
Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw
(Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the
first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came
down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same
time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that
Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It
was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until
his lungs collapsed. (E-mail to the author dated August 25, 2003)
Thus is appears that Crenshaw's absurdly incredible early version was
tempered in an attempt to make it more credible. With many devout
conspiracy believers, the tactic succeeded. For others, Crenshaw merely
added to the long list of witnesses whose tall tales litter the
assassination landscape. Return to Kennedy Assassination Home Page
John Fiorentino
comments in the JAMA article such as: (and I'm going from memory now) "I
don't even remember him being in the room."
Do not give evidence that JAMA said; "He was not in the room."
There is no evidence Crenshaw performed any "cut-down."
Here's Carrico:
Mr. SPECTER Will you continue, then, to describe what efforts you made to
revive the President.
Dr. CARRICO. After the endotracheal tube was inserted and connected, I
listened
briefly to his chest, respirations were better but still inadequate.
Dr. Perry arrived, and because of the inadequate respirations the presence
of
a tracheal injury, advised that the chest tube was to be inserted, this was
done
by some of the other physicians in the room.
At the same time we had been getting the airway inserted Dr. Curtis and
Dr. White were doing a cutdown, venous section using polyethylene catheters
through which fluid, medicine and blood could be administered.
Dr. CARRICO. Sure. Dr. Perry then took over supervision and treatment, and
the chest tubes were inserted, another cutdown was done by Dr. Jones on the
President's arm.
So, according to Carrico, Drs. Curtis and White performed the cutdown. Then
Dr. Jones performed another cutdown on the President's arm.
According to Dr. Salyer, who DOES in fact place Crenshaw in the room -
here's his description of Crenshaw's activities:
Mr. SPECTER. To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?
Dr. SALYER. Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were
occupied in making sure an I.V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the---is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?
Dr. SALYER. Yes, he is third-year resident. That's the reason I remember
him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that.
So, herein is the reason Crenshaw had a "credibility problem."
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pqacf5539eg1lub9a...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Nov 2009 20:45:46 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA article.
>> The case was settled by JAMA.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Crenshaw was known to be a very nice and sincere man, but some of his
> claims were pretty farfetched and exaggerated, imo. BUT ... when it
Almost all of Crenshaw's claims were in 100% with all the other Parkland
doctors. Many were simply wrong.
> comes to the JAMA article, they were in the wrong ... got sued ... and
> indeed did settle ... paying Crenshaw to settle and drop the suit. He
> was, indeed, seen in TR1 that day .... and is mentioned as having been
> there in WC testimony. He did participate in treating JFK (he did a
But WC defenders never even bother to read WC testimony. It's more fun
to them to make up crap.
> cut down on an ankle). The JAMA article, as I recall, claimed he
> wasn't even in the room. They were wrong ... and didn't do the
> simplest bit of fact checking which would have told them otherwise.
JAMA is not even close to being a respected journal.
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
"the" cutdown? There were cutdowns in BOTH ankles. Surely you must
know this.
>
>According to Dr. Salyer, who DOES in fact place Crenshaw in the room -
>here's his description of Crenshaw's activities:
>
>Mr. SPECTER. To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?
>Dr. SALYER. Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were
>occupied in making sure an I.V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood.
>Mr. SPECTER. Is the---is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?
>Dr. SALYER. Yes, he is third-year resident. That's the reason I remember
>him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that.
>
>
>So, herein is the reason Crenshaw had a "credibility problem."
Crenshaw claims he helped Salyer perform a cutdown in the right ankle.
What do you think Salyer and Crenshaw did as regards "making sure an
IV was going"? There may have been an IV going in the ankle already
which was havinbg probs and they tried to work with it, then did a
cutdown. I say that's a possibility because Perry noted an IV in the
right leg ... and Perry was there before Crenshaw and Crenshaw was
there before Salyer. So that IV may have been having probs and they so
they needed to do a cutdown.
It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things .... Crenshaw
was mentioned by several as being in TR1 ... and, as you noted with
Salyer's testimony, he participated with Salyer on making sure IV
fluid was running. Salyer says they were working together on that.
Thanks for the cite!
The autopsy, of course, notes cutdown wounds in both ankles, so there
is no doubt a cutdown was done.
This is all very old news.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 7 Nov 2009 20:45:46 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
><johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA article.
>>The case was settled by JAMA.
>>
>>John F.
>
>Crenshaw was known to be a very nice and sincere man, but some of his
>claims were pretty farfetched and exaggerated, imo. BUT ... when it
>comes to the JAMA article, they were in the wrong ... got sued ... and
>indeed did settle ... paying Crenshaw to settle and drop the suit. He
>was, indeed, seen in TR1 that day .... and is mentioned as having been
>there in WC testimony. He did participate in treating JFK (he did a
>cut down on an ankle). The JAMA article, as I recall, claimed he
>wasn't even in the room.
It gave that impression by quoting doctors who said they didn't
remember seeing him there.
>They were wrong ... and didn't do the
>simplest bit of fact checking which would have told them otherwise.
>On that, Crenshaw was quite right, they were quite wrong.
>
>You make it sound like JAMA made some magnanimous gesture to Crenshaw.
>They got their butt in a ringer, were dead wrong, and, of course,
>agreed to settle with Crenshaw by paying him $$$. Crenshaw accepted
>the settlement, he did not have to.
>
The JAMA could have certainly won the suit, since Crenshaw was a
"public figure" (like E. Howard Hunt), and as was shown when Hunt sued
the Liberty Lobby, it's virtually impossible for a "public figure" to
win a libel suit.
JAMA was guilty of sloppy journalism, but not "actual malice."
Often, it's just cheaper to settle than to let a suit go to trial.
My page on Crenshaw went up when he was alive, and he never sued me.
:-)
John McAdams
There is no doubt he was there, doing something, but not playing a key
role.
It is also true that Crenshaw told the NEW YORK TIMES that his
coauthors exaggerated his role a bit.
I'm not asserting that he didn't do the cutdown, just that:
1. It doesn't really matter
2. We can't really be too sure.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/7/2009 8:45 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA
>> article. The case was settled by JAMA.
>>
>> John F.
>>
>
>I just installed Windows 7 so maybe there is a bug in its SEARCH
>function. Can you point out where McAdams cites the JAMA article and
>where he explains that they LIED about Crenshaw, got sued and had to
>settle out of court?
>
>The Long Suppressed Truth?
>Or a Bunch of Fibs?
>Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book Conspiracy of Silence caused a minor
>sensation when it was released in 1992, even attracting the attention of
>the New York Times. Coauthored by Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, it told
>several conspiratorial stories about the assassination, and especially
>about the role of Dr. Crenshaw, then a resident physician at Parkland
>Hospital, in the care of John Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald.
The whole issue is a red herring, Tony.
It's simply not relevant to Crenshaw's credibility.
Further, the JAMA didn't lie. They were guilty of some sloppy
journalism in not establishing that Crenshaw was indeed in the ER.
You need to quit calling every witness who gives inconvenient
testimony a "liar."
You guys want to make Crenshaw a martyr, assuming that that somehow
makes him believable. It doesn't. His testimony stands or falls on
it's own merits.
You folks can't really defend Crenshaw, so you attack the JAMA.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Ever hear of the Sullivan decision?
>>
>> By he way, want to try rebutting anything on my Crenshaw page?
>>
>
>Where on that page do you cite the dollar amount that they had to pay
>Crenshaw?
>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu//crenshaw.htm
>>
Can't rebut anything on the page, can you Tony?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/7/2009 8:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2009 15:45:04 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2009 10:54 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
>>>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
>>>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
>>>> enlighten me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They simply LIE about what Crenshaw claimed. Have you ever talked to
>>> him? I did. He was a very sweet man. Just mistaken in what he saw, like
>>> almost all the other Parkland doctors.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My standard for what "Crenshaw claimed" is his book.
>>
>
>Or JAMA lies.
>
I don't cite or use anything from the JAMA anywhere on the page.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
I'm a way better JFK reseacher than anybody at the JAMA.
>> Did he back off some of the stuff in the book when you talked to him?
>>
>
>No, and I told him that he was simply wrong. He had not seen the
>original autopsy photographs.
>
He did back off some stuff when the NEW YORK TIMES called him.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Who are "you guys" and "you folks" John? :-) Don't paint with a wide
brush on everything .... it rarely applies, and certainly does not
apply when it comes to Crenshaw.
You know Tony just likes to quibble and stir things up and waste
everyone's time.
Barb :-)
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cdddraftsman
> On 7 Nov 2009 20:45:46 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
>
> >Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA article.
> >The case was settled by JAMA.
>
> >John F.
>
> Crenshaw was known to be a very nice and sincere man, but some of his
> claims were pretty farfetched and exaggerated, imo. BUT ... when it
> comes to the JAMA article, they were in the wrong ... got sued ... and
> indeed did settle ... paying Crenshaw to settle and drop the suit. He
> was, indeed, seen in TR1 that day .... and is mentioned as having been
> there in WC testimony. He did participate in treating JFK (he did a
> cut down on an ankle). The JAMA article, as I recall, claimed he
> wasn't even in the room. They were wrong ... and didn't do the
> simplest bit of fact checking which would have told them otherwise.
> On that, Crenshaw was quite right, they were quite wrong.
>
> You make it sound like JAMA made some magnanimous gesture to Crenshaw.
> They got their butt in a ringer, were dead wrong, and, of course,
> agreed to settle with Crenshaw by paying him $$$. Crenshaw accepted
> the settlement, he did not have to.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:4af5cc39$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> On 11/7/2009 11:40 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>>> I have read several times that Crenshaw has "credibility problems."
> >>>> Other than stating that Kennedy's head was blown out the back, and he
> >>>> spoke to LBJ on the phone, what are these credibility problems? Please
> >>>> enlighten me.
>
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
> >> JAMA has credibility problems and so do The Three Stooges who lied and
> >> said that Crenshaw was never in the room. Crenshaw sued and they had to
> >> pay some big bucks. And YOU want to talk about credibility? Do you know
> >> the difference between slander and libel?
>
> >>> .John
> >>> --------------
>
> - Show quoted text -
My sources tell me that he settled for $1.99 plus tax . The entire
cost to his bruised ego . He was lucky that JAMA was in a good mood to
offer that much .
tl
cdddraftsman
A Doctor who could of made a serious contibution to quelling riotous
and silly claims by CTer's contributes to them ?
A book based upon a bunch of fraudulent claims qualifies him in AM's
heart of hearts as "a very sweet man" .
Hmmmm .... ? Really ?
tl
cdddraftsman
Thats like saying "Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play" ?
I've noticed you seem kinda touchy when discussing illogical leaps of
faith , and willing suspension of disbelief ; I was curious about how this
insensitivity all of a sudden came about regarding Crenshaw . Seems you
can turn it off and on at will ?
Comments
tl
John Fiorentino
"This is all very old news."
To which I acknowledge same and also add..........So is Crenshaw's
credibility problem.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0p6ef51bfv9fmn1t3...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
What I said was............"There is no evidence Crenshaw performed any
"cut-down."
Instead of trying to point to "another" cutdown why not simply post the
evidence that Crenshaw in fact did "any" cutdown. I'm all ears.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0p6ef51bfv9fmn1t3...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Barb says:
>
>"This is all very old news."
>
>To which I acknowledge same and also add..........So is Crenshaw's
>credibility problem.
Yup, that would be part of the "all." :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>BTW Barb:
>
>What I said was............"There is no evidence Crenshaw performed any
>"cut-down."
>
>Instead of trying to point to "another" cutdown why not simply post the
>evidence that Crenshaw in fact did "any" cutdown. I'm all ears.
I didn
t try to point to another cutdown. You pointed to the other one like
it was the only one. I merely noted there was a cutdown in each ankle,
which you didn't seem to be aware of.
Like there is a difference between working on, helping with rather
than being the one to wield the knife? How silly. The salient point
was that he was in the room and participated in some fashion. The
witness you quoted said they worked on making sure an IV was going
together.
EOS.
John McAdams
But you must be aware that there is a cottage industry trying to
vindicate Crenshaw by attacking the JAMA.
>You know Tony just likes to quibble and stir things up and waste
>everyone's time.
>
Yes, I most certainly do.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
John Fiorentino
I am quite aware of all of the "cutdowns." That is irrelevant, as I also
acknowledge Crenshaw was in the ER.
The beginnings of this rather protuberous thread related to Crenshaw's
credibility. That's what I was addressing.
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:veggf5thpgqe1in77...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Nov 2009 10:22:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever hear of the Sullivan decision?
>>>
>>> By he way, want to try rebutting anything on my Crenshaw page?
>>>
>>
>> Where on that page do you cite the dollar amount that they had to pay
>> Crenshaw?
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu//crenshaw.htm
>>>
>
> Can't rebut anything on the page, can you Tony?
>
As usual my complaint is what you left out.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Nov 2009 10:31:28 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2009 8:45 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Your analysis is slanted Anthony. I suggest you re-read the JAMA
>>> article. The case was settled by JAMA.
>>>
>>> John F.
>>>
>>
>> I just installed Windows 7 so maybe there is a bug in its SEARCH
>> function. Can you point out where McAdams cites the JAMA article and
>> where he explains that they LIED about Crenshaw, got sued and had to
>> settle out of court?
>>
>> The Long Suppressed Truth?
>> Or a Bunch of Fibs?
>> Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book Conspiracy of Silence caused a minor
>> sensation when it was released in 1992, even attracting the attention of
>> the New York Times. Coauthored by Jens Hansen and Gary Shaw, it told
>> several conspiratorial stories about the assassination, and especially
>> about the role of Dr. Crenshaw, then a resident physician at Parkland
>> Hospital, in the care of John Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>
> The whole issue is a red herring, Tony.
>
> It's simply not relevant to Crenshaw's credibility.
>
I said it is relevant to YOUR credibility.
> Further, the JAMA didn't lie. They were guilty of some sloppy
> journalism in not establishing that Crenshaw was indeed in the ER.
>
> You need to quit calling every witness who gives inconvenient
> testimony a "liar."
>
I am not talking here about WITNESSES. I am talking about the
participants in the cover-up.
> You guys want to make Crenshaw a martyr, assuming that that somehow
> makes him believable. It doesn't. His testimony stands or falls on
> it's own merits.
>
> You folks can't really defend Crenshaw, so you attack the JAMA.
>
How is my saying that Crenshaw was imply wrong somehow defending him?
The JAMA should be attacked regardless and regularly.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
I don't see where he ever claimed that he played a key role.
> It is also true that Crenshaw told the NEW YORK TIMES that his
> coauthors exaggerated his role a bit.
>
> I'm not asserting that he didn't do the cutdown, just that:
>
> 1. It doesn't really matter
>
> 2. We can't really be too sure.
>
If not the cutdowns then why was he there and what do you think he did?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4af87234....@news.supernews.com...
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
John F. posted the key testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?
Dr. SALYER. Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We
were occupied in making sure an I.V. was going and hanging up a bottle
of blood.
.John
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> The whole issue is a red herring, Tony.
>>
>> It's simply not relevant to Crenshaw's credibility.
>>
>
>I said it is relevant to YOUR credibility.
>
To impeach my credibility you would have to find something on my page
about Crenshaw that is false or misleading.
You can't.
You fuss and fume, but you can't.
>> Further, the JAMA didn't lie. They were guilty of some sloppy
>> journalism in not establishing that Crenshaw was indeed in the ER.
>>
>> You need to quit calling every witness who gives inconvenient
>> testimony a "liar."
>>
>
>I am not talking here about WITNESSES. I am talking about the
>participants in the cover-up.
>
Do you check under your bed each night, Tony?
Fear that people are hiding in the bushes outside your place?
>> You guys want to make Crenshaw a martyr, assuming that that somehow
>> makes him believable. It doesn't. His testimony stands or falls on
>> it's own merits.
>>
>> You folks can't really defend Crenshaw, so you attack the JAMA.
>>
>
>How is my saying that Crenshaw was imply wrong somehow defending him?
>The JAMA should be attacked regardless and regularly.
>
Tony, for you this case is all about whom you hate. To get to the
bottom of any criminal case, that's not a good place to start.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/8/2009 7:03 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2009 10:22:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever hear of the Sullivan decision?
>>>>
>>>> By he way, want to try rebutting anything on my Crenshaw page?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where on that page do you cite the dollar amount that they had to pay
>>> Crenshaw?
>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu//crenshaw.htm
>>>>
>>
>> Can't rebut anything on the page, can you Tony?
>>
>
>As usual my complaint is what you left out.
>
What did I leave out that bears on Crenshaw's credibility?
Anthony Marsh
> The question regarding Crenshaw is as to what HE claimed in his book.
> Some comments in the JAMA article such as: (and I'm going from memory
> now) "I don't even remember him being in the room."
>
Slightly stronger than that. Called him a self-serving liar. Claimed he
wasn't even in the room.
> Do not give evidence that JAMA said; "He was not in the room."
>
> There is no evidence Crenshaw performed any "cut-down."
>
In his book Crenshaw says that he helped removed the President's
clothing and helped Dr. Sayler with the cutdown on the right leg.
None.
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4af87234....@news.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Nov 2009 17:56:16 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The whole issue is a red herring, Tony.
>>>
>>> It's simply not relevant to Crenshaw's credibility.
>>>
>>
>> I said it is relevant to YOUR credibility.
>>
>
> To impeach my credibility you would have to find something on my page
> about Crenshaw that is false or misleading.
>
No. Omission is just as bad.
> You can't.
>
> You fuss and fume, but you can't.
>
>
>>> Further, the JAMA didn't lie. They were guilty of some sloppy
>>> journalism in not establishing that Crenshaw was indeed in the ER.
>>>
>>> You need to quit calling every witness who gives inconvenient
>>> testimony a "liar."
>>>
>>
>> I am not talking here about WITNESSES. I am talking about the
>> participants in the cover-up.
>>
>
> Do you check under your bed each night, Tony?
>
I built my own platform bed and it is full of boxes so there's no room
for anyone to be hiding under my bed.
Do you check under your bed each night looking for that ACLU conspiracy
to take over the world?
> Fear that people are hiding in the bushes outside your place?
That's why I trim them so small.
>
>
>>> You guys want to make Crenshaw a martyr, assuming that that somehow
>>> makes him believable. It doesn't. His testimony stands or falls on
>>> it's own merits.
>>>
>>> You folks can't really defend Crenshaw, so you attack the JAMA.
>>>
>>
>> How is my saying that Crenshaw was imply wrong somehow defending him?
>> The JAMA should be attacked regardless and regularly.
>>
>
> Tony, for you this case is all about whom you hate. To get to the
> bottom of any criminal case, that's not a good place to start.
>
Cui bono is a good place to start.
When a wife is murdered the natural suspect is not the Dali Lama.