Pat Speer

As discussed on my website and on numerous forums, what, twelve years ago? the image above comparing the back wound location in the two photos (which is believed to have originated with Jean Davison) is grossly deceptive, and deliberately so. . I say "deliberately so" because it's clear NO attempt has been made to match the photos up properly. In reality, the photo at right is grossly undersized compared to the photo at left. This deliberate deception serves to make the "hump" on Kennedy's back appear to be in the same location in each photo. But in reality they are not. In the photo at right, the back wound is slightly below the level of the shoulders. In the photo at left the shoulders are below the bottom of the photo, that is, BELOW the throat wound. Ergo, the photo at right shows JFK's corpse with its shoulders hunched up. When one properly sizes the photos and "unhunches" the shoulders, that is, tries to place them in their proper position, it's clear the back wound is at or even slightly below the throat wound. This is so elementary, in fact, that even the HSCA pathology panel, prone to push all sorts of nonsense, saw that this was true. So, yeah, on this issue some LNs, most tellingly you, David, have taken to pushing something completely at odds with the expert opinions of the wonderful HSCA FPP. IOW, on this issue you have taken to pushing a completely whack-a-doodle theory based on a gross misunderstanding of the evidence...that is, based on a HOAX. This is the sin for what most of us on this forum have been regularly accused. It must feel weird to have the shoe on the other foot, right?

Yes, those are the actual locations of the bullet holes. From patspeer.com, Chapter 11:

That's not blood stain spatter. That's a blood stain created as Kennedy sat leaning to his left and then on his back in the limo. It can be presumed that much of that blood came from his head wound. It tells us nothing about the direction of the shot.

To my understanding, a criminal investigation has been launched into the disappearance of the texts. In most circumstances, people under criminal investigation won't testify before congress unless promised immunity. So the 1/6 committee has stepped aside while the DOJ does its job. But I wouldn't be surprised if we hear more on this when the hearings resume...

A former British policeman named Ian Griggs bought a Carcano and practiced assembling it with a dime. He said it always raised a blister. He discussed this topic in great detail in his book No Case to Answer and at a number of JFK Lancer Conferences. One of the things he discovered was that a photo in the WR was a hoax. This showed the scope and barrel in one piece next to the wooden stock. As I recall Griggs reported that you could not just remove the scope and barrel in one piece, and that to remove the barrel you had to disassemble the scope and its attachments. As I recall you would have to break the rifle and scope down into 11 pieces in order to fit it into the bag. In any event it was a lot more complicated and time-consuming than the FBI's testimony would lead you to believe.

From reading a jillion pages on this stuff, and watching the various re-enactments, it's clear that a well-practiced shooter could hit any individual shot, even with that rifle. But hitting two of three rapid fire while the target was moving is highly unlikely, particularly when you consider what the commission presented--that Oswald had put the rifle together with a dime and hadn't practiced in months, if at all. It's a fairy tale. I suppose a good analogy would be a 180 average bowler (who was, 6 years earlier, a 200 average bowler) who hadn't bowled in months, walking onto a lane and firing twelve random balls without any warm-up, and bowling 300. It's possible. But one in a million, if that.

Aha! More trips down Memory Lane. Even though I was not a big fan I have been to the Reagan Library 10 times or so. I was there for his hundredth birthday. I was glad when the archives gained some editorial control. While Nancy was alive she would not allow any mention of Reagan's first wife in the numerous exhibits. I thought that was pretty awful. As far as the Bad News Bears, I rewatched that movie for the first time in decades maybe six months ago and only then did I realize that they'd filmed it in Chatsworth, at Mason Park. My pre-school attended the opening of that park and a picture of me at the opening made it into the local paper. That was my first taste of fame, LOL.

Not to pre-empt Mark's answer, but when I was looking into all things sniping and shooting I discovered that the Marines were very keen to spot right-handed shooters who were left-eye dominant and re-train them to shoot left-handed. Oswald fired right-handed while in the Marines. So if he was left-eye dominant it went unnoticed.by the people whose job it was to notice such things.

Vinnie was like an uncle to me growing up. I certainly spent more time listening to his voice than any other voice, with the possible exception of Johnny Carson. After Johnny retired, of course, there was basically Vin Scully, along with Lakers announcer Chick Hearn, and rock DJ Jim Ladd.

As long as we're "bonding" I think I should add my own perspective on the Big Red Machine. I hated them. As a a Dodgers fan, I seriously seriously hated them, particularly in 75-76, when they had the Dodgers' number. But it was a different kind of hate than I had for the Yankees (or the Celtics). They were just too damned good, and knew it. While I never made it to Riverfront, I saw the Big Red Machine play at Dodger Stadium on numerous occasions. I can still remember the crowd booing Pete Rose and him lifting his hand to his ear like he couldn't hear them. On once occasion, however, I got a little too carried away. My friends and I had bought bottom level seats down in the corner and had gradually moved towards home plate throughout the game. By the end of the game, we were about ten rows back between third and the plate. In any event, Joe Morgan hit a go-ahead homer I think it was in the top of the 8th or 9th. And I lost it. As he rounded third I stood and yelled "I hate you, you effin chicken!" Only I didn't say effin. (I called him "chicken" because of the way he flapped his elbow while batting.) To my surprise, however, he actually heard me and turned his head to see who was yelling at him and he looked right at me. And I saw hurt on his face. I'll never forget that. Within a year or two, I had a similar incident with J.R. Richard, who dominated the Dodgers for a time, and then had a stroke. To this day, I feel guilty about yelling at these guys, who would have been heroes to me should they have been Dodgers.

I live in Simi Valley, just on the other side of a ridge from the Chatsworth area of L.A. Near the crest of this ridge lies Spahn Ranch, the former home of the Manson Family. The site was eventually bought by a church and the buildings were torn down. But a friend of mine was roommates with a local historian, who showed him something that he in turn showed me. On a rock in a nearby creek bed where the "children" used to splash and play are the initials C.M. This local historian had spoken to some of the former residents and they swore these initials were carved by Charlie himself. I have no idea if this is true but the marks appeared to be quite old and were almost definitely not something that had been added recently. This was roughly 1995. In a related issue, when Tarantino filmed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the original location for Spahn Ranch was not available. So he faked it in a nearby park here in Simi that used to be a movie ranch, lastly owned by Bob Hope. This park is called Corriganville and I have hiked there probably a hundred times. So, for better or worse, Manson and his family have been in the background of my life since I was 8 years old, when I used to see them begging for change in Chatsworth.

Is this an invite for me to complain about the DPD? Because I have chapters on my website devoted to the supposed fingerprints supposedly found in the sniper's nest. Here's what you may not realize. 1. No photos were taken by the DPD on 11-22 of Box D, the box supposedly used as a seat. This was supposedly a key piece of evidence, seeing as they supposedly found a print on this box right then and there in the sniper's nest. And yet no Dallas Police photos were taken of the print on the box, or even of the box, on 11-22. 2. A corner of this box was removed and taken to the crime lab, however. There is a photo of this piece of cardboard in the DPD archives. Although Lt. Day would later claim he studied this cardboard and IDed Oswald's print, there is no report created by Day reflecting a positive ID of this print. 3. On the 25th, the DPD were told to collect the sniper's nest boxes and send them to the FBI. But before they did, they "re-enacted" the sniper's nest to demonstrate its supposed appearance on the 22nd. This re-enactment was a fraud in many ways. The window stack was placed about 8 inches further to the west than it was on 11-22. This gave the sniper more room. Similarly, a stack of boxes behind the window stack was removed, which gave the supposed sniper sitting on the supposed seat far more room. More to the point, for this re-enactment they placed the torn off piece of cardboard back on Box D. Upon submission to the FBI, moreover, the DPD indicated that these photos were taken on the 22nd. It took the FBI a few days to clear this up. 4. When one looks closely at the re-enactment photos, moreover, it becomes clear that Box A in the photos, the supposed rifle rest, on which Oswald's palm and fingerprint were supposedly later discovered, is not the Box A in the photos from 11-22, that would eventually end up in the archives. A close look at the FBI's photos on 11-23, moreover, reveal that this box was missing on the day after the assassination. So where was this box from the 23rd-25th? When I'm in a generous mood, I let myself believe Studebaker or one of the other crime lab boys took it home as a memento. But I'm not sure such generosity is warranted. 5. Numerous reports and files make reference to a thumb print on Box D. At first I thought this was a mistake, but Fritz's records and reports reflect both that a palm print was found on the torn off piece of cardboard, and that a thumb print was found elsewhere on the box. This thumb print was not ID'ed as Oswald's. Soon thereafter it disappeared from the story. 6. Lt. Day told numerous lies suggesting he found the palm print on Box D. The early photos of the piece of cardboard reflect that the print was discovered by Robert Studebaker, not Day. By the time it was sent to the FBI however Day had added his name to the cardboard. 7. The FBI tried to cover for the DPD's lack of professionalism. Numerous reports and testimony refer to the piece of cardboard "cut" from Box D. This is a joke. One look at the cardboard and the box makes clear that the cardboard was haphazardly torn from Box D, hardly the way you'd treat an important piece of evidence. And that's just a start...

Well, one scenario is that Oswald bought the rifle with the scope on it, and that one of the actual snipers used his weapon to implicate him in the crime. With considerable practice, a top shooter could learn to fire that weapon accurately enough. But this was almost certainly not Oswald. There was basically no evidence he'd ever practiced firing live ammunition with that weapon, and the WC's favored scenario--with the rifle being in the Paine's garage until the morning of the shooting--ruled out that he'd had any practice in the weeks leading up to the shooting. While not a shooter myself, I've talked with plenty and have read a number of books and articles on shooting. And the takeaway is that the sniping literature is consistent in that the shooting scenario proposed by the WC--that Oswald after having not fired his rifle in some time if at all 1) dismantled it, 2) carried it to work, 3) re-assembled it with a dime, and 4) hit two of three shots rapid fire on a moving target while firing cold, is highly unlikely. Incredibly unlikely. Heck, even those who said Oswald did the shooting, such as John Lattimer, insisted that Oswald must have had far more practice with that rifle than the WC uncovered. In short, the scenario proposed by the WC is unthinkable to anyone who knows about shooting, and LNs should acknowledge this fact if they wish to have any credibility. .

I was invited to meet the band X at a store in Silver Lake called You've Got Bad Taste. I felt like I should buy something to support the store. They were selling small pieces of the walls to the house on Cielo Drive which some enterprising lad had scooped up after the house was demolished. I think I paid 2 bucks for it. I have no idea where it is at this point. In the world of creepy collectibles, that's a trifle. There were dozens if not hundreds of people who scooped up John Wayne Gacy clown paintings after his conviction as a serial killer. And then of course there's Henry Ford and son, who snatched up 1) Lincoln's stained chair from Ford's Theatre, 2) Edison's last breath, and 3) the JFK assassination limousine, for the family museum in Dearborn, Michigan. And, oh yeah, let's not forget our friend John Lattimer, who paid something like $10,000 bucks (over a 100k in today's money) for Napoleon's shriveled penis. Of course, he also spent small fortunes on Lincoln and JFK assassination related materials such as Oswald's military score book.

OK, upon re-reading the thread, it seems y'all are horrified that anyone would sign something that might be in bad taste. But there's a double-standard at work. Several JFK researchers have made small bundles selling images of the autopsy photos. Buell Frazier sold autographed paper bags. And Dr. McClelland sold crappy drawings supposedly showing the location of Kennedy's wounds, that were in total opposition to his previous statements. I'm unaware of anyone expressing outrage over this. Making money off tragedy is an American tradition. People go to Little Big Horn to see where fate caught up with Custer. People go to Jesse James' house in St. Joe MO to see the bullet hole in the wall from when he was killed. Only they don't get to see the bullet hole. They see a large hole made by numerous tourists over the years who cut the original hole and then numerous expanded holes, from the wall. I myself have (somewhere) a piece of the house Sharon Tate was slaughtered in. People are freakin' morbid. And other people enjoy making money off their morbidity.

Ok, lI'm confused. People come up to Hill at book singings and hand him stuff to sign, and he signs it. They then turn around and try to sell it for $$$. Right? Or are you insinuating Hill himself is behind the sale of all this stuff?

I have a lot on Frazier's testimony in Chapter 3 at patspeer.com. Let's start with this.

If you're primarily interested in the third shot (presumed to have been the head shot), here are the test results for the Army's test shooters as published by the WC. (Note that I have added two red stars noting the location of the back wound and EOP entrance wound on the target. This shows that both of these shots hit closer to the center of the target than any of the third shots fired by the Army's test shooters. Well, this right here should have been enough to force the WC to re-think their conclusions, or at least call for more tests. But, alas, they weren't interested in what really happened, were they?

You are correct, Tom. You can not say it would have been impossible for Oswald to have performed the shooting all by his lonesome, but the record is quite clear that it would have been highly unlikely. That's why Libeler's memo is so valuable. He knew this for a fact and alerted this to his superiors and they blew him off because the commissioners wanted to say the shots were no big deal. In chapter 4g I discuss numerous books and articles on sniping and numerous simulations attempted by the WC and various TV networks. And it's clear that for one person to have pulled off the shots with that rifle he would have to been well-practiced with that rifle. This was something, moreover, that even the WC determined was not true. So most LNs chose to fib about the evidence. They would be better off, IMO, taking Liebeler's advice and insist instead that the dude just got "lucky".

Here are some other quotes from Yardley. From chapter 4g: That the sniper shooting at Kennedy, should it have been but one sniper shooting at Kennedy, had a significant set of skills has been confirmed, moreover, in more recent years. In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3 times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved successful, with the other two marred by equipment failure (the rifle jammed 5 times in 21 tries), they failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87 seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle hooked up to a laser switch, which he then aimed at a pretend Kennedy, as the limo crossed the plaza at night. As a laser beam travels at the speed of light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was akin to playing with a stacked deck. As if the clear but unacknowledged point made by the program--that Oswald's shooting Kennedy all by his lonesome was possible, but not likely--needed any clarification, its sharpshooter Michael Yardley wrote a short article on his experience entitled "Who Shot John F. Kennedy? It was me"that was published in his native England. While claiming he believed Oswald had indeed "fired three shots from the depository," Yardley nevertheless expressed serious doubts that these were the shots striking Kennedy, as he also claimed the head shot, "if taken from the Grassy Knoll, Badgeman or Walkway positions (all positions forward of the presidential vehicle) would have been much easier" and that "practical experience of the second gunman positions leads me to suspect that there could well have been another shooter." He then closed his article with "Of what can one be certain? That Oswald was a patsy." Of course, none of this was mentioned in the program.

I include much of Liebeler's memo in chapter 3c. Here are the two final points in his memo regarding Oswald's shooting capability. 16. The present section on rifle capability fails to set forth material in the record tending to indicate that Oswald was not a good shot and that he was not interested in his rifle while in the Marine Corps. It does not set forth material indicating that a telescopic sight must be tested and sighted in after a period of non-use before it can be expected to be accurate. That problem is emphasized by the fact that the FBI actually found that there was a defect in the scope which caused the rifle to fire high and to the right. In spite of the above the present section takes only part of the material in the record to show that Oswald was a good shot and that he was interested in rifles. I submit that the testimony of Delgado that Oswald was not interested in his rifle while in the Marines is at least as probative as Alba's testimony that Oswald came into his garage to read rifle--and hunting--magazines. To put it bluntly that sort of selection from the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the entire report. 17. It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do given the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues. The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don't we admit instead of reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions presently set forth in the galleys. Those conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway.

If I recall, he was upset that the commission decided to pretend Oswald's purported feat was no big deal, and suggested that they instead acknowledge that Oswald had been "lucky".

I discuss Oswald's shooting ability and the shooting simulations off and on throughout my website, but have an extended discussion of these matters in Chapter 4g: Thoughts on Shots. Here is a bit on the 1967 CBS tests... From chapter 3b: In 1967, CBS News, realizing the Warren Commission's error in not conducting shooting simulations using civilian shooters, conducted some tests of their own. While the shooters used by CBS were all well-practiced rifleman, their over-all skill level was roughly that of Oswald at his best. (Of course, Oswald hadn’t been at his best since his first years in the Marines, a half a dozen years before the assassination.) There were still other problems with the test. For one, the rifle used by these shooters was in prime operating condition, and was in no need of the adjustments performed by those test-firing Oswald's rifle for the Warren Commission. For two, the CBS shooters, unlike the man firing Oswald's rifle in Dealey Plaza, who was firing cold, were given NINE practice shots before making their attempts. For three, the target upon which these men fired, unlike the limousine in Dealey Plaza, moved at a constant speed away from the shooter, and at a constant angle. Now, all these problems should have worked to the advantage of CBS' shooters, and have led to their easily replicating the shots purported for Oswald... That is, if the shots have been indeed easily replicable... But let the test results speak for themselves… 1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds) 2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts. 3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds) 4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where shots went in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts. 5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds) 6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds) 7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds) 8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds) 9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts. 10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts. 11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts. 12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds) Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to hit the target twice in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times. In fact, it's even worse. Not counting Crossman, an acknowledged rifle expert, those purportedly of Oswald's skill level landed but 25 hits TOTAL, in their 20 successful attempts at getting off 3 shots. In other words, they hit 25 out of 60 shots--far worse on average than Oswald's purported 2 out of 3. But it's actually FAR WORSE than that. You see, CBS counted any strike on the FBI silhouettes used as targets--even those far down the back, or out on the shoulders--as a hit. This, in effect, tripled or quadrupled the size of the target for their shooters, in comparison to the small area on the back and head purportedly hit by Oswald. It seems clear then that, of the 60 shots total, and 25 hits, no more than 9 hit the target in the small central area purportedly hit by Oswald, not once but twice. This, then, suggests that, even IF Oswald was a well-practiced shooter, and even IF his rifle were in optimal condition, and even IF he had been provided NINE practice shots, the odds of his hitting the small area he supposedly hit from the sniper's nest on any given shot were less than 1 in 6, and of his hitting this area 2 of 3 times something like 1 in 16. In other words, Oswald's purported feat was highly unlikely... (This fact has not escaped the attention of those continuing to argue Oswald acted alone. In his mammoth tome Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi deceives his readers by arguing that, as Oswald was clearly aiming for Kennedy's head, he actually hit but one of three shots. This avoids, of course, that the vast majority of "hits" by the professional shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for the Warren Commission, and what one can only assume were the vast majority of "hits" by the amateur shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for CBS News in 1967, were torso hits even further from the center of the target as the hit on Kennedy's back.)

As I recall there were two Bakers. The one that Was Fritz's top aide testified before the committee about his compiling of the various reports into one volume. It is clear when reading these reports that they were re-written (or even written from scratch) by the same person. The writing style. The lack of spelling errors. One explanation could be that many of the officers were poor writers, and the DPD didn't want them embarrassed on a national stage. Another could be that they wanted the reports to all support the same story. Or maybe it was a combination of the two. I decided maybe 15 years ago to put this to the test by looking through the DPD files then recently put online, and to compare the reports provided the WC with the signed originals. Only I found that there are no signed originals. You can find in the Dallas archives the original handwritten and signed copies of many of the first day witness statements. And you can find in the National archives numerous typed-up FBI reports that were then initialed by the agents. But when you look through the Dallas archives for the original police reports, written up (or even signed) by the officers, you find Bupkus. They don't exist. If I recall, moreover, these reports relate the date of the incidents described, but make no mention of when the report was written. I suspect then that they were based on the notes of the officers, and then compiled into a fairy tale by Baker in the weeks after the assassination.

Here's a sample of Kilduff quotes from patspeer.com, Chapter 6: (note that he disputed the single-bullet theory as far back as 1966, when the Johnson Administration was trying to make it official government policy.) Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff sat on the right side of the front seat of the “pool” car. (11-22-63 1:30 P.M. press conference in which Kilduff announced Kennedy's death) (When asked how many shots he'd heard) "I was in the pool car. We heard three." (When asked if he knew where they came from) "They came from the right side." (December 1963 audio recording found in the National Archives as Dialogue on Dallas, Group W, as presented in President Kennedy Has Been Shot, 2003) "We saw a flash of pink-which of course was Mrs. Kennedy. We realized she was doing something. I saw the Secret Service agent in the follow-up car raise the rifle. At that point we realized these were shots." (5-2-64 and 5-19-65 interviews with William Manchester, as represented in The Death of a President, 1967) (On the first shot) "Kilduff, in the pool car directly under the gun, asked 'What was that?'" (11-13-66 AP article by Merriman Smith) “Malcolm Kilduff of the White House press staff who was seated beside me in the front seat of the pool car heard only three shots.” (11-22-66 AP article found in the Cedar Rapids Gazette) "Kilduff says he does disagree with the Commission's finding that the first bullet that struck Kennedy and passed through his neck was the one that wounded Texas Gov. Connally. A second shot in the head killed Kennedy. "In my mind," Kilduff said, "there were three shots fired. I have verified that with other people who were riding in the same car. I have verified it with Secret Service Agents."... Kilduff said he had talked to Connally who agrees he was hit by a separate bullet, that the governor said he heard the first shot and was turning to look back when he was hit." (11-24-66 newspaper column by Crosby S. Noyes in the Washington Star) "After the first shot he recalls that Merriman Smith of the United Press International asked, "What was that?" and that he replied, "It sounded to me like a firecracker." The second shot, according to Kilduff, came at least five seconds after the first. The third, which killed Kennedy, followed after a shorter interval." (Late 1966 interview with Lawrence Schiller recounted in The Scavengers And Critics of the Warren Report, published 1967) (On how many shots were fired) "Malcolm Kilduff heard three." (Schiller interview as presented on the Capitol Records release The Controversy, 1967) "The first time I heard a shot was just after having said to Merriman Smith, after looking at a sign, 'What in the world is the Texas Book Depository.' My first impression was it was a firecracker. But the second shot, for some reason, we instinctively felt it was a rifle shot. Then when the third shot came, which was nearer to the second shot than the second was to the first, we couldn't tell whether the shots were coming toward the motorcade or away from the motorcade. We could tell it was coming from the right. I would have to go 'bang (waits 2 seconds) bang (waits 1 second) bang.' About 5 seconds between the--5 1/2 to 6 seconds--between the first and second shot and about 2 1/2 seconds between the second and third shot, about half the time, in other words." (3-15-76 oral history with the JFK Library) (On the moment of the first shot) "Merriman Smith, if I recall--and I was sitting next to him in the car--had just finished mentioning that, you know, 'You guys have really pulled off a real coup here,' when suddenly we heard what we thought was the backfire of a car or a firecracker." (On the shooting) "we were directly under the window in the Texas School Book Depository...when the first--what turned out to be a shot--was fired. Merriman Smith said, 'What was that?" And I recall very clearly saying, 'It sounded to me like a firecracker," 'cause it was my first thought that it was a firecracker. Because it was around the holiday season, and in Texas they sell fireworks. And I remember that--why I remember it, but I do remember it--as going through my mind that's exactly what it was. And it was not until the second shot was fired--and there was enough time in there for me to say, "What was that?" --rather, Merriman Smith saying, "What was that?" and my saying, "It sounded to me like a firecracker." And that takes up about four seconds--we've timed it since then--before we realized it was a gunshot because we saw the secret service agents all look up and to the right and to the rear which would have been directly above my right shoulder. Now, I'll be very frank with you, Bill. I cannot say in all truthfulness and honesty that I realized there was a shot coming right over my own head, because there was a slight bowl there at that underpass at Dealey Plaza, and the reverberations of the echoes just... I looked to my right, instinctively I looked to my right, but I did not know where to look, and I did not look up to that window. I'll be frank with you. I did not, because I could not place where that noise was coming from, but I knew it was off to my right. And, of course, we now know that it was right directly in my right ear." (When asked if he heard two shots) "No,no. I heard the first one. There was a longer pause between the first and the second than there was between the second and the third...I know I heard three shots. Nobody's going to tell me I didn't hear three shots. I mean I know that there was a long pause because there was that little interchange of conversation between Merriman Smith and me between the first and the second shot. Then the third shot got off very quickly." (When asked to describe Kennedy's wounds as he observed them upon the removal of Kennedy from the limousine outside Parkland hospital) "The left side of his head was a bloody mass (sic, he means mess) is all you can say. The only thing I did look for was some sign of life, and I could tell from under his shirt around his waist he was breathing. But his head was such a mess that I could not tell what the extent of his injuries were."