Body/casket chicanery
Allan Eaglesham
reexamination of the events of the early evening of 11/22/63 at
Bethesda Naval Hospital:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/BNH-chicanery/
Thank you.
Allan
WBurg...@aol.com
At last someone is bringing this back out. It has never been
disproven; this report, in fact, once again, lays out the reality of
what happenned to JFK's body.
Burgundy
John McAdams
wrote:
I have an entire web page about the kind of logic shown here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/double.htm
Technically, it's a matter of trying to fit every data point, even
when some of the data points are actually noise.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WBurg...@aol.com
> On 20 May 2009 23:16:24 -0400, Allan Eaglesham <aeagl...@twcny.rr.com>
Wow. I read your awesome web site. Too bad it refutes nothing in this
recent article. If you can refute this article point by point using
primary sources, I would be very surprised.
Jean Davison
"Allan Eaglesham" <aeag...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d7b0ebbb-6f3e-4b6e...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
May I respectfully suggest that the author's grouping of
witnesses into three casket "entries," is not nearly as neat as it may
seem. He says, e.g., that Paul O'Connor's observations are "consistent
with those of Reed ...." Not so. O'Connor is listed under witnesses to a
coffin arrival at "6:35-6:45 PM," but his HSCA statement reads, "O'Connor
said that the casket... arrived approximately eight o'clock. He said the
body was in a body bag and the head was wrapped in a sheet." [8,2]
The article implies that Reed, too, saw a body bag: "Reed ...
saw that the body was inside a 'plastic bag'." But Reed specifically
*denied* that he saw a body bag. He described a clear, see-through
plastic [5,24], which is how the body left Parkland.
It's noteworthy, imo, that most of these witnesses first went
on record many years after the event. Memory is very easily contaminated
and the more time that goes by the more unreliable it becomes, according
to researchers. For instance, Reed told the HSCA that he arrived at the
morgue at about 6:30 and was present when the body arrived [6 ,1], but
when the ARRB spoke to him, he insisted that the time was earlier, around
4:30 [5 ,76]
I again respectfully suggest that the answer to this conundrum
lies in the numerous studies of memory available on the Web. Here's one
page among many:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
Jean
pamela
wrote:
> "Allan Eaglesham" <aeagl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
These witnesses were not interviewed by the WC so there is not an
early version of their statements available. In addition, the WC
seemed to have had a habit of avoiding asking questions they didn't
know (or want to know) the answers to. There were some who were
interviewed by the WC who claimed their statements had been changed.
So the entire process of evaluating witness statements, including
those interviewed by the WC, is indeed one that is complex.
Let's not also forget that the body of JFK had been illegally taken
out of Texas where the autopsy ought to have taken place and moved
1600 miles prior to the Bethesda autopsy. That complicates things
even further. The implication from the WCR is that the body of JFK
rolled right out of the limo into the autopsy. We all know that is
not so.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Allan Eaglesham" <aeag...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:d7b0ebbb-6f3e-4b6e...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> Researcher James Rinnovatore has added a new article to my website, a
>> reexamination of the events of the early evening of 11/22/63 at
>> Bethesda Naval Hospital:
>>
>> http://www.manuscriptservice.com/BNH-chicanery/
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Allan
>
> May I respectfully suggest that the author's grouping of witnesses into
> three casket "entries," is not nearly as neat as it may seem. He says,
> e.g., that Paul O'Connor's observations are "consistent with those of
> Reed ...." Not so. O'Connor is listed under witnesses to a coffin
> arrival at "6:35-6:45 PM," but his HSCA statement reads, "O'Connor said
> that the casket... arrived approximately eight o'clock. He said the body
> was in a body bag and the head was wrapped in a sheet." [8,2]
>
> The article implies that Reed, too, saw a body bag: "Reed ... saw that
> the body was inside a 'plastic bag'." But Reed specifically *denied*
> that he saw a body bag. He described a clear, see-through plastic
> [5,24], which is how the body left Parkland.
>
> It's noteworthy, imo, that most of these witnesses first went on record
> many years after the event. Memory is very easily contaminated and the
> more time that goes by the more unreliable it becomes, according to
> researchers. For instance, Reed told the HSCA that he arrived at the
That's why it's a good idea to actually investigate a crime at the time
rather than cover it up for 50 years as your crowd has done.
aeag...@twcny.rr.com
wrote:
> "Allan Eaglesham" <aeagl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
Jean:
Paul O'Connor was certain that the body arrived in a shipping casket.
I suggest that such memories are more reliable than impressions of
time.
Clearly, Ed Reed's recollection of arrival at 4:30 is erroneous, as
that would be 3:30 Dallas time. He did say that the body was in a
plastic bag -- not on a plastic bag -- and his description of the
wrappings was also at odds with what occurred at Parkland.
I don't think any of us expects eyewitnesses to have total recall,
years later. The essence of Jim Rinnavatore's article is that three
casket arrivals were documented in writing shortly after the events of
11/22/63.
Allan
aeag...@twcny.rr.com
Reply to Jean Davison from James Rinnovatore, posted by Allan
Eaglesham:
Paul O’Connor’s estimate of time to the HSCA that a “pink shipping
casket” arrived at “approximately eight o’clock,” is incorrect. Why?
Because that is when the Honor Guard brought in the ornamental bronze
casket. O’Connor’s description of a pink shipping casket, a body bag
and a wrapping only around the President’s head are key descriptions
of an event which occurred at some other time than 8:00 PM. When the
President’s body arrived at 8:00 PM both his head and body were
wrapped with sheets, which is exactly how he was wrapped when he left
Parkland Hospital (6WCH 137-141). And he was not in a body bag at the
8:00 PM arrival. I think more weight should be given to O’Connor’s
recollection of a body bag and a shipping casket, which O’Connor
surely did not expect to witness, as opposed to his recollection of
time, especially when his estimate of time can not possibly be
correct. In addition, Riebe’s description of the President’s body as
being inside a “rubberized type body bag” with only his head wrapped
with sheets, is consistent with O’Connor’s description. Moreover,
Riebe recalled O’Connor assisting in removing the President’s body
from the shipping casket, which is what O’Connor told the HSCA.
Reed’s time of 4:30PM (ARRB) for the arrival of the President’s body
can not possibly be correct because there is no documentation
available which supports it. Dennis David said he and his men brought
a “gray shipping casket” into the morgue anteroom at 6:45 PM. He
described the vehicle from which it was off-loaded as a black hearse
or black Cadillac, much different from a gray Navy ambulance. When
Dennis David asked Dr. Boswell which casket the President had been in,
David was told, “You ought to know you were there.” This implied to
David that the President’s body was in the gray shipping casket, the
one he and his men had brought into the anteroom at about 6:45 PM.
Boyajian’s memo indicates a casket was brought into the morgue at 6:35
PM. Each document supports the other. Thus, Reed’s account to the
HSCA about assisting in bringing a casket into the morgue at about
6:30 PM is more credible in view of the accounts of Dennis David and
Sgt. Boyajian.
One point should be cleared up. When the President’s body left
Parkland Hospital, it was wrapped with sheets. His head was also
wrapped with sheets. He was not placed inside a clear, see-through
plastic wrapping. A plastic mattress cover was placed inside the
bronze casket at Parkland Hospital (6WCH144). Thus, Reed’s
recollection to the HSCA that the President’s body was inside a clear
plastic bag does not correspond to how he left Parkland Hospital.
Bottom line – At some time the President arrived in a casket (gray,
pink, shipping, etc) other than the bronze ornamental casket. His
body was inside a bag (clear, black, whatever). Only his head was
wrapped with sheets. Documentation and eyewitness testimony support a
time of 6:35 to 6:45 PM for this event. Subsequently, the President
arrived in the bronze ornamental casket. His body and head were
wrapped with sheets. He was not in a body bag. Documentation and
eyewitness testimony support a later arrival of about 8:00 PM.
There were two entrances of the President’s body into the morgue on
November 22, 1963. The first was in a shipping casket (body bag) at
about 6:35-6:45 PM. The second was at 8:00 PM inside the bronze
ornamental casket.
Jean
Allan,
I hate disagreeing with you because I know you to be a meticulous
researcher who has done some truly outstanding work. But I do disagree on
this one, I'm sorry to say.
>
> Jean:
>
> Paul O'Connor was certain that the body arrived in a shipping casket.
> I suggest that such memories are more reliable than impressions of
> time.
His certainty may have little to do with it, strange as it may
seem. From what I've read, researchers have found a poor correlation
between witness certainty and the accuracy of their memories.
The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn has been quoted as saying: "The last thing
I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and
how we deal with what we have is what I will call the profound underscore
profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe
it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness
testimony and that is 35-year-old eyewitness testimony."
One striking example is the "recollection" of Admiral Osborne:
"Osborne said that the President was fully dressed when the coffin was
opened. Upon raising his shoulders to remove the coat, Osborne said that
a slug rolled out of his clothing and onto the table...." Osborne told
Lifton that he'd actually held this bullet in his hand.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md66/html/md66_0003a.htm
Imo, another obvious false memory, this one from the article,
is Joe O'Donnell's description of a photo of JFK showing "a round hole in
the forehead, just above the right eye, about three- eighths of an inch in
diameter." Numerous witnesses remarked that JFK's face was unmarked.
Why should I give this any credence at all?
I'd tend to be skeptical of O'Connor's memory, also, without
some *very* good corroboration, which I don't see.
>
> Clearly, Ed Reed's recollection of arrival at 4:30 is erroneous, as
> that would be 3:30 Dallas time. He did say that the body was in a
> plastic bag -- not on a plastic bag -- and his description of the
> wrappings was also at odds with what occurred at Parkland.
Obviously 4:30 was wrong. My point was that his memory changed,
and that's perfectly normal.
It's also normal that his description of the bag and wrappings wasn't
entirely accurate, either. But he specifically denied a "body bag," so
either he or O'Connor is wrong about that. They are not "consistent."
>
> I don't think any of us expects eyewitnesses to have total recall,
> years later. The essence of Jim Rinnavatore's article is that three
> casket arrivals were documented in writing shortly after the events of
> 11/22/63.
I disagree. The one thing we can always count on is human
error.
I appreciate Mr. Rinnavatore's response to me, and I'm hoping to
reply soon. I'll try to keep it brief, because I doubt that any of us
wants to get into a long-winded debate. I replied only because I didn't
see anyone else comment on the details. This is just my opinion, and I
mean no disrespect.
Jean
John McAdams
Could this be the defect, with beveling on the other table of the
skull, that's obvious in F8?
Obviously, "just above his right eye" isn't too precise. And even if
we posit that he saw F8, he easily could have had trouble interpreting
it.
Often, the witness says something wacky, and we can figure out what
they saw. Jean Hill, who thought that the Secret Service was shooting
back, probably saw Hickey rise up with the AR-15.
Sam Holland thought Jackie was in the front seat of the car and jumped
up to get over in the back seat with Jack when the shooting started.
I forget the witness who saw a spectator hit, and probably saw Malcolm
Summers hit the ground.
I'm obviously not arguing with your bottom line on witness testimony.
"Unreliable" is unreliable, even if we can pinpoint the reason for the
misperception.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:geq225tnok8kn0hlb...@4ax.com...
But I don't see the "right eye" in F8. And I've just
discovered this from the same interview (first and next-to-last
paragraphs):
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0005a.htm
O'Donnell claimed that he stopped the ambulance at Andrews AFB
to suggest to Jackie that JFK be buried at Arlington. And he said he'd
removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for her
at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory was
the liar.
Jean
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/86405c344afd9a8a
JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>>> "And he [Joe O'Donnell] said he'd removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for her at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory was the liar." <<<
DVP SAID:
Oh, come now, Jean. If Joe O'Donnell wasn't "lying" through his teeth
when he claimed to have removed/edited a large portion of Abraham
Zapruder's original home movie (supposedly on "orders" from Mrs.
Jacqueline Kennedy herself), then what would you call it?
I'm afraid "faulty memory" doesn't cut it when talking about Joe
O'Donnell and several of his nutty claims, including his hilarious
assertion that he HIMSELF edited the Zapruder Film.
BTW, Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", has written a
chunk of LOL-inducing text dealing with Mr. O'Donnell's crazy claims.
Here it is:
"In addition to the aluminum probe story, Joe O’Donnell told
the ARRB that [Robert] Knudsen showed him approximately 5 x 7 inch, black-
and-white photographs taken at Kennedy’s autopsy, including some
that showed a grapefruit-size hole in the back of the head, and a
3⁄8-inch hole in the president’s forehead, above the right
eye.
"A few days later, per O’Donnell, Knudsen reportedly showed
him a second set of black-and-white prints—this time the back of
the president’s head was intact and the hole above the right eye
was gone! (ARRB MD 231, Call Report, Telephone Interview of Joe
O’Donnell, on January 29, 1997, p.1)
"Although critics have been quick to embrace
O’Donnell�€ ™s claims (e.g., David W. Mantik,
“Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Medical Evidence
Decoded,” in Fetzer, Murder in Dealey Plaza, p.245 ),
O’Donnell is hardly a credible witness.
"In addition to his tale about two sets of autopsy photographs,
O’Donnell claimed to have been at Andrews Air Force Base when the
president’s body arrived, DEMANDED to speak to Mrs. Kennedy (how
likely is this?), and after being granted permission, told her (as she sat
in the navy ambulance with the casket) that he had photographed the
president at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day (November 2) and
heard him remark, “I could live up here forever.”
"Mrs. Kennedy reportedly said, “Then that is where we will
put him.” (This is, of course, utter nonsense. Television
videotapes show Mrs. Kennedy entering the navy ambulance and its
subsequent departure, all without a hint of the presence of
O’Donnell. More importantly, by all other accounts, Mrs.
Kennedy’s decision to bury the president at Arlington was made on
the flight back from Dallas.)
"As if that wasn’t enough to send most sensible people running,
O’Donnell also claims he showed Mrs. Kennedy the graphic Zapruder film
of her husband’s murder within a few weeks of the assassination.
O’Donnell told the ARRB that no one was present at the screening
except him and Mrs. Kennedy and that after seeing the head shot
sequence, she told him, “I don’t ever want to see that again,” which
O’Donnell took as an “order to alter the film” and remove the head
shot sequence. O’Donnell stated he knew it was wrong but he
subsequently removed ten feet of the film.
"O’Donnell said he was sure he had projected and altered the
original Zapruder film and that it was in a 16-millimeter format. (The
original Zapruder film is in 8-millimeter format and the entire
shooting sequence occupies just 4-and-one-third feet of film.)
"O’Donnell also claimed that Mrs. Kennedy told him that she
scrambled over the trunk of the limousine to retrieve a part of the
president’s head. In fact, Mrs. Kennedy testified that she doesn’t
remember crawling on the trunk, nor does she recall Secret Service
agent Clint Hill coming to her aid. (ARRB MD 231, Call Report,
Telephone Interview of Joe O’Donnell, February 28, 1997, pp.2–3; 5 H
180, WCT Mrs. John F. Kennedy)." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 271 and
272 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President
John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.)(c.2007)
www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
MD231:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0001a.htm
tomnln
O'Donnell's first name was Kenny !
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cc214fe8-1e99-4bac...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/86405c344afd9a8a
JEAN DAVISON SAID:
DVP SAID:
O’Donnell�=99s claims (e.g., David W. Mantik,
“Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Medical Evidence
Decoded,” in Fetzer, Murder in Dealey Plaza, p.245=,
David Von Pein
>>> "So much for Bugloisi/David's knowledge on the subject; O'Donnell's
first name was Kenny!" <<<
LOL. Tom Rossley thinks Vince and I (and Jean Davison) were talking about
KENNETH O'Donnell above.
IOW -- Apparently Thomas Rossley thinks that KENNY O'Donnell was claiming
he had removed 10 feet of the Z-Film at the request of Mrs. Kennedy!
LOL.
aeag...@twcny.rr.com
> > I don't think any of us expects eyewitnesses to have total recall,
> > years later. The essence of Jim Rinnavatore's article is that three
> > casket arrivals were documented in writing shortly after the events of
> > 11/22/63.
>
> I disagree. The one thing we can always count on is human
> error.
>
> I appreciate Mr. Rinnavatore's response to me, and I'm hoping to
> reply soon. I'll try to keep it brief, because I doubt that any of us
> wants to get into a long-winded debate. I replied only because I didn't
> see anyone else comment on the details. This is just my opinion, and I
> mean no disrespect.
>
> Jean
Jean:
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and no disrespect is
inferred. You raised valid points.
However, I don't see your grounds for disagreement (per the above
excerpt). Mr. Rinnovatore's article *is* based on eyewitness accounts
put down in writing within days of the assassination.
If the only thing we can count on is human error, is there any point
in doing research?
Allan
Jean
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/86405c344afd9a8a
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> >>> "And he [Joe O'Donnell] said he'd removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for her at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory was the liar." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Oh, come now, Jean. If Joe O'Donnell wasn't "lying" through his teeth
> when he claimed to have removed/edited a large portion of Abraham
> Zapruder's original home movie (supposedly on "orders" from Mrs.
> Jacqueline Kennedy herself), then what would you call it?
>
> I'm afraid "faulty memory" doesn't cut it when talking about Joe
> O'Donnell and several of his nutty claims, including his hilarious
> assertion that he HIMSELF edited the Zapruder Film.
>
> BTW, Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", has written a
> chunk of LOL-inducing text dealing with Mr. O'Donnell's crazy claims.
Hi David,
It's the improbability of O'Donnell's claims that makes me doubt
that he was consciously lying. Liars typically try to present a plausible
story, I think. With confabulations or false memories, though, apparently
the sky's the limit.
Jean
John McAdams
<jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> One striking example is the "recollection" of Admiral Osborne:
>>>"Osborne said that the President was fully dressed when the coffin was
>>>opened. Upon raising his shoulders to remove the coat, Osborne said that
>>>a slug rolled out of his clothing and onto the table...." Osborne told
>>>Lifton that he'd actually held this bullet in his hand.
>>>
>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md66/html/md66_0003a.htm
>>>
>>> Imo, another obvious false memory, this one from the article,
>>>is Joe O'Donnell's description of a photo of JFK showing "a round hole in
>>>the forehead, just above the right eye, about three- eighths of an inch in
>>>diameter." Numerous witnesses remarked that JFK's face was unmarked.
>>>Why should I give this any credence at all?
>>>
>>
>> Could this be the defect, with beveling on the other table of the
>> skull, that's obvious in F8?
>
> But I don't see the "right eye" in F8.
It's possible he saw an uncropped version, better than what any of us
have seen. It's also possible he guessed the orientation correctly,
and simply thought the eye was higher that it really is -- hidden
below that flap of scalp.
Or perhaps "just above" isn't too precise.
Or perhaps he's just full of it.
>And I've just
>discovered this from the same interview (first and next-to-last
>paragraphs):
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0005a.htm
>
> O'Donnell claimed that he stopped the ambulance at Andrews AFB
>to suggest to Jackie that JFK be buried at Arlington. And he said he'd
>removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for her
>at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory was
>the liar.
I'm now leaning toward "just full of it."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On May 30, 6:10�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/86405c344afd9a8a
>>
>
> It's the improbability of O'Donnell's claims that makes me doubt
>that he was consciously lying. Liars typically try to present a plausible
>story, I think. With confabulations or false memories, though, apparently
>the sky's the limit.
But some liars are good at feeding a line of B.S. to people they think
-- probably correctly -- will not bother to check, and will not know
any better.
You are probably right about this guy, however. He's talking to the
ARRB, and doubtless knows he's not talking to ignorant rubes who will
accept wild tales.
Unfortunately, the ARRB did have one ignorant rube who was willing to
accept wild tales. But not Gunn, with whom he is talking.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
No one said that you can SEE the right eye in F8. He said he saw the hole
ABOVE the right eye. You can't SEE the right eye because the scalp had
been reflected down over the face to remove the brain.
>
> O'Donnell claimed that he stopped the ambulance at Andrews AFB to
> suggest to Jackie that JFK be buried at Arlington. And he said he'd
> removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for
> her at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory
> was the liar.
> Jean
>
I am sure that he was lying. He was not an official WH photographer, but
knew Knudsen and probably saw copies of the autopsy photos that Knudsen
had. The pattern seems to indicate that the first set he saw where the
official autopsy photos. The second set were the post autopsy that Knudsen
said he took for the family.
How the Hell can he remove 10 feet of the original film and we still have
the most horrific frames? Supposedly Jackie was reacting to the head shot,
but that is still in the film.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, and why is is so obvious to you, but not to other WC defenders who
can't explain what caused that semi-circular defect?
> Obviously, "just above his right eye" isn't too precise. And even if
> we posit that he saw F8, he easily could have had trouble interpreting
> it.
>
No one asked him to be precise. He just described where it was. With the
head in that condition there were no landmarks to measure exactly where
the semi-circular defect was.
> Often, the witness says something wacky, and we can figure out what
> they saw. Jean Hill, who thought that the Secret Service was shooting
> back, probably saw Hickey rise up with the AR-15.
>
> Sam Holland thought Jackie was in the front seat of the car and jumped
> up to get over in the back seat with Jack when the shooting started.
>
Holland? How do you figure that?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/86405c344afd9a8a
>
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
>>>> "And he [Joe O'Donnell] said he'd removed 10 feet from the original Zapruder film after screening it for her at the White House. It's not that he was lying, I'm sure. His memory was the liar."<<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Oh, come now, Jean. If Joe O'Donnell wasn't "lying" through his teeth
> when he claimed to have removed/edited a large portion of Abraham
> Zapruder's original home movie (supposedly on "orders" from Mrs.
> Jacqueline Kennedy herself), then what would you call it?
>
> I'm afraid "faulty memory" doesn't cut it when talking about Joe
> O'Donnell and several of his nutty claims, including his hilarious
> assertion that he HIMSELF edited the Zapruder Film.
>
Many of his claims are physically impossible. He did not have the original
Zapruder film. Certainly not on 16 mm film. The only time it was on 16 mm
filmstock was when it was being exposed in the camera and during
developing. Then it was cut down the middle into 2 pieces of 8 mm film.
Almost no one had or saw the other half, only the assassination footage.
But I do believe that he knew Knudsen well enough that Knudsen would want
to show a fellow photographer the autopsy photos.
>
> BTW, Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", has written a
> chunk of LOL-inducing text dealing with Mr. O'Donnell's crazy claims.
> Here it is:
>
>
> "In addition to the aluminum probe story, Joe O???Donnell told
> the ARRB that [Robert] Knudsen showed him approximately 5 x 7 inch, black-
> and-white photographs taken at Kennedy???s autopsy, including some
> that showed a grapefruit-size hole in the back of the head, and a
> 3???8-inch hole in the president???s forehead, above the right
> eye.
>
That hole in the back of the head is just what F8 looks like when you
don't understand the angle that it was taken from.
> "A few days later, per O???Donnell, Knudsen reportedly showed
> him a second set of black-and-white prints???this time the back of
> the president???s head was intact and the hole above the right eye
> was gone! (ARRB MD 231, Call Report, Telephone Interview of Joe
> O???Donnell, on January 29, 1997, p.1)
>
I believe that Knudsen got there in time to document the work that the
embalmers had done.
> "Although critics have been quick to embrace
> O???Donnell???= =99s claims (e.g., David W. Mantik,
> ???Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Medical Evidence
> Decoded,??? in Fetzer, Murder in Dealey Plaza, p.245= ),
> O???Donnell is hardly a credible witness.
>
> "In addition to his tale about two sets of autopsy photographs,
> O???Donnell claimed to have been at Andrews Air Force Base when the
> president???s body arrived, DEMANDED to speak to Mrs. Kennedy (how
> likely is this?), and after being granted permission, told her (as she sat
> in the navy ambulance with the casket) that he had photographed the
> president at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day (November 2) and
> heard him remark, ???I could live up here forever.???
>
> "Mrs. Kennedy reportedly said, ???Then that is where we will
> put him.??? (This is, of course, utter nonsense. Television
> videotapes show Mrs. Kennedy entering the navy ambulance and its
> subsequent departure, all without a hint of the presence of
> O???Donnell. More importantly, by all other accounts, Mrs.
> Kennedy???s decision to bury the president at Arlington was made on
> the flight back from Dallas.)
>
> "As if that wasn???t enough to send most sensible people running,
> O???Donnell also claims he showed Mrs. Kennedy the graphic Zapruder film
> of her husband???s murder within a few weeks of the assassination.
> O???Donnell told the ARRB that no one was present at the screening
> except him and Mrs. Kennedy and that after seeing the head shot
> sequence, she told him, ???I don???t ever want to see that again,??? which
> O???Donnell took as an ???order to alter the film??? and remove the head
> shot sequence. O???Donnell stated he knew it was wrong but he
> subsequently removed ten feet of the film.
>
> "O???Donnell said he was sure he had projected and altered the
> original Zapruder film and that it was in a 16-millimeter format. (The
> original Zapruder film is in 8-millimeter format and the entire
> shooting sequence occupies just 4-and-one-third feet of film.)
>
> "O???Donnell also claimed that Mrs. Kennedy told him that she
> scrambled over the trunk of the limousine to retrieve a part of the
> president???s head. In fact, Mrs. Kennedy testified that she doesn???t
> remember crawling on the trunk, nor does she recall Secret Service
> agent Clint Hill coming to her aid. (ARRB MD 231, Call Report,
> Telephone Interview of Joe O???Donnell, February 28, 1997, pp.2???3; 5 H
> 180, WCT Mrs. John F. Kennedy)." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 271 and
> 272 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President
> John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton& Co.)(c.2007)
>
> www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
> MD231:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0001a.htm
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> So much for Bugloisi/David's knowledge on the subject;
>
> O'Donnell's first name was Kenny !
>
>
They are talking about the photographer named Joe O'Donnell.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0001a.htm
Jean
Allan,
I'm puzzled by that. Sibert and O'Neill wrote a detailed account
at the time, but who else? Boyajian's report gives us an approximate time
for the casket arrival (6:35). However, in a cover letter to the ARRB,
Boyajian wrote, "One thing that bothers me is that I can't recall seeing
the casket arrive..." He thinks he may have been elsewhere when that
happened.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/html/md236_0004a.htm
Lt. Bird's written report gives a later time for the casket
arrival (8 p.m.), but there's reason to doubt the accuracy of that time,
also. In chapter 19 of his book, Lifton mentions a report from an "escort
officer" to Gen. Wehle that says the autopsy began at "about" 7:14. I
believe that 7:14 is probably closer to the truth and that Bird's "8 p.m."
is an error. Since Wehle was in charge of Bird's honor guard, how else
could these conflicting times make any sense?
The funeral home document does mention a "shipping casket," but
no one from the funeral home was present when it supposedly arrived.
Is there any other contemporaneous written report I'm forgetting?
>
> If the only thing we can count on is human error, is there any point
> in doing research?
It's not the *only* thing, but errors are very common. I meant
that I don't think three different JFK casket arrivals were documented,
but rather that different versions of one JFK casket arrival were
documented.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> On 30 May 2009 17:20:39 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> One striking example is the "recollection" of Admiral Osborne:
>>>> "Osborne said that the President was fully dressed when the coffin was
>>>> opened. Upon raising his shoulders to remove the coat, Osborne said that
>>>> a slug rolled out of his clothing and onto the table...." Osborne told
>>>> Lifton that he'd actually held this bullet in his hand.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md66/html/md66_0003a.htm
>>>>
>>>> Imo, another obvious false memory, this one from the article,
>>>> is Joe O'Donnell's description of a photo of JFK showing "a round hole in
>>>> the forehead, just above the right eye, about three- eighths of an inch in
>>>> diameter." Numerous witnesses remarked that JFK's face was unmarked.
>>>> Why should I give this any credence at all?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could this be the defect, with beveling on the other table of the
>>> skull, that's obvious in F8?
>>
>> But I don't see the "right eye" in F8.
>
> It's possible he saw an uncropped version, better than what any of us
> have seen. It's also possible he guessed the orientation correctly,
> and simply thought the eye was higher that it really is -- hidden
> below that flap of scalp.
>
He did not specify a distance.
> Or perhaps "just above" isn't too precise.
>
Just like the autopsy doctors. A very precise medical term, eh?
> Or perhaps he's just full of it.
>
I think he did see the autopsy photos. Fox made extra sets.
aeag...@twcny.rr.com
>
> Lt. Bird's written report gives a later time for the casket
> arrival (8 p.m.), but there's reason to doubt the accuracy of that time,
> also. In chapter 19 of his book, Lifton mentions a report from an "escort
> officer" to Gen. Wehle that says the autopsy began at "about" 7:14. I
> believe that 7:14 is probably closer to the truth and that Bird's "8 p.m."
> is an error. Since Wehle was in charge of Bird's honor guard, how else
> could these conflicting times make any sense?
>
> The funeral home document does mention a "shipping casket," but
> no one from the funeral home was present when it supposedly arrived.
>
> Is there any other contemporaneous written report I'm forgetting?
>
>
>
> > If the only thing we can count on is human error, is there any point
> > in doing research?
>
> It's not the *only* thing, but errors are very common. I meant
> that I don't think three different JFK casket arrivals were documented,
> but rather that different versions of one JFK casket arrival were
> documented.
>
> Jean
Jean:
Boyajian could not recall arrival of the casket when asked about it in
1997. His statement that the casket was taken into the morgue at
approximately 6:35 was written on December 10, 1963. Therefore, I
don't think that these should be given equal weight.
The aide to General Wehle may have been Richard Lipsey and not Samuel
Bird. Can you provide more information on this?
Thanks.
Allan
Jean
Allan,
If he'd said in 1963 that he'd been there when the casket arrived
at 6:35 and later said he couldn't remember it, certainly I'd go with his
first account. But his 1963 report doesn't actually say that he was
present. In fact, both statements suggest that he might have been
elsewhere. In 1997 he wrote:
QUOTE:
".... One thing bothering me is that I can't recall seeing the casket
arrive, yet I state in the report that it arrived at 1835 hours. I think
I split the detail initially, sending seven men to meet the ambulance and
taking the remainder with me to set up security posts within the
corridors."
UNQUOTE
In 1963, also, he said that he'd split up the detail:
QUOTE:
"2. The detail arrived at the hospital at approximately 1800 and after
reporting as ordered several members of the detail were posted at
entrances to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the prescribed
area. The remainder of the detail was to have been used as a cordon
around the ambulance to keep newsmen from interfering with the movement of
the casket. The word was changed several times as to which entrance the
ambulance was going to utilize and as a result a cordon detail of seven
men was seen several times double-timing through the hospital on the heels
of the Security Officer.
3. At approximately 1835 the casket was received at the morgue
entrance and taken inside."
UNQUOTE
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/html/md236_0004a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/html/md236_0005a.htm
>
> The aide to General Wehle may have been Richard Lipsey and not Samuel
> Bird. Can you provide more information on this?
The aide was unnamed, so it may've been Lipsey. There are
several editions of BE, so my page number 612 may not help. You could
find it by looking up "Boas, Phillipe" in the Name Index. The paragraph
begins, "Army files I later obtained..." and the discussion continues in a
note at the bottom of the page. I don't understand Lifton's
interpretation and hope you can explain it. Instead of concluding that
Bird's 8 p.m. may be wrong, he seems to assume that Wehle and Bird must
have arrived separately at different times -- which makes no sense to me.
Jean
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/...
>
>
>
> > The aide to General Wehle may have been Richard Lipsey and not Samuel
> > Bird. Can you provide more information on this?
>
> The aide was unnamed, so it may've been Lipsey. There are
> several editions of BE, so my page number 612 may not help. You could
> find it by looking up "Boas, Phillipe" in the Name Index. The paragraph
> begins, "Army files I later obtained..." and the discussion continues in a
> note at the bottom of the page. I don't understand Lifton's
> interpretation and hope you can explain it. Instead of concluding that
> Bird's 8 p.m. may be wrong, he seems to assume that Wehle and Bird must
> have arrived separately at different times -- which makes no sense to me.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I appreciate the level of detail you guys are pursuing on this because
I am convinced there is something "askew" here (I know, so what,
right?). However, I have repeatedly viewed the video tape of "Best
Evidence" with O'Connor, David and Stringer and Lifton, to his credit,
really pushes them to admit "maybe I was wrong" or "maybe I'm not
remembering this right" and nobody backs down. In fact Denis David
gets somewhat testy with a "Look! I know what I saw! I was there!" I
know Lifton has taken his lumps on this forum but I find these
testimonies very compelling. Also, the new book Legacy, which I
unfortunately do not have in front of me, has a section in there about
it being the policy of some government agencies that if any person of
importance -- this includes foreign ambassadors, cabinet people, I
don't think they were thinking JFK when they created this policy --
was shot during this Cuban-tension period, the body was to be
immediately grabbed and analyzed to prevent panic, hearsay, start a
war unnecessarily, etc. (can anyone cite that from the book who has
it?) This is not at all that hard to believe and could explain the
"decoy" casket chicanery and the multiple entrance of the body
scenarios described here. Natonal Security, etc.
Burgundy
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is from "The Ultimate Sacrifice", the precursor to Legacy of Secrecy
pp 107-109 (HARCOVER). C-Day refers to the supposed plan for a Cuban
invasion on 12-1-63,
QUOTE ON:
"Another of our sources was a Kennedy official who worked on parts of
C-Day. While he didn't help draft the official Cuban Contingency Plans
we've quoted, he had seen them. He was familiar with the thinking behind
them, including additional plans to keeep C-Day secret -- and viable -- If
Castro appeared to strike out at the U.S. In that case, it would be
important to ensure that C-Day wasn't exposed while any apparent attack by
Castro was thoroughly investigated. It was important that any possible
Castro involvement in such an attack be kept from the press in the early
stages of any investigation; otherwise, the hawks in Congress would be
clamoring for a quick strike on Cuba before the U.S. could be sure that
Castro was definitely involved. (FOOTNOTE SOURCE: Interview with
Confidential Kennedy C-Day official, 3/17/92.)
The irony is that the Cuba Contingency Plans were supposed to buy time for
JFK to react to something like "assassination" of an "American official"
in "Latin America" -- and instead, some of the planning went on to be
applied to JFK's own murder. Keeping in mind the original purpose of the
Cuba Contingency plans, the Kennedy official helped us to understand why
certain things were done after JFK's assassination.
For example, imagine that on the eve of the C-Day, JFK had been informed
that the U.S. ambassador to Panama had been shot to death, It would be
important to get accurate medical information, to confirm that the
official had died of foul play (as opposed to suicide or an accident) and
how it happened (how many gunmen, direction of the shots, etc.) So,
instead of doing the autopsy at a local Panamian hospital, it would be
best to do the autopsy at a secure U.S. Military facility, which would
also keep explosive medical details about the wounds from leaking to the
press. In general, information about the shooting would need to be tightly
controlled, so the press reports didn't lead to immediate calls for
strikes against Castro before the investigation was complete. C-Day would
need to be put temporarily on hold, while still being kep tightly secure.
(FOOTNOTE SOURCE: Ibid.) As few officials as possible would be told about
C-Day, and the Cuban Contingency Plans, and usually at the highest levels.
That way, top officials could influence the actions of hundreds in the
field, without having to tell the agents about C-Day. (A real life example
of this in action: Once J. Edgar Hoover publicly announced that Oswald was
the lone assassin, FBI agents in the field knew they risked their careers
if they pushed too hard in other directions.)
The Kennedy official wasn't just speaking hypothetically -- he had first
hand knowledge of how the thinking behind the Cuban Contingency Plans was
applied to the JFK assassination. As he said, he was involved in helping
Bobby Kennedy make sure JFK's autopsy didn't compromise national security.
(FOOTNOTE SOURCE: Ibid.) His role is confirmed by a detailed written
account of the autopsy, authorized by Bobby Kennedy. (FOOTNOTE SOURCE:
References withheld to protect source; however, the information cited is
publicly available and will be revealed -- along with the name of the
source -- after the source's death). The Kennedy officials information --
when paired with others at the autopsy, like JFK's personal physician Dr.
George Burkley -- helps to explain many of the unusual aspects of the
autopsy that have baffled historians for years......
QUOTE OFF
The authors then go on to cite the rushing of the casket out of Dallas to
Bethesda, including.....
QUOTE ON:
Why the ambulance with JFK's body outran its official escort at Bethesda,
so that the body was in the examination room well before the beginning of
the "official" autopsy.
QUOTE OFF
Additional sources in this section include David Lifton, "numerous JFK
biographies," "testimony of participants", Burkley, oral history at the
JFK library, Lifton again before the AARB,
Burgundy
Jean
People can be certain of their memories, yet still be wrong.
However, I think it's quite possible that David did see a shipping casket
arrive, but that it contained someone else's body -- the Air Force officer
mentioned by Lifton, maybe. David did not see the body, he *assumed* it
was JFK.
> Also, the new book Legacy, which I
> unfortunately do not have in front of me, has a section in there about
> it being the policy of some government agencies that if any person of
> importance -- this includes foreign ambassadors, cabinet people, I
> don't think they were thinking JFK when they created this policy --
> was shot during this Cuban-tension period, the body was to be
> immediately grabbed and analyzed to prevent panic, hearsay, start a
> war unnecessarily, etc. (can anyone cite that from the book who has
> it?) This is not at all that hard to believe and could explain the
> "decoy" casket chicanery and the multiple entrance of the body
> scenarios described here. Natonal Security, etc.
Some would say that JFK's body *was* "immediately grabbed," at
Parkland, and taken to a military hospital for the autopsy, so there was
no need for chicanery with the casket, imo.
Jean