Episode 78 The Autopsy Part 15 Published Dec 22, 2021
Episode 78 continues the story of the autopsy. This episode is the fist in a multiple part series that covers the HSCA testimony in 1978 of John Ebersole, MD the Radiologist in charge of the radiology studies performed on the President at Bethesda. Join us in this fifteenth autopsy episode which begins to reveal even more fantastic events that occurred during the autopsy. The end of this episode contains one of the most explosive facts in this series to date. And join us for a whole series of episodes about the fantastic goings on that encompass this part of the JFK story. Enjoy! Jeff
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1622491/9768060-episode-78-the-autopsy-part-15.mp3?download=true
Ebersole has a great voice!
Yes…he sure does…its an interesting study in how that potentially affects our perception of him as well…one thing for sure is that, on these old tapes, he is the one that is easiest to listen to and understand.
Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for this episode and the entire podcast. I’m enjoying it a lot.
So Ebersole said the shot to the head came from the “side”? Did I hear this right? If so then he was still hedging. Not quite as explosive as “from the front”.
Thanks,
Christian
Christian, I agree. You can basically hear the gears grinding in his head during the long, pregnant silence before he speaks, strategising. I read it this way — he knows the HSCA is a much more probing investigation, at least partly questioning the Warren Commission, yet he knows so government moles will probably be on present, closely scrutinising what the witnesses reveal; he doesn’t know who else they might be interviewing, have interviewed, or what they might have said; and he basically fears being completely honest (so this indicates that there was serious pressure, and a coverup of the medical evidence). So he hedges — he avoids going with “front” or “back”, and goes with “side”, which is not as dangerous as saying “front, and side”. It’s an elegant solution — for him. Unfortunately, you have to be already suspicious in order to pick up on the hidden meaning.
The second part is in fact an equally interesting choice of words. If I’m not mistaken, several members of the HSCA medical panel are present during this interview, so Ebersole can’t really get away with a suspiciously counter-factual reading of the x-rays, so he chooses to downplay his own capabilities (and the quality of the x-rays), saying “that’s all that you can really say based on the films”.
It’s interesting to note how his demeanour changes between the beginning of his deposition, and here. At first he is authoritative, his voice booming, and his evidence appears prepared, even rehearsed. When he gets into this dangerous territory, he becomes halting and almost inaudible.
Oops, mangled that sentence — “yet he knows some government moles will probably be present”
Rasmus,
I think you have brought up several important observations and I would like to comment on two of them. First, I believe similarly, that his voice intonation begins to tail off as he becomes less sure of his own answer. Whether that was a function of his thought process at that moment…or something more…is left to conjecture, but it feels like something more to me… and on more than one occasion.
He was a man who was well versed in using precision language. That was evident in his general diction and speaking style. He used very precise descriptions in a number of situations, one of which you have described particularly. One other example is his response related to the trach wound. He was quick to describe and redescribe it as a sutured wound….giving emphasis to the idea that he was not jumping to any conclusions related to the underlying wound itself or taking bait from any of the questioners, whereby he might conveniently respond back in the same way as the question, thus indirectly reaffirming the hypothesis contained in the question itself. He was quick to avoid that.
Thanks for contributing to the conversation here. And please do continue to listen to the podcast series.
Thanks,
Jeff
This series is fascinating. I know you are a one man show but I impatiently wait for each new episode. I have listened to each episode two or three times. I met woody Harrelson’s father in prison. I was an Associate Warden at USP Atlanta and got him some relief from a situation and I used that opportunity to ask him about the three tramps story. He has since died. I have been retired since 2007.
I’m curious, how do you guys read the lines that Ebersole started drawing on the x-rays during the autopsy? Was he tracing bullet paths from front to back?
Hi Rasmus,
In the previous episodes covering Jerrol Custer, included within Custer’s testimony is a clear articulation that Ebersole penciled those lines in on the night of the autopsy. Custer tells the story that Ebersole, while these particular films were placed on the filmbox for viewing, began to draw those lines on them…obviously for identification of a possible bullet path or at least some similar observation, and he was told to stop doing that by the morgue gallery participants. The same participants that Custer has identifed as those “runnng” the autopsy.
You have to believe Custer to believe the above. Personaly, on this one, I do. And I think the idea that such lines were made on those Xrays some weeks later for the purpose of developing a bust of the president, seems dubious to me. Ebersole’s testimony is strong and foreceful on this topic, but you have to evaluate whether he was telling the truth. Because this was a “popular” version of the truth that had been circulated as part of the “official” story…and that he might have already ascribed to its authenticity, sticking with the lie (that these marks were made some three weeks later and for the purpose of constructing a bust) was likely designed to avoid being implicated in the coverup. Admitting to any one of these material facts, any one that points to a forced coverup that night, might have lead to real ramifications personally for him… even if he was just following orders. He was quick to point out the faulty memory of a 53 year old man recalling a 15 year old event… that is true in most cases, but he was an MD who was well versed in radiation therapy and radiology science ANDwho was performing the autopsy on the president of the United States. Some things people forget, and some things people never forget. Those statements could have been interpreted as standard deposition comments made for the purposes of rationalizing circumsances where he answered that he just couldnt remember or didnt remember it that way. Of course, this is conjecture on my part, but I think this notion explains why he answered some things very truthfully and some things he simply lied about. His testimony is a mixture of responses carefully crafted and I think Ebersole, in the end, was hoping to help get the truth out…without implicating himself in the process. Just my take on it.
Jeff