Richard J. Smith

Bill, You're adding suspicion where there is none. You can assure me it means something when JD's brothers assure us it doesn't? Is it really suspicious that a poor someone born in rural Texas in 1924 could carry such a moniker? Nobody names anyone with a nickname? No one? Ever? “Edgar Lee and Lizzie Mae Tippit named their son JD, after a character in a book Edgar once read, JD of the Mountains. ‘The initials JD, despite some claims over the years, never stood for anything.’” Don Tippit, November 13, 1999

Charlie, "I feel that Lee was both a Patsy and a Cop Killer... but not a Presidential assassin." Wow, we actually agree on this one. I also believe LHO shot and killed Tippit, but not JFK. BTW, JD Tippit's name wasn't "Jefferson Davis". JD was his real name, the initials not standing for anything. RJS

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...piracy_Believer

Hi Terry, While this may be worthy of a separate thread, and really has nothing to do with the reviews, I note your "Lisa Pease's input", and what she said at Amazon: "The hard evidence that only two casings (not three) and one live round were found in the TSBD has not changed." Could someone please show me hard evidence that 2 empty casings were found on the 6th floor? Yes, there is dated documentation that evidence turned over to the FBI included 2 shell casings. There is also dated documentation the third was turned over to FBI SA Vince Drain a week later by Will Fritz, having resided in the possession of the DPD. IMO, this is inadequate research that gets us into trouble with conspiracy doubters. You'll notice that people like DVP cannot address the unquestionable evidence of conspiracy(especially the medical evidence), but will jump all over speculative or incomplete research(and they would be right). Stick to the facts, and we can win. Keep speculating, and those like Bugliosi will rub your nose in it. RJS

Tim and I have been forum compadres for several years, and although I've never met him face to face, I've not only considered him an investigative associate but a friend. I am completely shocked and saddened by this news. My best wishes Tim. RJS

Seems to me the back wound as depicted is an inch or 2 too low. But in essence, yes, Humes stuck a finger into the wound at the autopsy. Also, according to several autopsy witnesses, including O'Connor, Sibert, O'Neill, and Jenkins, there was no perforation into the pleura. In other words, the bullet didn't traverse the body. A bruise on the back side on the uppermost lobe of the lung was more than likely caused by blunt force trauma, not by the bullet passing the lung and exiting the front. From O'Connor's interview by William Law in In the Eye of History: O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to weigh and measure the body. We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on. But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were doing that. Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra. This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh cervical vertebra. I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s body. Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole. Law: What difference would it make? O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it into a bullet wound, you avulse the wound. Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back? O’Connor: Yes Law: It could have create a false track: O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track as much as a false impression of the entrance of the missile that went into his back. Law: Who was arguing? O’Connor: Dr Finck strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He(Finck) took a sound, which is a probe, a metal malleable, non rigid probe. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I’d say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn’t go in any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostals muscles---the muscles between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn’t touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity and stopped. So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what happened at the time. We traced the bullet path down and found that it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body. Law: You can be reasonably sure of that? O’Connor: Absolutely Law: And these doctors knew that? O’Connor: Absolutely Law: While it happened? O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing we found out while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a “short shot”. It didn’t have the power to push the projectile clear through the body. If it had…it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum. O’Connor: We were told(in the report of the Warren Commission) that he was shot in the back and it came out his throat. That didn’t jibe with what we saw, and when I say we, I’m talking about Dr. Boswell and myself. When shown the photo of the back by Law: O’Connor: That’s a very accurate portrayal of the entrance wound to his back, which as you know, is quite a ways down from his neck. At the angle he was shot…the laws of physics will not let a bullet strike there and go up and go out his throat…I helped roll him over…one of these arms might have been mine, because I was at the head of the body and helped roll him over. It wasn’t rolled over until quite a ways into the autopsy, and that’s when they discovered the bullet wound. O’Connor: Now I had this drawing made at the University of Florida showing the back wound and this is exactly what happened. The bullet struck him in the back, it passed through the outer layer of muscle and through the inner layer of muscle between the vertebrae. These are intercostals muscles and they connect the spinal column together. This bullet came in, arched downward, and bulged against the pleural cavity, which is the protective cavity around both lungs. It did not penetrate that lung area. It just bruised it real badly. I had it highlighted showing there was bruising on the right lung. The back if the right lung was bruised, but wasn’t torn. It was bruised badly enough to hemorrhage in the tissues, but not enough to tear the lung or the cavity. RJS

Al didn't think "Pakse Base Man" was the guy on the lamppost at Main and Houston, although we were in agreement that members of Team 5 from Laos, a secret shooting team often utilized by CIA, was involved. "Pakse Base Man" was a misnomer however, since that photo of him was taken at Long Tieng, Laos. I am still convinced that the guy on the lampost and the CIA "case officer" pictured at Long Tieng were one and the same. I was never able to put a name on him, although I tried for over 2 years. None of the Ravens I contacted would talk. IMO the head shot was fired from the South Knoll parking lot, by a Team 5 member. I believe the other shooters were Cuban exiles. As for CIA not using military types as shooters, think again. These guys have worked together since the late 50's in Laos, through Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world. The US Delta Force is very closely associated with the intel community, as are other secretive commando types. RJS

What a ridiculous post. I'd bet I could do a search for Steven Gaal and find a serial killer or other such lunatic of the same name. While I don't always agree with Charlie, I know him to be a vociferous CT, a believer in Z film alteration, and believes a coup took place in Dallas on November 22, 1963. This accusation should be referred to the moderating committee. RJS

Mary Moorman Krahmer has decided it's time. Her famous original Polaroid photo will be auctioned. I saw the piece on MSNBC this morning where Mary said she was ready to sell the photo. Mary decided to sell the photo after the TSBD 6th floor window was auctioned. She said she can get a lot of money for it and "at my age, why not?" She wants to travel with the money she makes. The photo is currently in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum, which has a copy on display. http://www.nbc5i.com/news/11641784/detail.html

Interesting article from the LA Times on Hunt's sons: Watergate plotter may have a last tale Two of E. Howard Hunt's sons say he knew of rogue CIA agents' plan to kill President Kennedy in 1963. Los Angeles Times By Carol J. Williams Times Staff Writer March 20, 2007 EUREKA, CALIF. — Howard St. John Hunt remembers the night of the Watergate break-in as a bonding experience with his father. A sweating and disheveled E. Howard Hunt roused his 19-year-old son from a dead sleep to help him wipe fingerprints from the burglars' radios and pack the surveillance equipment into a suitcase. Then, father and son raced to a remote Maryland bridge, where they heaved the evidence into the Potomac River just before dawn on June 17, 1972. "From that point on I felt relevant in his life, that I was the one he could count on," said Howard St. John Hunt, now 52, who is called St. John. It also was a turning point for St. John's brother and two sisters. They learned that their father wasn't just a Washington advertising executive and former diplomat. He was an ex-CIA agent and veteran of the ill-fated Cuban Bay of Pigs operation who worked for the Nixon White House as part of a secret team of "plumbers" that fixed information leaks. The unmasking of Hunt, who was convicted in 1973, sent his family into a tailspin: His first wife, Dorothy, was killed in a plane crash in 1972 while carrying $10,000 in hush money from the White House to the burglars' families; son David was sent to live with his militant Cuban godfather in Miami; St. John later became a drug addict and daughters Kevan and Lisa became estranged from their father. But before his death at age 88 in January, E. Howard Hunt had reconciled with his children and left the sons one last tantalizing story, they say. The story, which he planned to detail in a memoir and could be worth big money — was that rogue CIA agents plotted to kill President Kennedy in 1963, and that they approached Hunt to join the plot but he declined. Unfortunately, when the old spy's memoir appeared this month, there was something missing. Before Watergate Before the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate office complex, the Hunt family of Potomac, Md., was, to outward appearances, fairly typical for a beltway power player. Their father was in advertising; the mother worked at the Spanish embassy; and the four children, ages 8 to 23, attended private schools. Watergate was a bomb that detonated under the family. "Our life as we knew it came to an explosive end," recalls daughter Kevan Hunt Spence, now 54, of Pioneer, 50 miles east of Sacramento. "Our home was lost. Our financial security was lost. Our mother was dead. Our father was in prison.'' Kevan, who was 20 at the time, and her sister Lisa, then 23, distanced themselves from a father they blamed for their mother's death and took refuge with friends, away from the besieged family home. Kevan played her own role in the Watergate fallout. Instead of burning records of White House payoffs as her father had asked, she hid them in her Smith College dorm room for a nearly a year, when her father's lawyer needed them to prove White House complicity to get her father a reduced sentence. David, the youngest of Hunt's children with Dorothy and 8 at the time of the break-in, was effectively orphaned when Hunt went to prison in 1973. At his father's request, lifelong friend William F. Buckley Jr. spirited David from the house to get him away from Lisa and St. John, who, Hunt notes in a posthumous memoir, were furious with their father. David left his privileged life to spend three years at the crowded Miami home of his Cuban exile godfather. A Bay of Pigs veteran and anti-communist militant, Manuel Artime would take David on gun-running missions to Central America, letting the boy fire pistols with the bodyguards of right-wing dictators the exile visited. Hunt's daughters headed west to create new lives. Kevan came to California, where she has practiced law for 25 years. Lisa became a fundamentalist Christian and runs an insurance firm in Las Vegas. St. John was estranged from his father from the late 1970s to the start of this decade. He was convicted twice on felony drug charges in the Bay Area but served no prison time. When he became homeless, he renounced his drug habit, renewed ties with his father and siblings and moved to this Pacific Coast timber and fishing town. He now works assisting elderly patients in their homes and is a student at College of the Redwoods. David, now 43, also abused drugs after his mother's death and the years he spent in the violent milieu of Cuban exile politics. He now sells Jacuzzis at a West L.A. spa shop. The sisters remain estranged from the brothers but all were on good terms with Hunt and his widow Laura and their children, Austin and Hollis, when the veteran CIA operative and spy novelist died. Hunt had been preparing for publication of "American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond," released this month. St. John says it was he who suggested the idea of a memoir when he convinced his father that it was time to reveal anything he knew about the Kennedy assassination. It had always been suspected that Hunt shared his Cuban exile friends' hatred of Kennedy, who refused to provide air cover to rescue the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion that Hunt helped organize. "He told me in no uncertain terms about a plot originating in Miami, to take place in Miami," said St. John. He said his father identified key players and speculated that then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for moving the venue to Dallas, where the Texan could control the security scene. But the memoir's published passages about the assassination have an equivocal tone. Hunt provides only a hypothetical scenario of how events in Dallas might have unfolded, with Johnson atop a pyramid of rogue CIA plotters. The brothers insist their father related to them a detailed plot to assassinate Kennedy. Hunt told them he was approached by the conspirators to join them but declined, they say. That information was cut from the memoir, the brothers say, because Hunt's attorney warned he could face perjury charges if he recanted sworn testimony. Hunt also had assured Laura before they married in 1977 that he had nothing to do with the assassination. St. John said he respected his father's wishes while he was alive but felt no obligation now. He is writing a script about his father, and David is shopping for a publisher for their father's account of CIA involvement in the Kennedy shooting. Despite the brothers' efforts, their father's role will probably never be known. The materials they offer to substantiate their story, examined by the Los Angeles Times, are inconclusive. Hunt answers questions on a videotape using speculative phrases, observing that various named figures were "possibly" involved. A chart Hunt sketched during one conversation with St. John shows the same rogue CIA operation he describes in the memoir. None of the accounts provides evidence to convincingly validate that their father disclosed anything revelatory. Hunt's widow and her two children, 27-year-old Austin and 23-year-old Hollis, dismiss the brothers' story, saying it is the result of coaching an old man whose lucidity waxed and waned in his final months. Kevan bitterly accuses her brothers of "elder abuse," saying they pressured their father for dramatic scenarios for their own financial gain. Hunt's longtime lawyer, Bill Snyder, says: "Howard was just speculating. He had no hard evidence." St. John, who sports a mustache and longish graying coif combed back from a receding hairline, has a more personal reason to believe in his father's disclosures. He said he was instructed by Hunt in 1974 to back up an alibi for his whereabouts on the day Kennedy died, 11 years earlier. "I did a lot of lying for my father in those days," St. John said. The brothers, who both possess Hunt's piercing pale-blue eyes, concede they would like to profit from their father's story but insist he meant them to. "My father died utterly unapologetic about anything he did," David said. "People do that kind of thing all the time," St. John said of the prospect of making money from his father's deeds. Nor does he think the story will reflect badly on their father. "I don't think it was terrible that he was approached and turned them down." That Hunt, a skilled obfuscator, might have left contradictory accounts of the Kennedy plot to protect friends and preserve the mystery is not lost on his sons. "That's the way spies are," David says with a wry smile, remembering a father he never really knew. "They lead double lives and maintain cover."

You're kidding right? No Richard. I am not kidding Richard. I am pointing out a FACT Richard. Ruling out some evidence is not the same as PROVING that one person did not commit a crime. Stating that FACT is not the same as giving an opinion, one way or the other, about what I believe in the case of Files. Stating that FACT is not the same as saying what I think of the individuals on either side of the issue. Just a straightforward statement of a FACT. How's this for FACT Myra...Files has been proven to be a xxxx again, and again, and again. By your reasoning, NO ONE is precluded from being an assassin if they were even near Dallas on November 22, 1963. How about doing some research for once. If you're so interested in FACTS, try using some once in a while.

You're kidding right?

Thanks for posting this Bernice. A fine piece of research, Allan may have driven in the last nail in Files' coffin. Yet another confirmation of Files' fraudulent claims. Thanks Allan, and well done. RJS

Hi Francesca, I normally don't believe everything I read and hear simply because it adds to the conspiracy aspect. I'll check out things and dig as deeply as I can for corroboration. I was interested in Craig also, so did some digging a few years ago. I wanted to believe, but there were just too many discrepancies. I can't write it off as memory failure or misstatement. Craig contradicted himself so many times I found him to be totally unbelieveable. I hate making comments without sources, but several years ago I found or was told something pertaining to Craig's wife, who had indicated Roger was a troubled man. She said there were no attempts on his life, no shots fired at him, no car bombs, etc. Perhaps she was just playing the game, but if anyone has actual documented evidence that what Craig claimed was true, I'd like to see it. RJS

I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig. Michael, In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight. The Rambler: Craig, WC testimony: Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not? Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate. Craig, Shaw trial testimony: Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail? A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement. The Rifle: Craig, WC testimony: Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz. And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office. Craig, Shaw trial testimony: Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found? A: Yes. Q: And did you personally find the rifle? A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it. Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle? A: Yes, sir, I did. Q: Approximately how far? A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him. Q: Do you recall the man who was there? A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle. Q: What do you mean an ID man? A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department. Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time? A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there. Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones. FP: Did you handle that rifle? RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon. FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it? PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence. In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says "Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser." The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses. Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd. RJS

[quote name='Michael G. Smith' post='95910' date='Mar 1 2007, 02:12 PM' Roger always stuck to his truthful story over the years, and look what it got him. It is truely a shame that an honest man like him had to endure all of what he did, just for being honest, and sticking to his story! Please do some research on Craig and his various statements and testimony before accepting everything he had to say. His stories changed drastically over the years, so he never "stuck to his truthful story". Regarding "proof" that Craig was photographed in Fritz's office, he was not. He was photographed in the Homicide/Robbery office. LHO was questioned in Fritz's office, which is behind the H/R outer office. Fritz said Craig was never in his office, and when Craig showed up at Fritz's office door, he was referred to another officer in that outer office. This isn't a question of semantics concerning offices as some might say. Craig said he was in Fritz's office while LHO was being questioned. By all accounts other than Craig's, he was not. Craig is on the far right in the photo.

Hi Steve, Seems this has already been in progress for some time. It's called Blackwater. IMO Bush came up with this to counter the recent criticism of the US government hiring mercenaries. http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ RJS

Deleted, duplicate

Does it look like she's looking at the right front of his head? Looks to me like she's looking directly at the avulsion on the back of the head. The gif doesn't go far enough. Here's Z337. BTW, several of the doctors mentioned "cerebellum". Any clue where the cerebellum is located?

Proof of Specter questioning witnesses about whether they saw a small bullet hole in the back of the head beneath the large gaping wound they all had described: Dr McClelland Dr. McCLELLAND - I saw the large opening which I have described. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Dr Peters Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput? Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any holes below the occiput, say, in this area below here? Dr. PETERS - No, I did not and at the time and the moments immediately following the injury, we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit, and I'm just giving you my honest impressions at the time. Dr Jenkins Dr. JENKINS - Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described? Dr. JENKINS – No Dr Clark Mr. SPECTER - Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head? Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I did not. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe, to make my question very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the external occipital protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm. Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I did not. This could easily have been hidden in the blood and hair. Dr. Clark - I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Clark, in the line of your specialty, could you comment as to the status of the President with respect to competency, had he been able to survive the head injuries which you have described and the total wound which he had? Dr. CLARK - This, of course, is a question of tremendous importance. Just let me state that the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. Dr Giesecke Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole below the large area of missing skull ? Dr. GIESECKE – No Dr Perry Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President's head? Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that. Mr. SPECTER - Did you, to be specific, observe a smaller wound below the large avulsed area which you have described? Dr. PERRY - I did not. Dr Baxter Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head? Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not. Nurse Bowron Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

So, Smitty, let me make sure I understand you completely: if, arguendo, there was a government conspiracy, veteran FBI agent Jim Sibert —who was sent by the federal government to be in attendance on the body when it arrived in D.C.—is above suspicion for complicity. Is that your position? That seems to be your position. And what "Ashton needs to" do is understand this thoroughly. Is that right? Indeed.Ashton Gray Forgive my answering a question with a question, but how in the world can you even consider that the government or entities thereof, would put out a false story that there was a large avulsive wound in the REAR of the head, when they were hell bent on proving that LHO did the deed by firing 3 shots from behind? You should really read what you write, and see how totally absurd that is. To say that these 30+ witnesses, doctors, nurses, a mortician, autopsy techs, 2 FBI agents, at least one Secret Service agent(Clint Hill), and a partridge in a pear tree lied and/or were coerced is even more absurd. To dump fuel on the fire, Sibert also said the bullet that entered the back(note not back of the neck) did not traverse the body, and the SBT was a load of crap. His reaction to William Law's question about Arlen Specter was "what a xxxx". Why would he say that if he was directed to give information confirming that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin? What Sibert(and the others) said was the exact opposite. You certainly have a flair for words, Ashie, but what you say is totally contrary to what the WC and the government was trying to do. You are your own worst enemy, so keep talking. The hole you're digging is getting deeper. RJS

IMO the one obvious fake is the back of the head photo, the purpose of the fakery being to show no conspiracy (i.e. no exit wound in the back of the head, despite statement after statement after statement by credible witnesses). There are some oddities about other photos, but what seems clear is not necessarily that these other photos involve fakery but that there are photos that are missing (e.g., an interior thorax photo according to Humes, and a photo of the hole in the back of the head, among others, according to Spencer and David). It's much easier to make photos simply disappear than to manipulate what they show, unless you need a fake photo for a specific purpose, to which I've alluded. Hi Ron, Sounds as if Ashton needs to get a copy of In the Eye of History. He should read Jim Sibert say how he was a foot away from JFK's head at the autopsy, and described the large gaping hole in the back of the head. He was shown the autopsy pic of the back of the head and said essentially said "that's not what I saw". Most of the Parkland doctors described cerebellum hanging out from the wound. So Ashton should get a copy of Gray's Anatomy and see where the cerebellum is located. But then again EVERYBODY is lying or was coerced(why would anyone be coerced into saying there WAS a large exit wound in the back of the head!?!?!), but I guess it better suits Ashton's own untenable theory. I suppose someone also got to Gawler mortician Thomas Robinson who said they had to sew a rubber patch into the scalp to cover the gaping hole in the rear of the head. I also wonder why the drawings made by Sibert, Robinson, Spencer, and Audrey Bell at the HSCA indicating a large rear head wound was never released until the ARRB did so in the 90's. Ever read the WC testimony of several eyewitnesses to the rear of head wound and read how Specter asked them "was there a smaller wound beneath that large wound?" There is no question in my mind there was a large gaping wound of exit in the back of the head, and blowing off 30 eyewitnesses just doesn't cut it. Sorry Pat, but if I saw a photo of a big hole in the back of the President's head I'd remember it, or in the case of Sibert, he was standing right there, and said of the wound "it was this big":

*************************************************** Hey, come on folks! We can do better than 174, can't we? Dawnie, Dixie, Myra, where are your John Hancock's? I'm number 13. Exactly. I think it's particularly important that the more "known" members of the forum sign, ie, authors, journalists, etc. BTW, got you beat Ter, I'm #5! Also pretty important to carefully peruse the names. Fox Mulder, Lee Oswald, and a few others must go, and I see someone signed twice. RJS

Reproduced from another blog: McKinney is stone-cold crazy (Soon to be former) Rep. McKinney has made one last ditched effort on her way out the door - the proposal of the completely un-passable impeachment of Bush. I can just see how it went now. The doors are about to close on the 109th-lame-duck-congress, and Cynthia McKinney comes running around the corner, proposal in hand, knocking congressmen out of her way to get to the floor, makes the proposal, gets booed out of the room and punches the security officer on the way out the door. Almost makes me wish I was there… There are two ways to view this proposal. One as a completely hollow political move and the other as a jaded attempt to demonstrate the injustice of Bush’s presidency. Either way, I’m annoyed, and I think stuff like this should be permanently banned by law. First of all, McKinney is crazy - so she should barely be allowed to sit in when congress is in session without a rattle and a baggy full of cheerios to keep her occupied. Second of all, if I’ve seen one thing this year, it’s stupid pointless bill proposals that aren’t worth the 975 pieces of paper their respectively printed on. For example, the draft proposal. Everyone knows it won’t happen - but we look upon it as one mans political cry from the top of the hill to say “stop this war!” While that’s just dandy, I’d be willing to wager that that’s not what the founding fathers had in mind. That’s why we have newspapers and book deals. If you really want to stand up for something, then stand up for it, don’t hide behind it. There’s no merit in saying “this is what I believe in and I will do everything I can to make sure nothing happens about it.” This isn’t psycho-therapy and writing stuff down for the sake of writing stuff down isn’t curing anything. Stop wasting my time. If the move is more political than symbolic, McKinney should cut her losses and run - and this time without hitting anyone. She’s been a nut inside the inside for as long as she’s been there, and to be honest, I can’t believe she’s made it this long without getting inadvertently shot by someone who thought she was a rabid mule. According to CNN, she “has has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.” That’s great news…she’ll feel right at home in a straight jacket. I certainly can’t imagine what kind of job plans you’re forming when everyone thinks you’re a maniac…maybe she’ll get a talk show. Who knows. As long as I don’t have to keep reading about her, I’ll be fine…" Find someone else to back John, don't waste your time. This one's out of her freakin mind. Perhaps you should have a go at Tony Blair, since you're a British citizen. Or the case of the poisoned spy. BTW, you know of course McKinney assaulted a Capitol police officer for trying to stop her from barging into the Capitol building in DC without showing her ID(or carrying it for that matter), and she cried rascism. You also know of course that she was defeated in her reelection bid. In her own party's primary. Even when she's right, she's wrong. RJS