Jim Jenkins takes questions about JFK Autopsy, thinks it wasn't his brain- Transcript in DESCRIPTION

6th JFK Conference Dallas.
posted to YT NOV2018. see also-
https://rumble.com/v6lclss-horne-jfk-brain-photos-are-not-jfks-brain-the-2-brain-exams-following-the-a.html
The Audio is very fuzzy, with a lot of uh's and um's and medical jargon. I Fixed the auto transcript as well as I could.
Transcript:

"The brain that we had at autopsy did NOT have 8damage that you would expect if by comparing to the damage that was to the skull
to the Head itself
there were other other anomalies considering the brain the brain um
the convolutions on the brain

uh ... they they were abnormal they they didn't look like the normal brains that we we had taken at autopsy

the (Dar eye?) were flat, uh seemed to be larger

the color instead of the gray that we normally saw was had a white Sheen to it

I have worked with Dr Mike Chester for several years

in 2015 uh Mike had approached me about the brain that he had he had actually seen the photographs uh in the archives

he believed at that point in time that the brain had been uh
had been been in a jar with other brains, that
would really account for uh for the appearance of the brain as you can probably attest to it

Audience member:
"What happened to the brain after you put it in the jar and put it in the brain room?"

It wasn't, it was in the bucket. I don't know what happened to the brain, because when Paul and I went back to the morg after we... after we were given the orders to make sure that we had finished everything that was necessary, the morgue log was gone. The casket that that was pushed up against the coal box was gone, actually it was gone before we left the morgue. And the Brain bucket was gone.
"Thank you."

Host (John Judge?):
we're going to have everybody who wants to ask questions come over here so everybody can hear okay so if you want to ask a question come up here please [Music]

Audience question:
"Paul Connor told me the same thing in Florida about the brain was gone, okay. That's what he told me in person.
Now here's the question: you said there was a quite a bit missing, part of the head back here right, okay.
Now what about up here, what did you see there?"

I did not see anything there.

"Nothing there. Okay. Now the zapruder film that shows this thing you think was uh not really I I think what what Pro it there was a _"

Not really. there was a flap on the side of the head that in one of the photographs is actually extended out, I think. In my opinion that flat was was actually fractured um, and so on and so forth, prior to um Dr Hume's making the _ inscision in order to remove the brain, which freed that up to allow it to to be flexible.

"The Zapruder film though it shows the flat going like this (gestures it was flapping open)

I'm not sure

"Did you see the Zapruder film?"

yeah I had and my interpretation was or what I assume was that there was the flap that was was separated.. but it actually went back because when we first saw the body the flap was not... I didn't see the flap there.
And it wasn't until--actually, to be honest with you I never saw the flap in that position that is showing in the photograph and uh

let me address the thing of brain or no brain.
I believe Paul. I believe the two people, but I also believe that even though they were sincere in what they said, I think it was more-or-less a shock effect in their perception.

Now I also I guess... I will go on record saying this. I do NOT believe personally that the brain that we took at autopsy was the president's brain.

And I also would like to explain why.

First of all the brain uh had an unusual appearance. When I first talk to David, I told David, I told Harry the same thing: the first thing that flashed in my mind and this was in my
mind was this uh you know a a female right

now
out of all of the studies that I have I participated in in The Graduate programs that I was in uh I searched to see if there was a difference I never found anything.

o it wasn't until I talked to Dr Chester who is a neurologist and very much into this, that a possible explanation for that was presented to me

and when he told me that he felt like that the brain appearance was the appearance of a brain that had been infixed along with other brains for a period of time which caused the flat area.
He also said the brain was very asymmetric

That was the first time that I had a logical explanation for what I saw
I base that and I base ...
the fact is that I now do not believe that that was the president's brain.
Second is, in the the official autopsy report, the extensive damage that's reported in that report, in the secondary area or supplemental autopsy, which is specifically autopsy of the brain after it's fixed--the brain that we took at autopsy was not that extensively damaged, because if it had been damaged as extensively as was reported in the autopsy with such fine detail, then there would be no reason to infuse that
brain.
Because what would have occurredm the formula would just run out. Because there was damage to uh the superior satchel (?) Canal and that's that's a collection point for basically the vascular system in the body.
We would have been just as well off dropping it in the bucket, because there would have been a vast amount of internal tissue and so forth, it would have been exposed directly to the formula.

So those are the two things that I that I use for myself to say that at this point in time I do NOT believe that the brain that we took that autopsy of was that of the president

I do believe that the supplemental autopsy uh ,and I agree with with Doug horne, there were actually two supplemental autopsies, each on separate brains.

We know that, from testimony ... that Dr Bosell, Dr Humes and Mr Stringer attended one. Mr Stringer says that he did the _ sutures, placed them on a a viewing plate and took photographs.
There was also one where Dr Bosell, Dr Humes, Dr fink and a unknown photographer attended, and Dr Humes in his supplemental oopsy described a vast amount of damage to the brain, I mean an extreme amount of damage to the brain.

But he also said that in his supplemental autopsy, they didn't do sections in order to preserve the brain in total.

So those are two contradictory reports, on two separate brain autopsies which are supplemental autopsies.

...
9.01
in the book I did not avoid these controversies I actually put them in because I want you the reader to make your own determinations about this

you know a lot of it is perplexing to me also
...
when I first met them, and they found out

were already uh proceeding with the autopsy, it was shocking to them

but they provided valuable information to clarify some of
the gray memories that I had uh or partial memories that I had of of a casket being brought in, other than the one that the president was in.
So that was the one that was pushed against the gold boxes.

"my question Jim is again I'm not disputing you but when you just testified that there were no bullet fragments or anything that you saw on x-ray ...

my question is I also knew Dennis David as you guys all do and Dennis Davis supposedly had metal fragments that he admitted into evidence, that was later taken out, just the same as it was with the timing of the log taken out the following day
so where were those metal fragments from?"

The metal fragments were brought into the morgue somewhere late in the autopsy. They were in a (bag)-it's similar to a zip lock bag except it has a twist tie on it, a small bag. There were metal fragments and there were also bone fragments

They were small, they were measured in millimeters and those fragments during the autopsy, Dr Humes & Dr Fink tried to fit those into some of the niches that were in in the wound itself.
It was not very successful

I saw no medium-sized or large bone fragments in the morgue with the exception of those.

actually those metal fargments Dennis brought in were the were the ones that that were brought in and placed at the right ear of the president on the table, and later, there was an attempt to see if they fit within the structure.

Those are the fragments that Dennis was talking about

well I can only assume that, From the description that Dennis gave me and so forth and from what I saw, I can only assume that that those were the same fragments

those fragments were given to Jim cyber, one of the FBI agents and they took them to the lab

Audience question:
"yeah hi I'm wondering if any of you
gentlemen have any insights or observations about Lieutenant Commander Pitzer and his subsequent murder

well if you go back and read the reports on piter
uh they came to the conclusion that he committed suicide

the reports all suggest that he committed suicide. However, Dennis David to the end of his days was convinced that Bill Pitzer did NOT commit suicide, and it was because he had film of the autopsy that Dennis said that he looked at, uh one day, a couple, 3 days after the autopsy
that bill was running through a hand crank machine
and so we just don't know that's part of the bigger mystery
12.42

Audience member:
"Question for Jim um earlier you mentioned that you thought maybe Admiral Berkeley who was Kennedy's private physician was leading the autopsy in some way--
Do you believe that he's he was Pro Kenedy or was he complicit in some way?"

I really don't I don't really know that I think that he was directing the autopsy uh following directions from from the Kennedy family and probably from Bobby Kennedy.
(crowd reacts "whoa")
There was a reluctance when we first began the autopsy we were only going to do the head and up, and (Photo graphics?)
One day with no fragments found in the x-rays, Dr Fink and Dr Humes almost insisted that we do a full body x-ray, because as the lady Docter here knows, in forensics, the bullet can be anywhere so we actually started the full body autopsy before we had permission to do it, at Dr Humes and Dr Fink's insistance

Audience Q:
"just in support of the other brain I was reading in the last year it was the X-ray like the man, The Underneath photo in the National Archives he said he never took that it was never underneath and I don't know what the word is

yeah uh Mr sing um Stringer uh actually said that he never took any photographs of the underside of brain uh the basal sign and yet the photographs in the archives ...
now Dr David Mantic and Dr Michael Chester have both been allowed in to the archives. I have made two attempts to get permission I've been denied both times uh first thing to the Kennedy lawyer that controls it, I do not meet the criteria

the criteria is quite High you almost well you do have to be a physician and you have to be a well-known physician and even at that point in time there's always an "if" factor involved in it and like with Dr Chester who is a teaching neurologist well known in in his field, in the area where where he practices at University, actually Baptist Hospital Little Rock, he's involved with the university there--
He had requested and he actually had to submit his request several times before he was allowed in to view the x-rays and the photographs.

Dr Mantik uh of course has been been in a few time or I think
he's been in nine times but that was in the early years

I think the last conversation I had had with he and and Dr Chester that uh he had requested permission but had been denied recently

It's an extremely frustrating thing to be asked questions about photographs and so forth and not be able to view the original photographs that are in the archives

and this is this is a situation ...
Dr Mantic and Dr Chesser have both tried to get me into the archives. I requested permission from um my local Congressman. He was unable to to actually get permission for me to go into the x-rays.
This is not an unusual type of situation. I wanted to return to Bethesa to verify or answer some questions about the morgue its present Location, what had occurred and things of that nature.
We weren't able to do that too.

supp to us yeah and and but we were unable to do that also

This is a this is one of the situations that the researchers run up against, these things are sequestered

Paul and I were never called to actually testify before any of the government inquiries. We were only required to give a deposition for the house select committee which turned out to be a fiasco.

we were at the record review board, they were not allowed to contact us. So it's been ...
after the house of _ committee uh supposedly uh all of the records or most of the records were to be released to the public with the exception of ("Mine pause?) which was put into another 50 years Sequestion, which was only released because of I think this is I'm not sure what the ACT is called but the ACT establish the record review board

Audience Q:
"thank you Mr jenin
please show me with your hands on your own head,
where the entrance wound for the large exit wound and where the large exit wound were exactly"

I can show you where the wound is.
The wound is approximately in this area (touches right rear of head) and the occipital, bridal and as I described earlier there was more of a fractur line than anything that formed a tail that came down and touched on to the bridal the temple area here
the wound here was a small wound that I can only tell you what I left the board thinking or feeling

that I had seen seen two actual wounds uh during the autopsy we were told ththe roat wound was isolated on emergency tracheotomy and not to bother with it um that was the one that Dr Perry said he did the tracheotomy on.
I went home the following morning thinking that the President had been shot from the right front with an exit wound in the back of posterior portion of of the head
and he had also been shot in the back, primarily between the shoulder blade which is the scapulaa uh at the top of the scapula uh halfway between that and I think it's 2 T3 T2 uh which is the vertebrae, there.

That wound was probed. When it was probed, it actually went downward at approximately a 30° angle, and the depth of it was Dr Humes could could prob the depth of it with his little finger.

Now Dr Humes had large hands and but he could actually probe the depth of that wound with his little finger

they began to probe it with a metal probe which was basically a flat Probe on one end. it went to kind of a bobbed point on the other end. Dr Fink expressed his concern that they may create a false entry into the floral cavity
and they went to a sound

uh a sound is a type of probe, it's almost like a metal catheter. It's rounded on one end uh it's Hollow it's a little larger and they use that to probe it and then Dr Humes actually used his little finger prob it

the wound stopped. It never penetrated the floral cavity because I could see the impression that they were making as they were probing it from because we had already removed the the organs
and I could see the impression they were making on the back of the ("anticavity"?)

Audience:
"Could I ask a followup please?"
sure
"the throat wound or whatever, could that have been the entrance and blown out the back side of the Head?"

I really can't say 0:21:40.980

uh we're we're talking about probabilities here and possibilities

"from what you saw"
what I saw
"Yes"
uh I saw a wound in the throat that appear to be a grossly um or hurried tracheotomy

had uh the right side the upper borders were rather rough uh Jagged
the rest of the incision was smooth
the wound in the back in order to have exited the neck wound would have had to have gone straight in made approximately a 20° angle upward and to have exited there

I can't really say it's possible it's possible that
this wound was here and and cost uh the back of wound in the back of the head but we don't know because there was any dissection in that area the throat wound was never examined
uh now as the doctor here would understand that if if you possibly had a wound that was through and through like that, there would be a path that you would expect and that is the description given in in the passage of the single bullet theory

uh they supported it with ecosis bruising and in the strap muscles in this area which on some of the photographs you can you can actually see a little of it

but that in my opinion could also have been done when the head was snapped back

the only way to know for sure would have been to dissect that out

thank you

audience q:
"Dr Humes described in his Warren commission testimony
("speaking to the mic please")
Dr Humes described an elliptical entrance wound in kennedy's lower neck
4x7 m.m.
it's in his testimony and I can find it on the Mary ferell website for anybody who wants to look for it. 4 by 7 milimeters in the quarter of the neck here.
Is it possible that the president might have actually had two wounds to the back and and one was obscured by some kind of technique?"

In the last three years when I agreed to write this book, I've read that but I also I've read all of the testimony of the three Physicians to actually to the warant commission,
the Clark commission, house select committee, the Jama article and the Record Review Board

in that the wounds have changed
and I don't think this was a intentional thing
I think that over the period of time, as Dr Humes once said I think he he was talking to the record review boardm, how do you expect me to remember this without my notes? um or something similar to that

well I you know I did all of this review for one simple reason. In writing the book I was trying to collect/elaborate the memories that I had to actually clarify some of the gray Memories the partial memories and things that had some of the contradictions between earlier members and later members

or instance I'm still not clear about the casket entrance is other than the fact is the casket that the body came in, I don't specifically remember the time that I saw the the other casket that was pushed up against the, coal box. after talking to the honor guard _ uh Humes and Tim Chee

I became uh convinced that the casket that was pushed up against the coal box was actually the Dallas casket that they brought in.
Looking at the Times uh that are published as the when the honor guard brought the Dallas casket in.

And related to when the body was received: that time frame, as I explained earlier, is not the fact that I looked at a clock or I say, it was something that I had to have a time, a starting time or a timeline for the book itself. I chose and believe Dennis, because there's a collaboration for that."8