Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#‘s 1273 & 1274 Interviews #12 and #13 with Jim DiEugenio and Dr. Gary Aquilar about “JFK Revisited”

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946



Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1273 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1274 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: This broad­cast con­tin­ues our vis­its with Jim DiEugenio–author of Des­tiny Betrayed and JFK Revis­it­ed–select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his lat­est doc­u­men­tary.

In these broad­casts, we are addi­tion­al­ly priv­i­leged by the par­tic­i­pa­tion of Dr. Gary Aquilar, one of the experts fea­tured in the Stone/DiEugenio doc­u­men­tary, as well as being one of the ground-break­ing fig­ures in the ongo­ing inquiry into the med­ical evi­dence in the assas­si­na­tion.

Dr. Aquilar high­light­ed the deep pro­fes­sion­al com­pro­mis­ing of peo­ple who filled “expert” roles in the var­i­ous med­ical exam­i­na­tions, the involve­ment of a num­ber of them as “experts” in oth­er, impor­tant intel­li­gence-con­nect­ed cas­es such as the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King.

In par­tic­u­lar, Dr. Aquilar parsed the incon­sis­ten­cies in a review of the med­ical evi­dence in the JFK assas­si­na­tion case that was insti­tut­ed by then Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ram­sey Clark–“inconsistencies” which are dif­fi­cult to ascribe to caprice or error.

In addi­tion to his pre­sen­ta­tion of new mate­r­i­al with which even Jim DiEu­ge­nio was unfa­mil­iar, Gary was instru­men­tal in dis­cus­sion of the medical/forensic evi­dence in the JFK assas­si­na­tion case.

1a.—We begin with review of the Secret Ser­vice con­fis­cat­ing JFK’s corpse in con­tra­ven­tion of Texas Law, there­by deny­ing Dr. Earl Rose his oblig­ed duty of per­form­ing an autop­sy on JFK.

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; pp. 168–170.

 . . . . [Park­land physi­cian Dr. Charles] Cren­shaw recalled, “A man in a suit, lead­ing the [fed­er­al] group, hold­ing a sub­ma­chine gun, left lit­tle doubt in my mind who was in charge. That he wasn’t smil­ing best describes the look on his face . . . . Keller­man took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready posi­tion. The oth­er men in suits fol­lowed course by drap­ing their coat­tails behind the butts of their hol­stered pis­tols.” When Dr. Rose insist­ed on hold­ing the body in Dal­las for autop­sy, explain­ing, “You can’t lose the chain of evi­dence,” one of the men in suits screamed, “God­damit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt,” and anoth­er snapped, “We’re tak­ing the body now.” . . . .

1b.—Next, we review Secret Ser­vice Agent Clint Hill’s tes­ti­mo­ny about being able to see deeply into JFK’s head wound because there was no brain mate­r­i­al in the fis­sure.

2.—We then syn­op­size the Park­land Hos­pi­tal M.D’s’ views and state­ments about JFK’s wounds.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: We begin our in-depth dis­cus­sion with analy­sis of the med­ical evi­dence put for­ward by the doc­tors and nurs­es and Park­land Hos­pi­tal in Dal­las: Dr. Kemp Clark’s obser­va­tion of a huge wound in the back of JFK’s head; Cor­rob­o­ra­tion of Clark’s view by Dr. McClel­land, Dr. Charles Cren­shaw (a third-year res­i­dent at the time) and nurse Audrey Bell; Dr. Mal­com Perry’s state­ment that the wound in JFK’s throat was an entrance wound; Review of the pres­sure put on Per­ry to change his tes­ti­mo­ny by Secret Ser­vice Agent Elmer Moore (who was act­ing at the direc­tion of his supe­ri­ors) and unnamed per­son­nel at Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal in Mary­land; the Secret Service’s appar­ent destruc­tion of the tape of the Park­land press con­fer­ence by Dr.’s Clark and Per­ry; The War­ren Commission’s pre­sen­ta­tion of an oppo­site point of view by Per­ry fol­low­ing pres­sure on him by Arlen Specter; ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne’s dis­cus­sion of Doc­u­ment 1327c con­firm­ing what Per­ry had orig­i­nal­ly said; Perry’s col­league Dr. Don­ald Miller who relates that Per­ry stat­ed that the throat wound was an entrance wound (fol­low­ing their long surgery at a Wash­ing­ton hos­pi­tal; Dr. Gary Aquilar’s 100-page after­ward to Dr. Crenshaw’s book Con­spir­a­cy of Silence; Dr. Gary Aquilar’s dis­cov­ery that 26 wit­ness­es to the Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal autop­sy did not con­tra­dict the Park­land med­ical personnel’s obser­va­tions but con­firmed and rein­forced those obser­va­tions! (In its 1979 report, the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions fal­la­cious­ly stat­ed that the Bethes­da wit­ness­es con­tra­dict­ed the Park­land personnel’s obser­va­tions.)

3.—Next, we turn to the sub­ject of the autop­sy per­formed at Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal per­formed on the evening of 11/22/1963

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The lack of qual­i­fi­ca­tions of Navy physi­cians Humes and Boswell; The inclu­sion of the under-qual­i­fied Army physi­cian Dr. Pierre Finck; Dr. Finck’s reluc­tant tes­ti­mo­ny on the wit­ness stand at Clay Shaw’s tri­al that an unnamed Army Gen­er­al had ordered him not to dis­sect the back wound in JFK; Dr. Humes’ destruc­tion of his notes; The “dis­ap­pear­ance” of Colonel Finck’s notes; Arlen Specter’s 8–10 meet­ings with Dr.’s Humes and Boswell pri­or to the War­ren Commission’s con­struc­tion of their tes­ti­mo­ny; Dr.’s Humes and Boswell’s shep­herd­ing of young Naval artist Harold Ryd­berg in which they said, in effect, “We’ll tell you what to draw;” Rydberg’s mov­ing of the loca­tion of the back wound up, to make it con­sis­tent with the Sin­gle Bul­let The­o­ry; The fact that Rydberg’s draw­ings were not based on the autop­sy pho­tos; The fact that the fal­la­cious plac­ing of the back wound at the base of the neck empow­ered “the Mag­ic Bul­let The­o­ry;” FBI agents Sib­ert and O’Neill’s con­tra­dic­tion of the Bethes­da autop­sy report, say­ing of Specter “What a Liar” and opin­ing that he was “fol­low­ing orders;” The War­ren Com­mis­sion’s omis­sion of Sib­ert and O’Neil­l’s infor­ma­tion; House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions’ 1979 report that 26 Bethes­da autop­sy wit­ness­es con­tra­dict­ed Park­land M.D’s descrip­tions of wound in the back; Dis­cov­ery that this is not true! The con­sum­mate sig­nif­i­cance of this!

4. Next, we review the “Harp­er frag­ment” of JFK’s skull, dis­cov­ered in Dealey Plaza on 11/23/1963; the trans­fer of pos­ses­sion of the frag­ment to Dr. Burkley, JFK’s per­son­al physi­cian; the sub­se­quent dis­ap­pear­ance of the frag­ment.

5. We then take up the sub­ject of Dr. Burkley (an Admi­ral, JFK’s per­son­al physi­cian and the only doc­tor present at both Park­land Hos­pi­tal and the Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal autop­sy.)

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Dr. Burkley plac­ing of the back wound at rough­ly ver­te­brae T‑3 (at vari­ance with what the War­ren Com­mis­sion said); The War­ren Commission’s omis­sion of JFK’s death cer­tifi­cate (signed by Dr. Burkley) from the vol­umes of tes­ti­mo­ny and exhibits; the absence of Dr. Burkley’s sig­na­ture on the autop­sy sketch­es in the tes­ti­mo­ny and exhibits; Burkley’s 1967 refusal to state how many bul­lets hit JFK (in an oral his­to­ry com­piled for the Kennedy Library); Burkley’s let­ter to HSCA head Richard Sprague stat­ing that he knew oth­ers beside Oswald were involved; Sprague’s abrupt removal of Sprague two weeks lat­er; Burkley’s state­ments in the ear­ly 1980’s to both Hen­ry Hurt and Michael Kurtz that he could con­tra­dict the War­ren Com­mis­sion the­sis, fol­lowed by Burkley’s abrupt rever­sal of field short­ly after mak­ing the state­ments (prob­a­bly reflect­ing pres­sure); Efforts by the ARRB to get Burkley’s daugh­ter and the law firm that had rep­re­sent­ed him dur­ing his life to dis­close infor­ma­tion; the abrupt rever­sal of field by Burkley’s daugh­ter, rather like the Admiral’s rever­sal of his state­ments to Hurt and Kurtz; Dr. Don­ald Miller’s account of Burkley’s son’s relat­ing of the Admiral’s bewil­der­ment that the War­ren Com­mis­sion had nev­er called him to tes­ti­fy.

6. Turn­ing to the sub­ject of the mys­tery of JFK’s brain, we take stock of a num­ber of impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tions.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: In an encore, nurse Aubrey Bell notes that she saw brain mat­ter and spinal flu­id leak­ing from the back of JFK’s mas­sive head wound and drip­ping into a buck­et; Dr. McClel­land also saw por­tions of the cere­bel­lum portrud­ing from the mas­sive head wound; Humes’ autop­sy report and War­ren Com­mis­sion report’s omis­sion of the obser­va­tions of Nurse Bell and Dr. McClel­land; At Park­land, Dr. William Midgett notes copi­ous brain mate­r­i­al in JFK’s lim­ou­sine; Secret Ser­vice cleaned back of limo before ship­ment; FBI agent Frank O’Neill’s state­ment that almost ½ of the brain was miss­ing; the fail­ure to sec­tion JFK’s brain–those sec­tions could have deter­mined the tra­jec­to­ry of bul­lets strik­ing JFK’s head ; ARRB’s Dr. Robert Kir­sh­n­er opines that JFK’s brain appears to have been in formalde­hyde for 2–3 weeks; The sig­nif­i­cance of Kirshner’s observation—JFK’s brain exam­ined right after assas­si­na­tion per Dou­glas Horne; Dr. Chessler notes for the cam­era that the brain was pho­tographed after assas­si­na­tion; X‑Rays of JFK’s brain showed very small frag­ments in the front of the head wound, larg­er frag­ments far­ther in–this indi­cates a shot from the front.

7. The bulk of the dis­cus­sion focus­es on the autop­sy pho­tos and pho­tos of the brain in par­tic­u­lar.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: John Stringer pho­tographed brain autop­sy 3 days after assas­si­na­tion; Jere­my Gunn’s pre­sen­ta­tion of pho­tos to Stringer; Half of pho­tos are tak­en from the top but oth­ers from bottom—Stringer says all pic­tures were from top and notes that type of film used is incon­sis­tent with what he did; Stringer says that scalp wound was peeled back to [sup­pos­ed­ly] show entrance wound in back of head, both inte­ri­or and exterior—no pic­tures of that; The dis­ap­pear­ance of tis­sue slides that had been tak­en and a large met­al con­tain­er appar­ent­ly con­tain­ing JFK’s brain; Robert Knud­sen’s hav­ing been cred­it­ed with tak­ing the autop­sy pho­tos in his New York Times and Wash­ing­ton Post obit­u­ar­ies; Knud­sen says he took autop­sy pic­tures that showed probes in Kennedy’s body; Sup­pos­ed­ly, no probes were used in the autop­sy; Those pho­tos appear to have “van­ished;” Dis­cus­sion of the sig­nif­i­cance of probes, and what those are; Knud­sen told his wife that the Secret Ser­vice destroyed pho­tos; ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne’s opin­ion that both Stringer and Knud­sen took autop­sy pic­tures.

8. We review John Stringer’s salient obser­va­tion:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 168.

Doug Horne: On Novem­ber 1st, 1966, the Nation­al Archives and an offi­cial from the Depart­ment of Jus­tice met with Humes, Boswell, pho­tog­ra­ph­er John Stringer, and the radi­ol­o­gist [John] Eber­sole. And they looked at the autop­sy pho­tographs for the first time and they cre­at­ed a cat­a­log, an inven­to­ry sim­ply say­ing: this is what this pic­ture describes. Dur­ing the dis­cus­sion the DOJ wit­ness, Mr. Belch­er, who was an attor­ney, not­ed they were dis­cussing miss­ing pho­tographs. Jere­my Gunn, my boss, the gen­er­al coun­sel, did ask why these peo­ple signed an inven­to­ry which they knew not to be true. And Stringer said, “Well, some peo­ple do object, but they don’t last very long.”. . . .

9. We then review Dr. Burkley’s dis­patch­ing of his aide James Young and his sub­or­di­nates, Mr.‘s Mills and Mar­tin­dale to retrieve mate­r­i­al from JFK’s lim­ou­sine.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Mills and Mar­tin­dale’s retrieval of a piece of JFK’s skull; Their retrieval of a bul­let with a bent tip; Their retrieval of a bul­let frag­ment; The appar­ent impact of a bul­let on the met­al fram­ing the wind­shield; The appar­ent pas­sage of a bul­let frag­ment through the wind­shield of JFK’s lim­ou­sine; The dis­ap­pear­ance of the skull frag­ment, intact bul­let with the bent tip and bul­let frag­ment; the rebuild­ing of JFK’s lim­ou­sine, fea­tur­ing replace­ment of the wind­shield and the met­al fram­ing of it–this fol­low­ing the Secret Ser­vice’s clean­ing of JFK’s lim­ou­sine.



One comment for “FTR#‘s 1273 & 1274 Interviews #12 and #13 with Jim DiEugenio and Dr. Gary Aquilar about “JFK Revisited””

  1. Bril­liant pro­gram!

    Clear­ly, the mil­i­tary med­ical pro­fes­sion­als at Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal, US Navy CDR. Humes, US Navy CDR. Boswell & US Army Lt. Col. Finck soiled their uni­forms by will­ing­ly destroy­ing, per­vert­ing and fab­ri­cat­ing evi­dence sur­round­ing the autop­sy of the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States, their own Com­man­der-In-Chief — at the very least, the Depart­ment of Defense should posthu­mous­ly strip them of their hon­or­able ser­vice records, rank and mil­i­tary awards.

    Posted by Robert Ward Montenegro | December 13, 2022, 7:58 am

Post a comment