Pat Speer

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple. Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek. Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. Apparently some think this makes perfect sense.

This is one of the most back-assward things I've ever read. Not one prominent researcher, not even Mantik, finds Horne's theory convincing.You know, cause you asked him, that Mantik doesn't buy into Horne's ridiculous theory Humes cut the large fragment from the head. Now I actually wish Horne was more credible. But he's just not. 1. Compare Reed's testimony to what Horne claims Reed claims. If you do you will see that Reed saw Humes cut into the head to remove the brain AFTER Reed and Custer had taken the x-rays, but Horne needs it to be before, since these x-rays show missing frontal bone...so he simply claims it was before. 2. Compare Robinson's testimony and statements to what Horne claims he saw. Robinson told Horne he saw two three tiny holes on the cheek. Horne claims he actually saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. Robinson has also claimed he saw a blowout wound on the side of the head, but Horne, as I recall, just ignores this and claims any description of a large wound on the front or side of the head prior to Humes' cresting such a wound is a lie. 3. Compare James Jenkins' description of what he took to be an entrance wound by Kennedy's ear, along with Mantik's and Chesser's subsequent descriptions of this wound as one by the ear, and then watch Horne in JFK: What the Doctors Saw pronounce that Jenkins' was really describing a bullet hole high on the forehead. It's embarrassing... for all of us...thinking there was more to it than Oswald...to be associated... with this stuff...

DO THE RESEARCH. Here, I've done it for you... From chapter 19d: One of the first books to report on the ARRB interviews orchestrated by Horne was Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). This anthology presented competing and overlapping takes on the medical evidence by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Mantik. Now, to focus on but one deception of many included in this book, we shall note that in his chapter Dr. Mantik claimed "Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head (nope, that was Ed Stroble)...described a wound...above the right eye, near the hairline." And that Mantik then cited White House photographer Joe O'Donnell's recollection he saw a photo showing such a wound as support for what he, Mantik, was now claiming Robinson had claimed. But this conspiracy gold was poop. The reality was that Robinson described a small wound which he insisted was not a bullet wound. And that he specified, on different occasions, that this tiny wound was by the temple, or even on the right cheek, but never above the right eye. And the reality is that O'Donnell's claim he saw a wound above the right eye in a photo was also suspect. Basically, O'Donnell told Horne, in the same interview in which he described being shown an autopsy photo, that he and Jackie Kennedy had spent a day together editing the Zapruder film. Well this is absolute rubbish, invisible rabbit kind of stuff. And that's not the only red flag suggesting O'Donnell was less than credible. O'Donnell similarly claimed he'd been shown this photo (for which there is no record) by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, whose family claimed he'd told them he'd been the only photographer at the autopsy--an assertion which Mantik would have to have known was false after studying Gunn's and Horne's interviews where witness after witness failed to recall Knudsen's even being present at the autopsy. Now, the since-deceased Knudsen had been interviewed for the HSCA, and had told them he'd developed photos taken at the autopsy. But he never said anything under oath about his taking the photos himself or his seeing an entrance wound on the forehead in the photos he'd developed, and his family, who told Horne and the ARRB he'd told them all sorts of wild stuff--well, even they failed to recall his describing such a wound. But it's worse than that. When Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA on 8-11-78 he gave no signs of holding back. He said a lot of stuff which many would find incredible, including that after looking through the autopsy photos supplied him by his interviewer he thought photos were missing in which probes had been placed in the body. But he said nothing about a missing photo showing a hole in the forehead. In fact, he recalled but one photo of the head wounds (and that was one showing a wound in the right rear) and snapped "Here, this is it." when shown photo 37h, a photo showing the top of the head from above which failed to show the supposed entrance hole on the forehead and the supposed exit hole in the middle of the back of the head. Now, there was one curious exchange, where Knudsen was asked if the photos just shown him were "not inconsistent"with the ones he saw in 1963, and responded "No. Not at all." But that was just confusing human speak. I mean, if someone were to ask you if their recollection is not inconsistent with your recollection of an event, it is as likely that you would answer "no" to mean they are not consistent as it is for you to answer "no" to mean they are consistent. I mean, I get confused just writing about this. As Knudsen was asked this question after being shown a series of photos with which he expressed no disagreement, moreover, and as Purdy failed to follow up by asking how they were inconsistent, we can and should assume Knudsen meant that the photos were not inconsistent with his recollections...and that his only real complaint was that some photos (the ones he recalled with the probes) appeared to be missing. So... to sum up, the only one to claim Knudsen saw a small wound on the forehead, or even shared a photo showing such a wound, was O'Donnell, who Knudsen's family had never even heard of, and whose connection to Knudsen was nebulous, if not non-existent. O'Donnell was a dubious source with a dubious claim. Now observe how Mantik's, well, stuff...rubs off on Horne. In Volume 2 of his magnum opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009) Horne discusses Tom Robinson's description of a small wound by the temple, and takes Mantik's lead and pretends Robinson was actually describing a bullet wound above the right eye. When summarising the HSCA's 1977 interview of Robinson, Horne writes: "Robinson also spoke of a small hole in the temple near the hairlline, which was so small it could be hidden by the hair." Horne then reads the mind of Andy Purdy, the man interviewing Robinson, and claims: "Purdy asked Robinson to clarify which side of the forehead it was on, which tells me that Robinson said 'temple' but had actually pointed to his own forehead rather than to his temple. Robinson responded to the question by saying 'the right side,' thus confirming that it was indeed in the right forehead near the hairline." What the??? Horne makes a ridiculous assumption and then claims his assumption (Robinson meant forehead and not temple) is confirmed by Robinson's saying it was on the right side. Well, hello, there is a temple on the right side of the head! One can not simply declare that someone saying there was a mark on the right side of the head by the temple actually said it was a bullet hole high on the forehead. That's insulting to, well, everyone... But it gets worse. On page 599 of Inside the ARRB, Horne claims Robinson's 1-12-77 recollection of a wound by the temple "is consistent with Dennis David's account of seeing Pitzer's photos of a small round wound high in the right forehead, and of Joe O'Donnell's account of Robert Knudsen showing him a photo depicting an entry wound high in the right forehead." Now, we'll get to David and Pitzer in a minute, but what's important here is that we realize that, according to his widely-disseminated notes, researcher Joe West asked Robinson about the wounds on 5-26-92 and was told instead of "(approx 2) small wounds in face packed with wax", and that when Horne himself spoke to Robinson on 6-18-96, Robinson once again failed to mention a small wound by the temple, and instead claimed he saw "two or three small perforations or holes in the right cheek." And that all this led Horne to assert, on page 612 of Inside the ARRB, that Robinson's 1996 recollection of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with his 1977 recollection of a small wound by the temple. So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed, whose passing had ignited a scandal. Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others. In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

Hilarious. Horne's history is one of taking inconsistencies in the record and spinning them into the wildest tale possible. I urge you to do the research. What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple. What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. What did James Jenkins say? That he recalled seeing a gray smear on the skull above the right ear. What did he come to claim later? That he saw a bullet hole above the right ear. What did Horne claim in JFK: What the Doctors saw Jenkins REALLY saw? A bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. What did Ed Reed say? He and Custer took the x-rays, developed them, brought them back to the morgue, sat down for twenty minutes, saw Humes start cutting on Kennedy to remove the brain, was asked to leave as his services were no longer required, and never returned to the autopsy. What did Horne take from his statements? That he came in to take the x-rays and sat down, saw Humes cutting on Kennedy to remove bones from the top of the head to phony up the x-rays, was asked to leave, and was asked to return after 20 minutes to take the phony x-rays. The statements of Robinson and Reed are the pillars of Horne's theory. And yet he grossly misrepresents their statements to conjure up this theory. Now, as you know, he has few if any supporters among the upper echelon of researchers within the "community." That doesn't mean he 's wrong. But it's saying something that he has spent dozens if not hundreds of hours with Mantik in which he undoubtedly pushed. a theory holding that the largest recovered bone fragment was removed by Humes at Bethesda, and that Mantik would never embrace this, telling you, a few years back that the fragment was missing at Parkland but the hole was covered by scalp, and telling his audience in 2021, that this is pretty much what Humes saw when he first saw Kennedy's head. Now, as a refresher, here is what Horne claims Humes saw, prior to his alteration of the body... Now I'm guessing you're siding with Horne. But Horne, in case you haven't noticed, is by far the most slanderous researcher of all. Virtually everyone interviewed by the ARRB, in Horne's eyes, was a coward or a liar. Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival.

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it? As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound by the temple and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead.

I have been battling cancer and the side effects from the treatment of cancer for about 3 years. The meds given me to combat cancer and the recurrence of cancer, and the meds I'm forced to take to minimize the side effects from the treatment, create a bit of "brain fog." There was an article on this in I think the New York Times a few months back. They actually call it "Chemo brain." Apparently many cancer patients never regain full brain capacity after undergoing chemo-therapy.As for myself, I feel I am about 90% back. On watching the video I notice a lot of pauses in my speech while I search for words. That is the new Pat. The old Pat could stand in front of a crowd and speak for an hour on a number of topics while hardly taking a breath. I have always stammered bit, but now sometimes I sound like Porky Pig.

Thank you.

Researcher Matt Douthitt called me up the other night on Zoom and captured the feed while we watched John Lattimer's presentation at the 1993 Chicago conference. For those not in the know, Lattimer was the first non-military doctor allowed into the archives to view the assassination materials, who then parlayed this into dozens of magazine articles, and interviews. It can safely be said that he did more to keep the single-bullet theory alive than ALL those involved with the creation of the theory, and was a huge influence on the thinking of the Oswald-did-it crowd. In any event, Matt decided to put the entire 5 HOUR conversation up on YouTube. Now, there's a lot of blithering on my part and a lot of repetition and almost certainly some mis-statements. But if you're someone with an interest in the case who would like to know what it's like to sit in on a conversation between two veteran researchers, this might be your cup of tea. Now, Matt does provide a lot of images and even some outside interviews, which help to illuminate Lattimer's nonsense. And of course there's the images from Lattimer's own presentation. So it's not just talking heads. In fact, if you are relatively new to this you can probably learn more from this video than probably any other video on the assassination, as it presents arguments for Oswald's guilt from a hero to the Oswald did it crowd, and then blasts gigantic holes through most of his arguments. Now it is FIVE hours long. So I think someone with an interest might want to watch a half hour at a time or so. Or not.

I will agree with your basic point, Bill. IF one is asked did Oswald act alone, the vast majority of people will say no, but not because they have an extensive knowledge of the case. IF one is asked what is your particular theory, as to who pulled the trigger, and who made the decision the trigger should be pulled, however, the Oswald did it all by his lonesome theory will be by far the most common answer. But, once again, it is not because those saying this have an extensive knowledge of the case. And there is a reason for this. if you study the statements of people commenting on the case over decades, you will find that many of those attracted to the more than Oswald theory view the case as part of a larger pattern of evil misdeeds by a they. These people are attracted to conspiracy because they see conspiracies everywhere. But by the same token, many if not most of those claiming Oswald did it now stop talking come from a position of fear--a fear of the unknown, and a fear that Oswald's possible innocence suggests something about America that they just won't let themselves believe. I mean, Earl Warren and Walter Cronkite were wrong? And Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone were right? For some that's impossible to fathom, and their whole world is threatened by such a possibility. Now, I have spent countless hours arguing online, and discussing the case in emails and in person with people of both camps--the Oswald did its and the more than Oswalds. And I can say that at least 50% of what most CTs believe is garbage, and at least 20% of what most LNs believe is garbage. So from hearing this, one might think I'm leaning towards LN. But no, far from it, the myth put together by the Warren Commission was stretched so thin that if even 5% of what they claimed is garbage, then a reasonable person would have to accept the possibility there was more to it than Oswald.

FWIW, Bell claimed she was in the room at the beginning, not at the end, when Clark arrived and inspected the wound. She also claimed she'd been shown the wound by Perry, who, as I recall, claimed he'd never turned the head, and who, I'm fairly certain, said he had no recollections of her being in the room. As she had clearly concocted (or grossly misremembered) her story about giving fragments to the SS or FBI, we have no reason to believe any of the other additions to her story. I think people need to realize that most of the latter-day recollections of witnesses--whether it be Bell claiming Perry showed her the wound, or Landis claiming he put a bullet on a stretcher--are nonsense, and not to be relied upon. And this cuts both ways. Didn't Mike Howard cough up some some crazy story about Oswald towards the end of his life? Well, that was obviously nonsense. I put Bell's and Landis' recollections in the same box.

What the??? As stated, Jenkins is on camera saying the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp but not blown out of the skull. He has said a lot of things that are problematic for the official story, that's for sure. But he has claimed this part of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy. He has also claimed, since forever, that no pre-autopsy surgery was performed at Bethesda and that Horne is completely off-base. When I spoke to him, and asked if maybe Humes had done thus surgery in another room, he was adamant that there was no other room, and that nothing of the sort happened at Bethesda. I think he was open-minded about the possibility something had occurred somewhere else, before the arrival of the body at Bethesda, but Horne won't have that, as he's cherry-picked numerous pieces of evidence and put them together to create a completely phony story about Humes altering the body, and is unable to break away from his creation. P.S. I notice that you mention Jenkins' claim he saw a bullet wound by the ear. Well, he initially said this was a gray smear on the bone, which helped convince me I was correct about a bullet's entering at this location. Then, after being pounded for years by your heroes, he started claiming he saw a bullet hole by the ear and not just a gray smear. And then, with the release of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, these years of manipulation paid off--as Horne was now claiming this bullet hole, which was originally not a bullet hole, was actually a bullet hole high on the forehead. Which Mantik and Horne had conjured up from almost nothing... In any event, it's nice to see you acknowledge Jenkins said this was by the ear, and that Horne's claim it was really high on the forehead is nonsense.

The denuding of skin is symptomatic of tangential wounds, Vince. As the bullet strikes at a shallow angle, a piece of bone pulls forward and tears the skin.

It's not my conjecture. Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite. Now, the next year, he made an appearance with Mantik and Chesser and I spoke to him a bit with Matt Douthitt, and I told Jenkins these guys were taking his words and twisting them into support for their belief the back of the head was blown out. And he said "What are you gonna do? People will believe what they want to believe..." So I was as shocked as anyone when I saw Jenkins pull a flip-flop on all this but when I looked closely at his book I found my answer--he credited Mike Chesser with help on the book. So, yeah, from where I stand--and from what I have witnessed personally--Mantik, Horne, and Chesser are in the deception business. Now they may be deceiving themselves first and foremost, but they are not particularly interested in the truth, IMO.

Yes, I am aware that Mantik was briefly swayed by Horne, but his 2021 presentation on the FFF website was presented from the perspective of Humes, and he has Humes lying about just about everything, but NOT about any pre-surgery to the head. In fact, he claims Humes, when first observing JFK, saw a giant hole from front to back on the right side of his head.