Pat Speer

Yes, absolutely. Euins is not reliable. My best guess would be that he thought the man was white because his hand was in the sun but said he may have been black, or something equally vague, and the press jumped all over it saying he said the man was black and the DPD and FBI etc then pretended he never said anything about him being black. The smoking gun that something was afoot was that, months and months after the DPD/Sheriff's Dept. wrote up a statement from Euins saying that the man was white, several of those who talked to him on that day said he could not ID the race of the man. My point in the post about Brennan was to the ongoing war between LNs and CTs. The LNs insist that they are logical and consistent. But when it comes to Brennan they simply choose to believe his latter-day ID of Oswald and pretend Brennan's ID did not come with a proviso--that he only ID'ed Oswald under the belief he was not wearing the shirt the DPD and FBI and WC had decided Oswald was wearing. It's like a badly-programmed computer that melts down when asked a question it can not answer. Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways." Complete meltdown ensues. There is plenty of sloppy thinking on both sides of the fence, but this one sticks out, and can be used as a litmus test to determine if someone is a serious student of the case or just a zealot reciting propaganda.

A couple of points. 1: The rifle was not wiped down. This is something you invented so you could have it both ways. 2. If you're claiming Euins was confused when he said he saw a black man, you are acknowledging he said he saw a black man, when several police officers swore he did not. The only say-so that he said as much comes from two members of the press. If they were telling the truth it would mean the police lied. Are you acknowledging, then, that some of the police lied? From patspeer,com, chapter 7b Amos Euins. Beyond the confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he that he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm. He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205 p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building) "I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter) "All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When if he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he could if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race) "I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white) "No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--) "Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head." (4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building. By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." (4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness, 6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window) "No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.) "He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes, 2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, 7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying "Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos' mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls." (12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin. This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a negro."

Just curious, David. Do you really believe Brennan? Or are you just picking and choosing? The one thing Brennan was consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. Do you believe that? Because if you take his word on that then it's hard to escape the probability those fibers were planted. And if you accept that then it's hard not accept that some of the other evidence pointing towards Oswald was faked. My disregard for many of the most popular conspiracy myths is well-known. But I can't hold any of the most prominent LNs in anything more than disregard unless they are willing to accept that some of the evidence may have been faked. I mean, I don't get it. We are grown-ups. We know that the Dallas Police and the FBI were capable of faking evidence and giving false testimony when they thought they had their man. So why is it so hard for supposedly rational LNs to acknowledge that some of the evidence could have been faked? Because they think of this as a game and that would be letting the CTs score a "point"? What are we, children?

I apologize. I thought you were going after Hardaway.

What the heck? Do you know who Dan Hardaway is? He wrote that because he couldn't stand Tannenbaum telling a tale in which h he was this big hero fighting against the evil CIA, when the reality was far more nuanced. Tannenbaum is a novelist, in which he has occasionally modeled characters after himself. He told the story he wanted to be true, in which he was some sort of martyr for truth and justice. It wasn't quite like that. Top researchers who know them both would take Hardaway's word over Tannenbaum's. But it's not just Hardaway's word, is it? And Tannenbaum has never responded to the article, has he?

The Ovoid argument is Oh, Void! From patspeer.com, Chapter 11: So the question then becomes: is there anything (beyond the slightly ovoid entrance on Connally's back) to support that the bullet striking Connally first struck Kennedy? No, not at all. Not only do single-bullet theorists misrepresent Shaw's testimony and the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, improbable if not impossible if the back wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they almost uniformly propose. While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket to be even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as offered by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964. Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz. Just a little something to think about. As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.

The FBI had these photos and said they were too smudged for identification. Clearly, they were not.This makes me suspect the prints were not Oswald's. When a fingerprint examiner makes an identification, it is standard that he creates some charts matching up the suspect's print with the print found at the crime scene, or on the weapon. That Scalice did not do that, and that he instead used his newfound fame to push right-wing conspiracy theories, should lead us to question his identification of Oswald's print on the trigger guard. It should be noted, moreover, that Frontline contacted George Bonebrake, who was at that time the FBI's top fingerprint examiner (and the guy who found James Earl Ray's print on the rifle found by the rooming house) and he refused to ID the print as Oswald's print.

This raises a few questions. 1) Who is your boss? 2) What do you mean by saying I said it's a CT vs LN issue? I think I said both sides want to believe Oswald denied going to Mexico for their own reasons. As far as the last comment, I have said for years that I believe Oswald was impersonated while in Mexico, but that this might not have anything to do with the assassination. it could have been done to conceal sources, or even as part of a mole hunt. I have talked with a number of those who've spent significant time on this issue and they basically agreed.

It's worse than that. The print announced by Wade on the 24th was almost certainly the print on the trigger guard that the FBI said was too smudged for identification. But was, in fact, not smudged. Thirty years later, a fingerprint examiner claimed this was Oswald's print. This received national attention, and became a cornerstone of Bugliosi's doorstop. But this fingerprint examiner never provided charts to demonstrate his claim, and largely discredited himself by selling his services to a right-wing organization and making TV appearances claiming he'd studied Vince Foster's suicide note and had determined it was a forgery. It could very well be that this print is not Oswald's, and that this is yet another example of the DPD (and FBI) withholding exculpatory evidence. This may still come out. One JFK researcher spent years trying to get the FBI to re-examine their own photos of the trigger guard prints, and they claimed that since they were never entered into the record, and that no conviction was achieved, it was still an open case. And that these images were thereby work product and not something they could share with the public. Or something like that. It's easy to get distracted by all the other avenues of research, but this is almost certainly the most viable course towards "re-opening the case", at least in they eyes of historians, and the public. Imagine that. A panel of experts re-examines the trigger guard prints and determines that at least one is legible (1), and not Oswald's print (2). History will be re-written.

I've met Hoch and kinda know him. He has never committed himself one way or the other. He sends out emails to both LNs and CTs. While he dismisses much of what passes for assassination research, and tends to accept LN sources over CT sources, he claims to have no agenda beyond getting at the truth. IOW, he could very well flip back the other way should something emerge that swayed him. Now, that said, I suspect there is almost nothing that could sway him.

I don't know the specifics of those cases, but I do know there have been hundreds of cases in which innocent people have confessed. Quite often they are mentally deficient, and believe the cops when the cops tell them that their buddies said they did it, or that their fingerprints were found at the scene, etc. They are then told the cops will take it easy on them if they'd just confess. Sometimes, even, they confess so the cops will stop asking them the same questions over and over. The TV show Making a Murderer dealt with an incident where a mentally deficient boy was badgered into telling the police what they wanted to hear--that he had helped his uncle murder a woman. They then used this "confession" as evidence against the uncle, even though his "story" was quite different than the "story" they presented at the uncle's trial. Both nephew and uncle remain in prison, last I checked. FWIW, the Memphis 3 case is yet another high profile case in which a young mentally deficient person confessed and fingered his buddies, after being told he could go if he just told the police what they wanted to hear. After years and years, the three young men were eventually released. But it wasn't because the police suddenly realized the error of their ways. P.S. There have also been numerous "Hauptmann" situations, where a convicted man has been promised he wouldn't receive the death penalty if only he'd confess. Famously, Hauptmann in the 30's and Tookie Williams in 2005, refused to confess to crimes for which they claimed they'd been wrongly convicted, and were sentenced to death. God only knows how many of those in prison today were offered a similar deal, and confessed to something they didn't do to avoid a harsher sentence.

You are correct in that we don't have proof Fritz lied to Oswald. It's all a bit foggy now but when I was up in the middle of all this I remember coming across some books on law enforcement techniques saying it was perfectly okay for an interrogator to lie to a suspect--the classic ones being that someone saw them do it or that their presumed colleague had already fingered them--to get them to cooperate. I also remember reading about a court case in which a detective manufactured evidence--like "Look at this! We found your prints on the gun!"--and this did not result in the release of the suspect---seeing as this evidence was never presented at trial. As these techniques were widely used at the time as part of an effort to induce a confession, and as Fritz was widely known as an expert interrogator whose primary skill was inducing confessions, I assume he used the techniques available to him. This was Texas, after all, a law and order state, and the Wild Wild West at that. The rights of the suspect were barely considered. They were guilty until proven innocent, or until they confessed. Period. It should also be noted that when the Innocence Project began comparing DNA samples retrieved from crime victims or crime scenes against the men convicted of these crimes, they found that Dallas had by far the worst track record for the entire country, and that Wade (and his collaborators like Fritz) had locked up more innocent men than any law enforcement officers in American history. As Wade had also been responsible for more death sentences than any other DA in modern history, it follows that Wade and Fritz had almost certainly caused the deaths of men who would have been found innocent should they not have confessed after being lied to by Fritz. The dude had blood on his hands. I can't prove it. But the historical record certainly suggests as much.

Okay, David, this is why your presence here wasn't missed. Your hatred of Oswald is such that you hold him to a standard you wouldn't apply to yourself or anyone you care about. If you were in legal trouble with the authorities (who you know want to kill you), and you couldn't reach the lawyer of your choice, would you accept a lawyer chosen by the...authorities (the ones you know want to kill you)? Of course not!!! So please quit arguing and insulting others just for the "fun" of it... You're not Bugliosi. Thank God.

Oh boy. You can't be this naive. You must know that the reason police departments failed to tape interrogations back then was for the same reason they turn off body cameras today--to conceal their own behavior. Police departments routinely lied about the evidence against suspects back then and routinely pressured suspects into confessing. Fritz in particular was considered to be a mediocre or worse detective but an expert interrogator, who frequently lied, cajoled, and manipulated suspects into confessing. That is why there are no tapes, and that is why some thought Oswald to have been trained to resist interrogation. I mean, how else could he have resisted the charms of the great Will Fritz?

Uhhh... Please. Oswald had repeatedly asked for a specific lawyer, John Abt. He wasn't pretending he wanted a lawyer; he really wanted one. Just not one picked out by the authorities.

I disagree. If I were to semi-consciously clean up a crime scene, I would try to cover-up my actions while at the same time try to further the proper investigation. In this case, the DPD were the proper authorities. I would place the bullet somewhere it would be found, so it could be associated with the crime. That way my hands would be clean, and they would have the bullet. I assume you are familiar with the HSCA report on Nathan Poole, who claimed he was present when the bullet was found. My recollection is that he said there was an SS agent in the area milling around. I suspect that was Kinney, who was watching from a distance, making sure someone found the bullet. P.S. If Kinney's thinking was as described, it worked. No investigation was performed in Dallas or DC to determine how the bullet ended up on the stretcher. The discussion was always over whose stretcher it was, not how it got there. P.P.S. Someone asked if Kinney was one of the agents who went out drinking the night before the shooting. No, he was not.

My recollection is that Humes and Boswell were so convinced the bullet did not continue on beyond the skin that they thought probing it might create a false passage. That's how convinced they were. And I feel certain they were correct. The trajectory connecting the back wound's actual location to the throat wound leads right through bone. This was covered up by the WC, Clark Panel, and HSCA. I have a bias in that when I discover a lie in the official story, that is then repeated in all the Oswald-did-it arguments, I assume there is a reason for it.

My understanding is that he wanted a million, which is unreasonably high if the image is inconclusive, but not if it clearly shows Oswald...to a 99% certainly, as I was told. As stated, I think those claiming it shows him to a 99% certainty know that to others it would be more like 50/50, or less...

There's no flaw in the theory. I just overstated my conclusion. I should have said that I'd bet the farm that the film does not conclusively show Oswald. As stated, those already believing "Prayer Man" was Oswald have viewed the film and said it is clear and shows Oswald. So why haven't they started a go-fund-me to raise money to get the film "released"? And why hasn't one of them with access to a million jumped up and said "I'll do it!"? And put out the film on a DVD or something... I feel certain that they know--deep down inside--that the image just isn't clear enough to prove that it's Oswald, and that maybe just maybe it will hurt their cause because some of those convinced it is Oswald will lose their faith once they see a clearer image that doesn't look like Oswald. Not really... It is sad, but true, that a lot of CTs are addicted to drama, and will always choose a solution that makes them distrust the guv'ment or CIA, than something that actually makes sense. I have witnessed this firsthand on this forum, and at conventions, etc, where people still cling to bits like Oswald's being Lovelady, or an assassin firing from the sewer, or Hickey accidentally killing Kennedy, or Greer deliberately killing Kennedy. I could go on and on but I don't want to sidetrack the thread... People develop emotional relationships with their theories...of all kinds. Whether it be that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, or JFK was killed by crazy kid Oswald, or Biden stole the election.... I have a good friend--a smart guy--who tells me he still believes in his guts that Barack Obama was actually born in Africa, and that his birth certificate was a fake. I once asked James Jenkins how it was that so many people think he said the back of the head was blown out when he had repeatedly told them it was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp. And he told me with a world-weary voice... "People will believe what they want to believe." He then put out a book in which he moved the wound he said was on top of the head to the back of the head... And received tons of praise for sticking to his story, and telling the truth, when he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe.

Well, he could have been holding back on stuff like that until he got a lawyer. But, yeah, I agree, it seems probable he would have said something like "I am just a Patsy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" That he did not suggests he was inside the building.

I don't know if you know this, Tom, but a first generation copy of the Darnell film was made available to certain researchers 3-4 years ago. They've told me that if I saw this I would be won over to their cause. But it's in the hands of a private collector, and he's hoping to make some moola off his film. If I'm not mistaken, moreover, Oliver Stone is one of those who've been shown the film. Now, do you think that this film--if it really shows Oswald-- would still be in private hands? Wouldn't those with the money means and opportunity have found a way to get this film released, or at least be clamoring to raise money for its release? I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald.

The DPD didn't ID the three tramps. As detailed in Oswald Talked, two researchers found the arrest records in the DPD's files, and followed up by contacting the men and/or their families. And it was them. The three men in the arrest records were the spitting image of the men in the photos. Unless one is to hold that these three out of work and down on their luck men were secretly assassins, this riddle has been solved.

A. Bullets--particularly high-velocity rifle bullets--leave easily probe-able paths through muscle. They don't push muscle aside that closes back together hours later. They leave what is known as a permanent cavity. Humes was unable to find such a cavity visually or even with a probe. B. All known wounds and bullet fragments are accounted for in my 4 shot (or sound) scenario. 1. Shot to back. 2. Shot to back of JFK's head that exits throat and strikes Connally OR shot to back of JFK's head that exits throat while a second shot in this same burst strikes Connally. 3. Tangential shot to the top of JFK's head, with the two largest bullet fragments striking the windshield and windshield frame, and a third just clearing the windshield and striking the curb near Tague. 4. A loud sound from in back of the arcade that is most probably a diversionary device. C. The bruise on the lung supports my scenario. A bruise caused by a passing bullet would radiate in an oval. A bruise caused by a bullet's impact on the lung would leave a pyramid-shaped bruise with the top of the pyramid being the point of impact. A bruise caused by a bullet's impact upon T-1, in which T-1 was smashed into the top of the lung, and the bullet was deflected outwards, however, would give the appearance of an upside down pyramid. Humes testified that the bruise was an upside-down pyramid. This was so problematic to the supposed route of the bullet that Baden and the HSCA just ignored him and presented the bruise as an upright pyramid. This was typical, moreover, for the HSCA panel. When they ran into things that conflicted with the single-assassin solution, they ignored them or lied about them.

According to Humes, the back wound did not extend into the muscle tissue below the entrance location. Specter tried to explain this away by saying it slid between two muscles. The problem is that there was only one muscle in that location, the trapezius muscle. The bruises Humes observed making him think a bullet had passed, moreover, were on the front of the neck. So it's a myth that the bullet passed from back to front. This was added in the days after the shooting, so that they could say only two shots struck Kennedy. So the record remains that the doctors found no evidence for a bullet's passage from the back wound location to the throat wound location.

I go through the mass of evidence in detail on my website, and eventually come to some concrete (and some not so concrete) conclusions in Chapter 20. Shot #1. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD. Heard by: pretty much everyone in Dealey Plaza between the time of the shot and 10 frames afterward. Other evidence for: the wound in Kennedy’s back, probed at autopsy and found to have been a shallow wound with no passage into Kennedy's chest cavity. CE 399, the nearly pristine bullet found on a gurney in Parkland hospital, the appearance of which would be consistent with the bullet's having been hand-loaded and under-charged (which would, in turn, be consistent with this bullet's having created the shallow back wound observed at autopsy). CE 543, one of the rifle cartridge cases found in the depository, which ballistics investigator Joseph Nichol believed may have been used prior to the assassination, which, it follows, may have been the hand-loaded cartridge firing CE 399. Hugh Betzner's photograph taken just before the first shot, determined to have been taken at Z-186. Jackie Kennedy’s turning to her husband beginning at Zapruder frame 190. Phil Willis' testimony that Mrs. Kennedy snapped her head in that direction at the sound of the first shot. Secret Service Agent George Hickey's turning to his right starting around frame 193. Kennedy’s jerky head and hand movements beginning around Zapruder frame 194. Rosemary Willis’s turning to her right around frame 198. Phil Willis’ photograph taken as a reaction to the first shot, determined to have been taken at frame 202. Secret Service Agent John Ready’s turning to his right around Zapruder frame 203. President Kennedy’s lowering his right arm and lifting his left before frame 224. Connally’s testimony that he believed the first and second shot were fired very close together and indicative of automatic rifle fire. The testimony and statements of numerous witnesses indicating that the first shot rang out when Kennedy was waving (when he stopped waving just after Z-190) and as he approached the Thornton Freeway sign (which Kennedy passed at Z-207). Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles at 194. Shot or shots #2. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but it seems likely they were created by separate bullets rapid-fired from a semi-automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building. Heard by: a few near Houston and Elm, perhaps a few on the railroad bridge. Bullet and/or bullets were either fired from a rifle equipped with a silencer, or fired from deep within a building so its sound was muffled in comparison to the other shots. Subsonic ammunition may also have been involved. It’s noted that Nellie Connally, both in her book and in her testimony, says “and then--a second shot” or “and then there was a second shot;” and that she rarely mentions hearing this second shot. In fact, she didn't mention hearing this second shot until 1966, when she said as much to Life Magazine. Since she also swore she saw her husband get hit by this shot and that it came after he yelled “No, no, no,” and since her husband’s testimony and the Zapruder film demonstrate she didn’t even look at him till frame 230 and he didn’t yell anything until after he’d already been hit, it’s safe to say she might have been confused. Neither her husband, for that matter, nor Mrs. Kennedy, recalled hearing a shot between the first shot which hit the President, and the last, which killed him. As a result it seems possible that, due to her proximity, Mrs. Connally simply heard this shot strike the President and/or her husband, and registered it as a shot, without noting that it was not as loud as the first shot. Other evidence for: the small entrance wound in Kennedy's hairline, and the smaller wound in Kennedy's throat. CE 903, the re-enactment photo created by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission, supposedly demonstrating the viability of the single-bullet theory, but really showing how a bullet just missing Kennedy's right shoulder might proceed to hit Connally in the back. Connally's back wound, which, according to Connally's doctors, suggested that the bullet striking Connally had not previously struck Kennedy. Connally's wrist wound, which, according to Connally's doctor, Dr. Charles Gregory, was inconsistent with a wound created by the nearly pristine bullet supposedly creating this wound, Exhibit CE 399, unless this bullet was traveling backwards. The traces of copper found on the front of Connally's clothing, which suggests that the jacket of the bullet striking Connally had been disrupted even prior to striking his wrist. The movement of Connally’s jacket forwards which briefly obscures his shirt from view in the Zapruder film. The rapid lifting of Kennedy’s hands towards his throat as seen in frames 226 and 227. (His hands were actually dropping towards his chest between 224 and 225, but they shot sharply upward at 226.) Connally’s hair jumping up and his being straightened out in his seat, only to collapse back to his right around 234. Bullet fragments removed from Connally’s wrist that do not match the bullet found on the gurney nor the fragments found in the President’s skull. (Actual bullet or bullets may have bounced out of the car off Connally’s leg, or been picked up by a Secret Service Agent. There were rumors that a hole in the floor of the limousine was discovered in early 1964, which might account for the bullet leaving Kennedy’s neck should it have been a separate bullet.) Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles around 227 and again at 231. Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD Heard by: everyone in Dealey Plaza from the time of the shot up to 10 frames afterward. Tague would have heard this shot around 319 or 320. Other evidence for: extensive damage to the head of the President. Explosion of skull as visible in the Zapruder film. Bullet fragments found in the President’s brain. Additional fragments believed to be linked to these fragments found underneath Nellie Connally’s seat as well as on the front seat of the limousine. Front seat fragments linked to rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles around 318 and 324 and again at 331. Sound or Shot #4. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327. Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversionary device. The August 27, 1942 issue of Tactical and Technical Trends, a publication of the U.S. War Department, in an article on Japanese Tactics in the Philippines, described the use of firecrackers to "confuse U.S. troops as to the actual Japanese position." More to the point, Combat Lessons #4, a 1942 publication of the U.S. Army, noted that German snipers used firecrackers with slow-burning fuses that would go off after the sniper had left the area. Similarly, Combat Lessons #6, from 1944, noted that, in both the Pacific and European theaters of World War II, "enemy troops have used firecrackers for diversionary purposes, especially when trying to deceive our troops as to the positions of snipers." And it wasn't that the U.S. failed to follow suit. Spycraft (2008), by former CIA Technical Service Director Robert Wallace, reports that by 1962 the CIA's Technical Services Division (the division, one might add, tasked with developing assassination weapons) had developed a Nightingale device, a firefight simulator comprising a variety of firecrackers with differently-timed fuses, which could be used to fool enemy forces into attacking the wrong position, or even attacking their own troops. And it's not as if these firefight simulators were never used. The official Air Force history of the Son Tay raid--a 1970 raid by U.S. Forces on a North Vietnamese prison, which resulted in the rescue of 50 American prisoners of war--reflects that firecrackers with timed fuses were an integral part of the raid, and that they were used to confuse the Vietnamese troops. The use of an explosion to draw attention from the actual area of activity, a tactic widely used today by both the military, and by SWAT teams, (just google "distraction device" and see what I mean) was therefore not only known to operation planners in 1963, but was one likely to be used, should there have been multiple shooters in buildings requiring minutes to escape. From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards, but more probably the back of the arcade north of the grassy knoll, or the parking lot across the street. William Newman, and Abraham Zapruder, both facing the President, with the picket fence on their right and school book depository on their left, nevertheless felt the last shot came from behind them. Since a loud sound coming from behind them at this time would arrive but a split second after the sound of a third shot fired from the depository building, a sound's coming from this area would be likely to confuse Newman and Zapruder, and other witnesses nearby, and lead them to recall hearing but two shots. Sure enough, Newman, Zapruder, Mrs. Kennedy, Bobby Hargis, Clint Hill, and Paul Landis, could clearly recall but two shots, and those nearby Kennedy claiming they heard three shots mostly did so while claiming the last two shots were nearly simultaneous. A diversionary device set off in this location would, of course, draw attention from the buildings behind the President when he was shot. If this was the plan, of course...it worked. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the bulk of the Police and eyewitnesses looking for the shooter ran towards the grassy knoll and railroad yards, and ignored the buildings behind the motorcade. Heard by: everyone in Dealey Plaza from the time of the explosion to 10 frames afterward. Due to their proximity, many interpreted this shot or sound as being the same shot as shot #3. Tague would have heard this explosion around 331-334, which might explain why he was initially convinced he was hit before the third shot. Other evidence for: reports of smoke near the stockade fence. There were gusts of wind up to twenty miles an hour which may have blown the smoke in that direction. The statements of Dallas officer Joe Marshall Smith, who thought he smelled gunpowder in the parking lot west of the School Book Depository. Jiggle analysis: camera jiggles at 324 and again at 331. The testimony of virtually every witness in Dealey Plaza can be accommodated through this simple four shot (or sound) scenario. It doesn’t rely on the hard-to-believe single bullet theory of an undamaged bullet nor on the widespread but scarcely supported by the evidence theory of a shooter-at-the-stockade fence. Its main drawback, as far as testimony goes, is that it calls for 4 shots (or sounds) when most witnesses heard only three. This can be effectively overcome through the argument that the second shot was silenced and heard by only a few. This scenario also fails to account for three shots in the TSBD, where three shells were found. While this could be explained by the sniper’s dropping an extra shell or by the Dallas Police Department planting a shell, the thought occurs that there was seemingly an extra shell at the Tippit killing as well, where the 4 recovered casings didn’t match the 4 bullets removed from Tippit. This uncomfortable development led the Warren Commission to conclude that in fact 5 bullets were fired at Tippit, even though most witnesses heard only three shots. Should this come as a surprise, here is a breakdown of these witnesses... Mrs. Barbara Davis (3H343) and Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis (6H456) heard two shots. Helen Markham (3H308), Domingo Benavides (6H447), and Sam Guinyard (7H396) heard three shots. William Scoggins (3H325) and L.J. Lewis (20H534) heard "three or four." Warren Reynolds (11H435) heard "four or five or six." And Ted Callaway (3H352) heard five. The statements of these witnesses prove most intriguing. As there were at least four shots fired at Tippit, and most witnesses thought there could have been three or less, they suggest that, should there have been a fourth shot fired at Kennedy, as I've proposed, the witnesses to that shooting might not have remembered hearing it, even if it wasn't silenced or suppressed in some manner. At the same time, moreover, the statements of these witnesses support the possibility that one of the shells found at the Tippit shooting location had not been fired that day. And this, by extension, also supports the possibility that one of the shells found in the depository had not been fired that day. While one can only speculate as to why this would be (perhaps, just perhaps, Oswald had kept an empty shell in the chambers of his weapons, perhaps as protection for his children or perhaps as protection for himself should his wife Marina get a hold of his weapons during one of their frequent domestic squabbles) it is worth noting here that the shell of the bullet fired at General Walker was never located. If Oswald and/or those setting up Oswald had left it in the chamber of his rifle, this could very well explain the third shell found in the sniper’s nest. Supporting that only two shots were fired from the sniper's nest, moreover, is the earliest statements and testimony of the three men on the floor directly beneath the sniper's nest. The testimony of all three supports that there was no first shot miss, and that the last two shots came right after another, too fast to have been fired by the rifle found upstairs. Harold Norman’s statements, so often used to prove that Oswald was the lone assassin, not only reflected that Kennedy was hit by the first shot, but that only two shells dropped to the floor in the firing sequence.