Pat Speer

Forensic Pathologists are trained to look at certain facts and to not let strange circumstances and timing affect their decisions. The problem with this is that it opens the door for any person (or agency) who knows how to fake a death and make it look like natural causes. When I first got sucked into this quagmire, I noticed that a number of U.S. Senators dropped dead in the early 50's, and that this led to several transfers of power between the parties. I then discovered that this was the very period in which the CIA and the KGB were developing poisons to simulate heart attacks, etc. This has always bothered me. The subsequent death of Adlai Stevenson as he walked the streets of Paris is also suspicious, IMO. The point is that we can't trust autopsy protocols as to foul play because there are people and agencies who know how to beat the system. And one of the ironies of this case (or strange coincidences) is that the supposed top expert on poisons among pathologists was Chetta. So...I'm forever on the fence on this one. Another strange piece of the puzzle, which I put together, was the timing of Ferrie's death. It was just a few days after Ramsey Clark told LBJ Garrison was coming after him and that his star witness was Ferrie. Clark tells this to LBJ. Bingo. Ferrie turns up dead. That's a hard one to ignore.

A little background info may be helpful. When Horne's book came out, Fetzer took to this forum singing its praises, and claimed it confirmed that the Z-film was fake. This enraged John Costella, who Fetzer had long claimed was the top expert on the film. You see, Costella had concluded that the film was internally consistent, and that no frames had been removed, etc. He concluded that the whole film would have to have been a fake, and that the once-popular theory a limo stop or a head shot was removed from the original film was inaccurate. Costella then accused Horne of being a government disinformation agent. The point is, then, that those holding the film was faked can't agree on the extent it was faked or how it was faked, and the whole argument is weak sauce. Should one seek to go back through the archives of this forum, one will see how Tink Thompson and I embarrassed Fetzer and his devotees by showing how the supposed eyewitnesses to a limo stop were mostly non-witnesses to a limo stop, with many specifying that the limo did not stop. As far as IDing witnesses on Elm Street, I spent some time on this in 2019 and IDed a few never before IDed, and matched up a number of photos where one can see that there are no discrepancies between the films and photos. Mark Tyler's study of the films and photos for his model confirmed this work. I recommend anyone doubting the integrity of the films and photos to watch Mark's model, and stop when the photos come up so one can see the angles from which the photos were taken.

Our friend John Hunt found an FBI crime lab photo showing the paper bag laying on top of the blanket. I believe that is the possible cross-contamination to which you refer. The fibers wrapped around the butt-plate is a different story. It could not have occurred by mere contact, which is why the FBI's fiber expert Stombaugh mused that it was wrapped around the butt=plate via Lt. Day's brushing off fingerprint powder. The whole scenario is ludicrous, and is almost certainly a cover for what Stombaugh really suspected--that the fibers were planted to implicate Oswald (at a time, I might add, that the DPD failed to realize Oswald had changed shirts).

It's probably nonsense. As I recall, S.M. Holland and others on the railroad bridge swore there were only railroad employees up there, and no strangers. And yet this guy makes out that he just walked up there and no one said anything. Doubtful.

Thanks, Greg. I've been told that my chapters are incomprehensible, but your comprehension appears to be right on the money. I've made several attempts at editing my chapters down to the nitty gritty for a book, but that skill is apparently beyond me, and Gil deserves credit for summarizing the evidence for public consumption. FWIW, There was a European scientist who summarized my research on the paraffin casts of Oswald's cheek for wikipedia, but wikipedia refused to publish it because they couldn't verify it in any published work. They contacted me and asked if any reputable writer such as Bugliosi had made reference to my work. I told them "no" but that all the documents I discussed were available at the Hood Library in Maryland. I explained that Weisberg had received them as part of a FOIA request, and that no one until myself had sought them out for study. The editor or whatever then pounced and wrote something like "So you admit this is your own conclusions, unsupported by Bugliosi or any other reliable source?" To which I wrote something like "Of course, like I said, I realized that no one had studied the NAA documents in the Weisberg Archives, and sought them out, and wrote an article about what I discovered." To which he responded, "Thanks" and killed the article. It made me a little crazy at the time, because wikipedia's supposed reason for existence is to move us past the publishing house monopoly on accepted truth world we grew up in, and into a world where the internet can be a valid source for information. And here they were rejecting my research because it hadn't received a thumbs up from a major publisher. Arggh!

Cool.

The conclusions Gil came to were pretty much the same conclusions I came to when I looked into this a decade ago and received the only color photos of the shirt. (In opposition to what Andres says, the Archives assured me multiple times that the WC's evidence photos were all black and white, and that no color photos were available, and that, as a consequence, they would take color photographs of CE 151, for a price... They assured me as well that once I paid for the photos they would be my private possession to do with as I wished. I was dealing directly with the head guy--whose name escapes me--overseeing the JFK records. It seems ludicrous to me that he would put me through six months of rigamarole going back and forth if color photos were available to begin with... But stranger things have happened.) In any event, your post, Greg, reminded me of something discussed in my chapter that Gil either overlooked or left out. Stombaugh testified that the fibers were found ON TOP of the fingerprint powder. This means the fibers were not old fibers. Stombaugh alibied that the fibers were probably dangling from the butt plate when the DPD dusted the rifle, and that they got wrapped around the butt plate ON TOP of the fingerprint powder in the process. But this was obvious nonsense.

Yes, I hope so. For the record, I was being sarcastic. From the very beginning, the JFK research community has been fighting about who first came up with this or that, and why did this guy publish so and so's research and ideas and not give him credit. Weisberg hated Mark Lane because he felt Lane had ripped him off. I, myself, have come across images I've created in published books, where I received no credit. At one point, I came across a post on the McAdams forum, where a guy was pushing a video he'd created about Michael Baden testifying with his exhibit upside down. The problem was that the part showing Baden with his exhibit upside down came from my video, with its graphics, etc. I confronted the guy and said if you're gonna make a 5 minute video in which 1 minute was taken directly from my video, you should at least give me and my director friend Brad credit, rather than make out it was your own discovery, and your own work. At such point this guy said it was greedy people like me who were the reason the case remained unsolved. The irony, of course, was that I didn't ask for money or even hint that I wanted any. It was just irritating that he made out he'd discovered something that I'd discovered, and didn't even take the time to hide that the footage proving his "discovery" came directly from my video.

I'm curious as to whether this guy ripped off Jim, and just repeated his points and called them his own. I'm also curious as to whether he read my article on VB and his book, and took all my research regarding Bugliosi's deceptive use of footnotes, and then called it his own. I've had high school kids email me and tell me they copied a chunk of my website and submitted it as a term paper. That's one thing. But to publish a book claiming to demonstrate something, once and for all, that is largely based on other people's work, and then not give them credit...that's pretty low. Or perhaps I'm getting paranoid in my old age. No one would ever publish a book based on other people's work and then fail to give them credit, would they?

Can you post the table of contents. I'm curious as to what topics these writers have chosen to write about. P.S. In looking through the list, I realize I've met most of them.

Donahue believed the Clark Panel when they said the entrance wound on the back of the head was by the cowlick, and not by the EOP. He then rear-projected the presumed location of the exit wound through this supposed entrance, and realized that it didn't point back to the sniper's nest, but to an area above the back seat of the follow-up car. He then convinced himself it was Hickey, the only person in the follow-up car with a rifle. Part of the reason he came to believe as much, moreover, was that the Clark Panel's claim there was a small bullet entrance but a large exit was much more in keeping with the wound ballistics of the AR-15 than the Mannlicher-Carcano. He was right about most of this stuff. Where he went wrong was trusting the Clark Panel. There was no bullet entrance by the cowlick. They pretended there was so they could discount Josiah Thompson's observation that the WC's trajectory made little sense. FWIW, I came to conclude that the reason neither the WC nor Clark Panel's trajectories made sense was that the small entrance on the back of the head and large head wound observed at autopsy were not connected, and that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, as first proposed by the first doctor to examine the head wound, Dr. William Kemp Clark.

Except...Donahue had been spewing his theory on radio and in articles since the '70s. You are correct, however, in that the book would almost certainly have not found a home with a major publisher should Oliver Stone's movie have not met with a popular reception. But Donahue's theory is far from the defense of the government one might assume it is. He claimed there was mass conspiracy to cover up what actually happened. Which is pretty much what most of us believe. He also pointed out that the Warren Commission's head wound bullet trajectory was nonsense. At the time Mortal Error came out, Donahue was probably the most credible person, in the eyes of the mainstream media, to claim as much.

I talked about it in my interview with Alan from the sixth floor of the hospital. When I was at my sickest at the hospital in the Spring, I received an email from google saying I need to upgrade to the new google sites because the old google sites was going bye-bye. So I did it. I looked at the home page, and it looked the same except the videos were smaller. I then did it for the whole site, assuming I could go back to the old pages if anything was wrong. But I was wrong. A few weeks later, when I was feeling a bit better I took a look and realized the "upgrade" had in fact scrambled all the images on my website, changing their sizes and switching the order of many of the images within the page. I started to fix it but found it was a pain in the rump, and I couldn't find a tutorial online. So I decided to revert to the older versions of the pages, except...except...all the pages/chapters were now considered the first version of each page/chapter, and I couldn't revert to the old versions. Essentially, they were lost forever. In any event, over the last month I have spent a few hours a day working on the website, gradually learning how to move and re-size images. While doing so, I learned that some images were disappeared by google--God knows why--and that some of the text was scrambled as well. It's been an ordeal, but I hope it's near the end. (The parallel between my self-named website getting sick and then getting better as I've recovered from a serious illness is a bit poetic, but my life is filled with such coincidences.) P.S. As you know, one of the areas most screwed by google was the area in which I shared the Feinman docs. This led to a phone call from Oliver's top man, Rob, who asked if I could possibly find them and send them his way, seeing as they'd been removed from my website. Fortunately (I'm not the most organized of researchers), I was able to find them and send them his way. Perhaps you could tell me why he needed them. Is Oliver preparing a response to the media's criticism of his work, that will include a section on Feinman? Or was this for the book accompanying the 4-hour film? P.P.S. One of the curious discoveries was that the two sections most scrambled and or missing images was the section on the Feinman docs proving CBS fibbed, and the section on Dale Myer's bogus animation. It's enough to make a conspiracy theorist paranoid, I tell ya.

I have an article on my website entitled "The Smoking Gun that Lied" that debunks the Hickey theory and the TV show The Smoking Gun in particular. The most damning piece of evidence, by far, that went unmentioned in the The Smoking Gun, is the Bronson film which shows Hickey at the time of the fatal shot. Well, guess what, he's sitting. Shortly after I wrote my article, moreover, Bonar Meninger, the author of Mortal Error, wrote an article claiming the Bronson film failed to show Hickey was sitting. Except, he was forgetting something...his own book. I then took an illustration from his book showing Hickey's position at the time of the shooting and placed it on top of the Bronson film. It's conclusive, IMO. Hickey was sitting, not standing, when the fatal shot was fired.

Thanks for asking, Pete. I'm doing alright. I'm at home but quite limited my activities, as far as leaving the house and having a life, etc. But I've used the downtime to finally go back and fix (or mostly fix, it's an ongoing project) the scrambling of my website by google. I've also whipped out my old baseball cards, and have had a lotta fun looking through the old cards, and comparing them to the newer ones.

I discuss the re-enactments in great detail in Chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, and occasionally throughout the rest of my chapters on the Warren Commission. The SS and FBI thought the original re-enactment placed the shots too close together to have been accomplished by Oswald. So they re-did it, only now claiming the third shot head shot took place with the car 30 feet or more further down the road than it was at 313. The Warren Commission caught this, however, and made them do it again, on May 24, 1964. This once again moved the shots too close together to have been done by Oswald. So the Warren Commission got around this by pretending the first shot may have been a miss and that Oswald could have made the shots irregardless if the first shot missed.

I added a screen grab from this film to my website a few years back. Here it is:

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but my experience with doctors--both those involved in JFK research and those involved in my cancer treatment--has led me to believe--no, scratch that...KNOW--that doctors frequently talk out of their butts and use big words in an effort to show how smart they are, when they are frequently relying upon mis-impressions and faulty memories. There is no way most doctors--outside those fresh out of medical school--would pass an anatomy test. It was explained to me years ago that doctors routinely use the words temporal to mean the side of the head and occipital to mean the back of the head, and not specifically low on the back of the head--the location of the occipital bone. In such case, Jenkins' claim the wound was temporal and occipital would mean the wound was on the side of the head toward the back. Now, about the back. I've done a lot of reading and thinking and writing about this and it's quite clear that people say the back of the head when they mean the top and/or side of the head, particularly if the blow came from behind. I was mugged once and the bastard kept hitting me on the back of the head, except when we looked at the cut his ring left on my head the cut was right behind my right ear--which most would call the side of the head. So, yep, unfortunately, a lot of the confusion about the medical evidence comes from the imprecision of language, and people wanting to believe doctors are above such imprecision. When experience tells me the opposite...that doctors are no more likely to be precisely correct about such things as your average layman...

Thanks, Gary. I hope you know that I consider you, along with John Hunt, as two of the best researchers on the case, in that you were more interested in acquiring and sharing previously-ignored information than you were in pushing any particular theory, or selling books or videos built around your theory. Your contribution is much-appreciated. P.S. I'm sorry to hear about your family. Battling cancer is an ordeal, in that both the disease and the treatment make you miserable. I joke with my doctors and nurses that by tomorrow's standards today's treatment will be considered medieval. But I'm not really joking.

Thanks to all for the continued good wishes. As far as the warehouse, a law firm is supposedly looking into the testing of the site, and will then begin reaching out to other former workers beyond myself. I know that two of my closest co-workers died in their early sixties, but am not aware of the cause. P.S. As discussed with Alan, Google changed Google sites in the middle of my hospital stay, and scrambled up the images on my website. I am slowly going back and trying to straighten out the mess. If anyone is reading or studying a particular chapter, and would appreciate my prioritizing that chapter, please let me know.

Thanks to all for the kind words and support. I'm back home and doing much better. Still locked up at home essentially for the next 2 1/2 months due to my ongoing diet of immuno-suppressants, which are designed to prevent my rejecting my sister's stem cells. This is particularly annoying in that I spent much of my time in the hospital watching restaurant commercials, craving the food, and the doctors now insist I abstain from eating ANY restaurant food for 2 1/2 months, and only eat food that has been scrubbed and cooked at specific temperatures... So no sushi for me, or even In-N-Out burger... Some fun facts... When fully-engrafted, my sister's stem cells will change my blood type to her blood type... I'm part of a study trying to determine if I will become vaccinated against COVID-19 via my sister's stem cells... As bad as I had it--terrible gut issues for weeks on end--there were a number of patients on the sixth floor who have had numerous relapses--and have been confined there for YEARS, including the year leading up to this March, in which NO visitors were allowed. To me, the hospital felt like prison, but to these poor souls it really is a prison. Early on in my treatment, one of my doctors told me he felt confident my getting leukemia was not simply bad luck, and that he felt confident I'd had a long-time exposure to a toxic chemical. This led me to remember that a record warehouse I'd worked in for 7 years had had a toxic spill five years before we moved in, that had supposedly been cleaned up. I then contacted the EPA, and a water district, which confirmed that toxic chemicals linked to various cancers and specifically leukemia have been found on-site from 2002 to last year. The problem is that the spill/chlorine gas leak was in 1989, and my company was in the building from 94 to 01. I am currently in touch with a family friend/lawyer who is looking into this, and trying to determine if the site was tested between 1989 and 2001, and, if not, why not. So, geez Louise, I could very well be sucked into investigating a conspiracy related to my own death, and, if not, a number of my former co-workers. This feels both ironic and somehow not surprising.

Thanks for asking, Kirk. I'm on my fourth hospital stay since March, this one lasting 23 days (so far). I'm 19 days post-stem cell transplant, which means the chemo is starting to wear off. They assured me before this visit that I would get terrible diarrhea and lose all my hair. They were right on the first part but I have managed to hold on to wisps of hair on my head and about half a beard. If all goes well--no more gout flare-ups, no more rashes, no mouth sores, etc--I may go home this weekend. But that won't be the end of it. I'm supposed to stay in a bubble--with very little outside contact--for the first 100 days or so after transplant. So, going back to the Covid shutdown, I will have been in a bubble for 22 months or so--longer than many prison sentences. (For those interested in a more detailed description of my prison/hospital stay, I have added a blog at the top of the home page at patspeer.com) Regards, Pat

Sorry. When I wrote "that Robert Morrow" I should have specified "THAT Robert Morrow." There are two. The one claimed to have known David Ferrie, etc, and the other one was a forum member who ended up writing a book with Roger Stone. The first Robert Morrow is long-deceased.

I believe that Robert Morrow is long deceased.