Pat Speer

Am I reading this right? Are you claiming the CIA and Pawley killed Bayo and his crew? If so, why? It makes no sense. It only makes sense, furthermore, that if f they'd known these men to be dead, they would have exploited this in the Cuban community. Imagine the mileage they'd have gained from some phony story claiming Castro's agents murdered these men in cold blood, etc. Weyl was a member of this forum, and seemed quite earnest in his inability to remember much when questioned. I began to give him grief on this, but then thought better of it after I realized he was over ninety years old.

Tom, I've also taken a look at Breslin, and concluded he was just a typical sloppy journalist, more concerned with HIS own impressions than in anything resembling the facts. Compare his 1993 article below with his others. From patspeer.com, chapter 19: An August 25, 1993 article by columnist Jimmy Breslin suggests that Thomis was far from alone in his desire to report the story as he wanted it to be, rather than as it was. AT LAST TRUTH ABOUT THE SHOTS "Case Closed" is a book that tells the truth. It was written by Gerald Posner and published by Random House. Posner shows that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy by himself. Case closed. Then there is Oliver Stone, whose movie "JFK" was what my friend Fred Dannen of the New Yorker magazine calls, "An intellectual snuff film. Literal truth is murdered on screen." I was in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot and spoke to the doctor who was doing the chest-thumping at the end. He knew two bullets had hit Kennedy in the back. Which meant Oswald. And I had been with the Dallas police, who had just lost officer J.D. Tippit. He had been killed by Oswald, who, completely alone, was trying to get away and had no idea where to go. Now Oliver Stone sends the video of his movie to schools around the country so they can show it in years to come. But finally, here is Gerald Posner, who worked like a ditchdigger and documented every paragraph of "Case Closed" and can tell us: "But for those seeking the truth, the facts are incontrovertible. They can be tested against credible testimony, documents and the latest scientific advances. Chasing shadows across the grassy knoll will never be the substitute for real history. Lee Harvey Oswald, driven by his own twisted and impenetrable furies, was the only assassin at Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22,1963. To say otherwise, in the light of the overwhelming evidence, is to absolve a man with blood on his hands and to mock the president he killed." "Case Closed" shows that Lee Harvey Oswald's palm prints were all over boxes he used to put up a sniper's nest, and all over the gun and the paper it was wrapped in when he brought it to work. In the movie, they had the FBI taking Oswald's hand, after he was shot, and slapping it on the gun to provide a handprint. And in the movie, Stone never had Oswald firing a shot. After the shooting, Oswald ran out of the Texas School Book Depository building and had to get on a bus, get off the bus, then murder Tippit in broad daylight in the street and run into a movie without paying and try to hide. In the movie, the shooting of the officer, Tippit, simply did not happen. Posner shows that what this Stone did was to take two big best-selling conspiracy books, one by Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney who was crazed, and the other by Jim Marrs, who wrote that Kennedy was shot by a world-class assassin who was hired by the world crime syndicate, the CIA, the anti-Castro people and the right wing and the U.S. military. Both of these books made a lot of money and covered the shelves with slime. I sat in an office at Parkland Hospital with Dr. Malcolm Perry a few hours after President Kennedy was killed. Perry had been one of the first two medical people in the trauma room when Kennedy was brought in. Perry was elated when Posner came around and asked for the truth. That day in 1963, Perry had been eating salmon croquettes in the cafeteria when the call came that they were bringing the president in. He cut Kennedy's throat to insert a tube for breathing. The cut was directly over an exit wound from a shot that had hit Kennedy in the back of the neck. Dr. Pepper Jenkins, who had done the most gunshot wounds, felt the entrance wound in the back of the neck. Perry began massaging Kennedy's chest, and the guy working with him, Kemp Clark, said, "It's too late, Mac." In all conspiracy theories, they demand to know why Kennedy's body hadn't been turned over so they could look for a wound in the back. Kennedy was dead and his wife was standing over him. And the doctors said they didn't turn him over because they "didn't have the heart." There was a morning in my memory when the late John Connally, who had been in front of Kennedy in the car in Dallas, walked into the unopened bar of the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue and with busboys and cleaning men looking at him, he pulled off his jacket and shirt and showed a long wound behind his right shoulder. Connally said it showed that the bullet had been tumbling over as it hit him because it already had gone through Kennedy's shoulder and neck. Connally then showed the big exit wound in his chest, then held up his right wrist. There was another dark brown bullet hole. The bullet, tumbling out of his chest, had taken clothing with it into the wrist wound. He tapped his left thigh. "It wound up here," he told the busboys, "One bullet did that. Through the president first and then right through me." Now we have Gerald Posner, who cares about telling the truth, which is the job of a true writer. Breslin is a syndicated columnist based in New York City. Breslin's article is wrong on almost every key point, beginning with its over-all thesis--that Posner was a reliable truth-teller, and a "true writer." Posner's research was, in fact, so shaky that his fellow single-assassin theorist Vincent Bugliosi felt it necessary to dis-own Posner's dishonest presentation of the evidence. Breslin's attacks on Garrison are equally biased and over-stated. Where Breslin really falters, no, scratch that, falls, however, is when he injects his personal experiences to support his position. Breslin at first claims that Dr. Perry "knew two bullets had hit Kennedy in the back" but then later acknowledges that Kennedy's body wasn't even turned over in Perry's presence. He thereby contradicts himself, and reveals himself to be far less than a "truth-teller." (Was Breslin thus, not a "true writer"?). Even worse, Breslin fails to tell his readers that when he interviewed Dr. Perry in 1963 Dr. Perry was unaware of any wound on Kennedy's back, and believed Kennedy had been shot from the front. Breslin also fails to tell his readers that his interview with Perry convinced many that the Government was lying when it later told them that the shots came from behind, and that his own reporting had thereby fed the earliest conspiracy theories, and the subsequent theories of Garrison, Marrs, and Stone. But Breslin's presentation of Connally as a supporter of the official story is even more egregious. Here, Breslin insists he saw Connally showing his scars off, and claiming that the bullet striking him had come through the President. Well, if Breslin had actually seen this, he should have reported it, because it would have made HEADLINES AROUND THE WORLD. Connally insisted until his dying breath that he was not struck by the same bullet that struck Kennedy and that he NEVER subscribed to the single-bullet theory, not even for a second. Now, do I believe Breslin deliberately lied about Perry and Connally? While it seems an incredible coincidence that Breslin presented two public figures to support his position that conspiracy theories are hogwash, and chose two public figures whose statements have long fed conspiracy theories, and LIED about both of them, I actually doubt his lies were deliberate. Instead, I suspect he just remembered things in a manner convenient to his pre-dispositions. He'd just read Posner's book and was anxious to pile on Stone. But whether or not Breslin lied by design is not the point. The point is that a newsman remotely concerned about the truth, and who'd done one lick of homework, would have known that Perry initially believed the shots had come from the front, and would have known that Connally never stopped disputing the single-bullet theory. Years later, in the November 16 2003 Newsday, Breslin presented another article on Perry. This time he noted that Perry had originally described the throat wound as an entrance wound, and that this had fed conspiracy theories. Perhaps, for this article, Breslin had done his homework. Breslin's lies at worst, or sloppy misrepresentations at best, are nevertheless informative. It's undoubtedly significant that none of the writers upset over the deceptions in Oliver Stone's admittedly fictional film expressed any concern over Breslin's deceptions about Connally in a supposedly non-fiction article, or similar deceptions in similar articles attacking Stone's film. Evidently, they saw lying as something that "conspiracy theorists" did to stir up controversy, and failed to take note of the lies designed to shut down controversy... Or maybe they took note of these lies, but decided to overlook them due to "professional courtesy." Or maybe they just didn't care.

A few years ago I had some contact with Tyler, and he told me that his dad was still alive and living in Idaho, if I recall. At that time I asked him if his father's recorded interviews were readily available. Perhaps that put the idea in his head that they should finally be released. Some of them--such as Newcomb's conversation with Dallas motorcycle officer James Chaney--could prove quite interesting.

I read the article yesterday with great interest. Thanks, Richard for writing it, and thanks, Greg, for posting it. It gives one much to consider. While I remain unconvinced that the likes of Dougherty, Williams, Jarman, Norman, Arce, Lovelady, and Shelley were parties to the assassination, it's clear the WC did an inadequate job figuring out their exact movements leading up to the time of the shooting. It seems that there should have been some exhibit or memo created which details who was where and when, and what they should have seen, and how their stories changed. But no such memo exists. It's as if the WC accepted anything these guys said as long as they didn't say anything to suggest Oswald's innocence. I think Dougherty, in particular, was let off the hook. While he, apparently, had an emotional problem, and was unlikely to have been a shooter, it seems someone sometime should have said "Wait a second...this guy was on the upper floors at the time of the shooting, had the run of the building before it opened (whereby he could have helped shooters hide on the seventh floor or roof), went back to work early after lunch (whereby he could have helped build the sniper's nest) and rode the elevator down after the shooting (whereby he could have helped the shooters escape)." I mean, really, where is the background check on Dougherty? Did he have an older brother to whom he felt subservient? Was this older brother in the Klan, or the John Birch Society? Did Dougherty know Jack Ruby? None of this, as far as I can tell, was looked into. The absence of these reports is a huge hole in the investigation. Ditto on Givens. Instead of readily accepting the almost certain lie that Givens saw Oswald after the "elevator race", the Commission should have investigated Givens' changing his statements regarding Oswald. Why wasn't the FBI agent writing the report on Givens, in which Givens was purported to have claimed to have seen Oswald in the domino room, questioned, and asked if he still had his notes? Why wasn't his personnel record discussed? It was a he said/she said situation, whereby the credibility of each he/she should have been investigated. Why wasn't Givens' statement challenged? And why wasn't Dallas Police officer Jack Revill investigated. He wrote a memo saying Givens spoke to Oswald at the time of the elevator race, but that Givens was unreliable and would change his story for money. And then, months later, testified in a manner suggesting that he'd known all along that Givens saw Oswald after returning to the sixth floor. Was he just being forgetful? Or did someone get to him? The WC did a lousy job. Period. While putting the screws to Williams and Norman, and asking them why they either failed to tell the whole truth in their initial statement (Williams) or failed to make any statement at all until after Oswald was dead, even though they were an important witness (Norman), might have been awkward, it nevertheless needed to be done. The WC was supposed to function as truth-getters. Instead, they often slipped into the behavior of prosecuting attorneys, whereby they refused to ask inconvenient questions of what they believed to be "their" witnesses.

Jim, I have defended Gary many times over the years, so much so that people have actually created threads questioning my credibility, reasoning that anyone defending Gary must be a disinformationist. I thought such talk was nonsense until last year. In Inside the Target Car, Gary shot down speculation that the fatal head shot came from the front by claiming it would have hit Jackie. This wasn't true. Most everyone who's researched this case more than a minute knows it isn't true. After the program aired, Gary admitted this mistake, but tried to pass it off as the innocent mistake of an underling. It was HIS mistake. He's the one who announced, on camera, that a shot from the fence would have killed Jackie. A few months back, someone contacted him about this and the story got even more bizarre. Now he claimed he caught the mistake before the program aired but that it was too late to get it changed. He failed to see that this was actually worse. I mean, think about it. The producers of a supposedly objective program examining certain issues discover that the reason cited on air for rejecting a popular scenario is completely bogus, but choose to LET IT RUN ANYHOW. They have thus made the choice to KNOWINGLY DECEIVE people, rather than honestly explore the issue, just so they can wrap their program in a neat little bow, and SELL that the head shot came from behind. (A conclusion I pretty much agree with, BTW.) And yet Gary did nothing to warn the research community that this conscious deception was going to occur, and continues to defend the program. As far as your suggestion that Gary is a careful researcher, I wish this were true. He has claimed on air that the first shot missed, a la the scenarios pushed by Posner, Myers, and Bugliosi. The first shot miss is a completely preposterous proposition entirely at odds with the evidence. Anyone pushing this on the public is not a careful researcher.

Epstein knows full well that Oswald did not threaten to blow up the FBI office, and is only saying so because it helps sell his thesis that Oswald had a violent nature, and would kill Kennedy on behalf of others. Epstein, apparently, has never come to grips with the possibility Oswald was set up, or framed. Perhaps because those involved were his sources...

Bumped for Jim Root. BK I suspect so. In part 3 of my video series I show how Finck's recall from Vietnam and the January re-inspection of the medical evidence closely followed Midgley's memo to McCloy asking for access to the doctors, and McCloy's subsequent trip to Washington, in which he met with numerous government officials.

You're welcome, Don. At first I thought it best to respond to Gary via personal email, his preferred manner. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the tone of Gary's statements--that he was an expert whose work should not be questioned publicly--as well as the statements themselves--in which he suggested there was nothing suspicious about Ruby's behavior--would be of interest to others. Those wondering how Gary can keep a straight face while spouting single-assassin theorist "factoid" after "factoid" now know. He actually believes it!

Bill, the NPIC studies are clear evidence the film was not altered, IMO. From patspeer.com, chapter 2 (a chapter written from the perspective of an honest FBI agent tasked with figuring out the number and timing of the shots and which shots hit each victim) "In our frustration, we make some phone calls, searching for an explanation for the FBI's failure to properly present the evidence. We find that the Summary Report was sent over to President Johnson and Acting Attorney General Katzenbach on 12-5-63, before the FBI had even determined the speed of Abraham Zapruder's camera, and thus, if it was even possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots depicted in the film. If Zapruder was correct, and his camera was filming at 24 frames per second, so we've been told, then Oswald could not have fired all the shots. While complaining about this, we hear a rumor that the National Photo Interpretation Center has studied the film for the Secret Service. We call a close friend working at the National Photo Interpretation Center. He tells us that on the evening of November 23rd, the Secret Service had given a copy of the Zapruder film to two of the Center's photo experts, Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and had asked them to make enlargements on 28 frames of the film. It was believed that the creation of these enlargements would help them identify the moments the bullets struck both the President and the Governor. (While evidence for this incident had been discussed for years, it was not fully investigated until Doug Horne of the ARRB did so in 1997.) Our friend gets access to the worksheets created as part of this study. These worksheets indicate that the initial conclusion was that Kennedy was struck at frame 224, Connally was struck at frame 256, and that Kennedy was struck again at frame 312. This was based on the supposition that the Zapruder film was recording 16 frames per second, and that there was a 2 second gap between the first two shots, and a 3.5 second gap between the second and third. (This apparent conclusion is written in bold on the front side of a worksheet discovered in the CIA files in 1981. McMahon and Hunter recognized their writing on this worksheet.) There are numerous calculations on this worksheet. Most revolve around the number 242, an obvious reference to frame 242, by which time Connally has obviously been struck. On the front side of the worksheet, there is 312 - 242 (to measure the time between the headshot at 312 and the apparent impact on Connally). There is also 242 - 213 (to measure the time between when Kennedy would seem to be hit, 213, and when Connally appears to be hit). Next to this is 242 - 32 (As 242 - 213 was only 29 frames, too short a time span for two shots to have been fired from a bolt-action rifle, it appears they were measuring what frame would then be acceptable, given that the dead bolt would take at least two seconds to operate). Next to this is 256 – 224 (which was 32 frames and was thus deemed acceptable). On the back side of the sheet there were even more calculations, many of them repeated from the first side. These calculations, however, are made with the assumption that the Zapruder film was recording 18 frames per second. Thus, the magic number here is 36 frames, e.g. 213 + 36 = 249. There are also 242 – 190 = 52 and 52 / 18 = 2.8. These last two indicate that if the Zapruder film was shown to record at 18 frames per second, the Secret Service was prepared to say the first shot hit Kennedy at 190, the second hit Connally at 242, and the final shot hit Kennedy at 312. On the whole, then, these numbers indicate that, rather than trying to isolate the actual moments of impact, the Secret Service was, from the very beginning, assuming that the third shot was the head shot, and trying to make the moments of impact fit neatly within the time constraints of Oswald’s bolt-action rifle. This suggests they were always operating under the scenario that Oswald acted alone. We wonder if this same kind of thinking has not infected the FBI, and negatively influenced the Summary Report. We look closer at the worksheets, to see if anything they've proposed makes sense. On one sheet they suggest that the shots occurred at frames 213, 263, and 312. This is strange, as it seems obvious that Connally was hit long before 263. Another scenario of 217, 242, and 312 is equally curious, as Robert Frazier’s tests back on 11-27 tell us that Oswald would have needed approximately 2.8 seconds or 51 frames between shots. Certainly, they weren't considering that someone other than Oswald fired one of the shots. This makes us suspect that the FBI has failed to tell the NPIC or Secret Service about their tests. As the NPIC is closely associated with the CIA, and as FBI Director Hoover has a problem with the CIA, this is not a big surprise. When we look further through the worksheets, however, there is a surprise. The Secret Service has seriously considered the scenario offered in the 12-6 edition of Life magazine, holding that Kennedy was hit at 190, Connally at 264, and Kennedy at 312. We just can’t accept that Connally was hit so late however. Other scenarios considered at NPIC and by the Secret Service are 206, 242, 312, and 213, 242 and 312, but both of these have the first two shots too close together to have been fired by Oswald. The only single-assassin scenario that works, then, based upon even a cursory study of the Zapruder film, is the Kennedy 190, Connally 242, and Kennedy 312 scenario. Even this scenario is less than convincing, however. Not only does Connally appear to have been hit before frame 242 of the film, but the witnesses, as we well know, clearly suggested that the last two shots were bunched together, with the final shot after the headshot. (A more elaborate analysis of the Zapruder film by Robert Frazier for the Warren Commission concluded that, assuming a rifle was fired from the sixth floor sniper’s nest, Connally was turned too far to his right after frame 231 to receive his wounds.)"

Gary Mack has sent me an email in which he answers my "questions". regarding The Ruby Connection. Evidently he fails to see they were not questions but comments. Evidently, he thinks anytime anyone has a different opinion than him it is because they have "questions" to which he has the "answers". My original post follows. His "answers" are in the paragraphs beginning with GM. My response to his "answers" are in the paragraphs beginning with PS. Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact. GM: All false. The show was a look at some of the details surrounding the shooting. PS: Not true, Gary. The program was entitled The Ruby Connection, not "a look at a few minor issues involving Jack Ruby." Viewers were led to believe it examined Ruby's possible role in a conspiracy. Viewers were led to believe such a role was unlikely. The program's failure to acknowledge its limitations, and/or that there were MANY issues not addressed in the program can therefore be considered misleading. The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest? While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions... GM: Of course, if you were an expert, you’d know that most of your “questions” were answered long ago. PS: These were not questions, but comments. And they have not been "answered" except by those desperate to pretend they are not legitimate concerns. NO mention that Oswald, at the time of the Tippit killing, had traversed almost a mile from his rented room, and was still on a direct route to Ruby's apartment, only a half mile away. GM: Irrelevant. The show was about when Ruby shot Oswald, not theories about where Oswald was headed which, by the way, could also have been one of the restaurants on Jefferson Boulevard.. PS: No, the show was on The Ruby Connection, and attempted to use facts relating to his shooting of Oswald to disprove there was a connection between Ruby and Oswald. Facts that might suggest otherwise should have been admitted, should the program have been an honest one, without an objective. NO mention of Seth Kantor's assertion Ruby was at Parkland Hospital, which might lead one to think Ruby's involvement pre-existed Oswald's arrest. (And would also lead one to conclude Ruby was a xxxx.) GM: Ruby may not have been at Parkland at all. I know the timeline, and it is absolutely impossible. Go learn the time line from DMN ad office departure to the exact spot where Ruby supposedly met Kantor and then to the Carousel, parking his car, and placing a documented long distance call. It is a fact that after leaving the News building, Ruby DID wind up at the Carousel. PS: Did you ever mention this to Kantor? I mean, you must have met him, right? Did you ever confront him and tell him that you believed his recollection of talking to Ruby--whom he knew prior to 11-22-63--was either imaginary, or a deliberate falsehood? NO mention of DPD officer Billy Grammer's assertion that Ruby called the police station the night before Oswald was to be moved, and warned him that Oswald was going to be killed. GM: Nor is there any proof that Grammer’s story is true…..and there is great reason to doubt his claim. If you were an expert, you would know why his years later claim is almost certainly false. Hint: start with Grammer’s failure to tell anyone about the call before the trial. Wade’s office was looking everywhere, privately and publicly, for anything that proved premeditation on Ruby’s part. PS: Grammer's story doesn't need to be true. But viewers should have been told about it anyhow. Books like First Day Evidence and Bugliosi's monster rely heavily on the presumed integrity of the Dallas Police. And yet the statements of people like Roger Craig and Grammer are routinely ignored when they don't fit the Oswald did it scenario. Which is it? Do we trust the DPD, or not? And if it comes down to individual officers. why should we trust the likes of J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker over the likes of Billy Grammer? NO mention of any dispute about Ruby's coming down the ramp. Yep, that's right. GM: Wrong again. That’s what happens when you assume. An entire sequence testing BOTH Ruby’s possible routes from Western Union to the basement were re-created and timed. The results were within ten seconds of each other, so the tests proved nothing one way or the other. The head of the production company, Erik Nelson, took it all out for the 45-minute US version, but it’ll be in the longer (fewer commercials) foreign version and DVD, if there is one. PS: You don't get credit for filming something, and then cutting it out. The net result was that the viewers were not told that Ruby quite possibly lied about coming down the ramp. And, by extension, that he was covering for someone in the DPD... It says Ruby said he came down the ramp without pointing out that this was disputed by the officer guarding the ramp. Of course, this allowed them to hide that the HSCA believed this officer, and that the head of security for the basement, Patrick Dean, failed a polygraph, and had been singled out as a xxxx in 1964 by the Warren Commission counsel tasked with interviewing him. GM: No, it says the Warren Commission eventually concluded that. I merely repeated what they decided. And I am well aware that Roy Vaughn disputed it and, in fact, Roy appeared in the cut version. Had you been an expert, you would know that I personally believe Ruby went in the HSCA’s side door, NOT the Main Street ramp. Here, I’ll do your work for you: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...b5a6aa511?hl=en True, Dean failed the polygraph, but the results don’t explain why. PS: Had I been an expert, I still would have had no idea what you, another non-expert, had to say about Vaughn, or the HSCA's side door. Gary, your appearance on Inside the Target Car, and your subsequent non-explanations as to how you came to claim Jackie would have been killed by any shot from the picket fence, has led me to lose respect for your "expertise" and/or credibility. You go on TV, you say what is convenient to the single-assassin conclusion. Period. I mean, really, when was the last time you publicly acknowledged any NEW evidence that there was a conspiracy, or that some of the government's experts were wrong? Have you even read my webpage? NO mention of Ruby's phone call records, which showed him to have been in ever-growing contact with underworld figures in the months before the assassination. GM: Had you been an expert, you’d know that Ruby’s outgoing calls were almost exclusively to very low-level Mob people connected to his strippers and their union. And you are also omitting the fact that, for the most part, they weren’t spending any time with him and weren’t calling him back. PS: WRONG. Ruby made two phone calls to Barney Baker, a known hit-man. In the days before the assassination, moreover, Baker was in contact with Dave Yaras, a long-time friend of both Baker and Ruby, whom Gus Russo credits with masterminding the assassination of Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. But no, there's nothing suspicious there. They claimed Ruby's calls were all about strippers. And Lord knows they would never lie. NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington. GM: Had you been an expert, you’d know that that old excuse was exploded decades ago. So he goes to Washington, spills the beans, THEN goes back to Dallas? How does that change anything? It doesn’t save his life. It doesn’t do anything. PS: Apparently you equate "expert" with "bonehead". Ruby said the truth would not come out unless Warren got him to Washington. He begged Specter to get in touch with Abe Fortas, Johnson's closest adviser, to arrange this. Neither man complied. As a result, we will never know what Ruby was gonna say if they brought him to Washington. As far as your silly notion that no matter what Ruby said, he was gonna have to go back to Dallas...how the heck do you know that? If the Federal Government can steal Kennedy's body from the glorious State of Texas, it can certainly refuse to return a prisoner. NO mention of the HSCA's conclusion that Ruby lied on his polygraph. GM: Right, just as there’s no mention that Ruby’s polygraph was useless based on standard practices and understandings AT THE TIME. In short, the polygraph remains of little value, and irrelevant to proving anything one way or another. PS: Polygraphs never prove anything. They are merely suggestive. If I recall, the HSCA's expert felt Ruby probably lied when asked if he'd had any prior contact with Oswald. Why you think this is of no importance in a program purportedly exploring the likelihood Ruby's shooting of Oswald was a spur of the moment act is a mystery. The program did, however, repeat a number of single-assassin theorist factoids. Including... That Oswald brought about his own demise by putting on a sweater, and delaying his departure. GM: It’s a fact, regardless of whether you admit it or not. One version of the story is that he put on a sweater, didn’t like it, and asked for a different one. And he could have stopped in the bathroom first. PS: It is most certainly NOT a fact that Oswald's asking for a sweater caused the car to not be in place upon his arrival in the garage. This load of crud has been uttered repeatedly by the Dallas Police, but even a marginal study of the evidence indicates the police were not prepared for his departure at the time. I believe several of the officers even indicated that AFTER this supposed delay, Oswald was held in an office for a few minutes before being brought downstairs. The possibility has always existed, and still exists, therefore, that Oswald was held up by the police until Ruby was in place. GM: Or that he waited until the cops could find the sweater. There just isn’t enough detail in the record to account for the second-by-second events and make them fit into your preconceived theory. PS: MY preconceived scenario? The Dallas police, to help get themselves off the hook for getting Oswald killed, try to blame him for his late departure, when ALL evidence suggests they were not prepared when he did depart. But I'm the one twisting the evidence? Unbelievable. That Ruby's arrival downtown after 11 indicated he'd not come down to shoot Oswald, but only did it as an afterthought. Dallas PD chief Jesse Curry admitted in his book that, although he'd told the press to be ready for a transfer after 10, he, and therefore most certainly other policeman, KNEW the transfer wouldn't take place till much later. I believe he said after 11. This leaves open the possibility someone on the DPD was in contact with Ruby...perhaps even the same officer who let him in the building. GM: Nonsense. Videotape of Curry’s exact remark to the press appears in the PBS video, JFK: Breaking The News. All he or anyone knew was that the transfer wouldn’t happen before 10am Sunday. PS: You are correct in that Curry, in his book, stressed that he knew nothing would happen before 10, and that the belief Oswald was scheduled to be moved at 10 was a false one. It is my own inference from this that he, and other police officers, knew the move would come a bit later. The program also made some really STUPID statements. One glaring moment of "DUH" comes towards the end when the narrator says the fact that Oswald was allowed to live for so long after Kennedy's death indicates he wasn't killed for a reason. HOW could the conspirators know, after all, that he hadn't talked? UGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. ONE, because the Dallas Police were parading every bit of evidence before the press, GM: Thanks for your erroneous opinion, but that is NOT what the cops were doing. PS: Uggghhhh. Watch the interviews with Curry and Wade. They were laying out the evidence against Oswald, piece by piece, deliberately selling his guilt. If they were not selling his guilt, why did they both tell the press that the paraffin tests showed Oswald had fired a gun, and neglect to tell the press, even after it was erroneously reported on TV and in the press that this meant he'd fired a rifle, that the one test performed specific to rifle fire, the cheek test, was negative? and had repeatedly TOLD the country Oswald wasn't talking. GM: Cops sometimes publicly admit less than they know. It is a fact that Oswald wasn’t admitting anything of substance. PS: It is also a fact that the kind of conspiracy we're talking about--one with long fingers--would know exactly what Oswald was and was not saying, even without the press conferences. TWO, pretty much every conspiracy theory worth noting accepts the probability one or more DPD officers or FBI agents were involved on some level. Just a really STUPID statement, IMO, and one designed to confuse newbies unaware of the real issues. GM: Involved in what, questioning Oswald or getting him shot? If the latter, then you must account for all the details we listed showing that the shooting was a coincidence of timing. PS: Perhaps Ruby was hesitant to perform the killing, and only did so when he knew he could make it look like an act of passion. That pretty much covers it. In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent. GM: Until someone comes up with some evidence, that is the bottom line. PS: Nonsense. You can't erase all the other evidence for conspiracy based upon your belief that Jack Ruby, if he'd been a conspirator, would have been a bit more punctual. This is as illogical as assuming the Secret Service's failure to properly protect Kennedy is proof of their involvement. I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation. GM: False. My participation is up to me and no one else. I don’t get paid for my appearance and advice, and there is no requirement or bonus for any producers who wish to include me. For example, I played no part in the absurd Discovery show that preceded it (Did The Mob Kill JFK?). PS: I don't believe for one second that your appearances on TV are all unpaid. You were given a Producer's credit for Inside the Target Car, for crying out loud. Producers get paid. I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death. GM: The DPD was complicit. They failed to secure the basement. I think that’s been known since 11:21am on 11-24-63. PS: Is that it? Is that the only flaw you can find in their behavior and/or testimony? Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas County DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.) Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing. GM: Every city has problems like that, including Dallas. The difference is that Henry Wade and his people decades ago insisted that crime scene DNA evidence be preserved for the future. That foresight is the reason the innocent people even had something to test. Of course, if you were an expert on the Dallas Police, you’d know that, too. PS: Wow. More convicted men have been cleared of crimes in Dallas County via DNA evidence than any other, but it's because they are so concerned with not convicting innocent men? Amazing. The current DA has acknowledged that the DA's office had had a convict at all costs attitude under Wade. Papers were released by this DA proving that, under Wade, the DA"s office issued guidelines to its lawyers on how to stack a jury with white jurors, explaining that they should try not to allow "Jews, Negroes, Dagos and Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated." But this, no doubt, was because their primary concern was justice. Right? The State of Texas has executed far more men than any other. The current Governor executed an innocent man, and is trying to keep it under wraps so it won't hurt him politically. But this is all coincidence. Nothing wrong in Texas. No. Nothing at all.

Considering the fact that Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) on JFK HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before, then I think it is fallacious to argue that Salerian is not qualified to make these assertions in his Medical Hypotheses article: In fact, you don't even need to be a qualified MD, as Salerian is, to make these assertions of fact. As discussed in chapter 13b of my online book, the HSCA medical panel was also unqualified to come to any conclusions on the medical evidence. None of them had had sufficient personal experience with wounds caused by military ammunition, and there is no evidence any of them took the time to study papers and reports written by those who had such experience. Dr. Baden was later to admit he made ONE phone call to a pathologist with such experience. That's it. The one wound ballistics expert allowed to testify, Larry Sturdivan, was a statistician, testifying about tests performed on corpses back in 64 that he had no part in analyzing. He reported what he'd been told. He met with the pathology panel once, if I recall, and then months after they'd written the first drafts of their report. The HSCA panel was also allowed to report blind...while they were given the opportunity to read many of the earlier reports and testimony on the medical evidence, there is no evidence that they did so. The papers were merely present in the room when they met. Odds are the majority of them never knew that the autopsy doctors TWICE asserted that the EOP entrance was visible in the autopsy photos, and that the photo the HSCA panel claimed showed Kennedy's forehead was originally purported to represent the back of his head. If they'd had the proper background, and had studied all the evidence, I suspect they never would have went along with the cowlick entrance pushed on them by the Clark Panel. When it fractures upon entrance military ammunition does not leave nice little ovals with no visible scalp tears. (The appearance of the cowlick "entrance".) Nor does it cause large bone fragments ADJACENT to the exit to fly a hundred feet or so through the air. (The apparent distance the Harper fragment traveled.) No, if they'd done their homework, they would have found that 6.5mm full-metal jacketed ammunition had a reputation for creating large tangential wounds, and that the large defect on top of Kennedy's head was a wound of both entrance and exit. (As claimed by Dr. Clark, the first doctor to inspect the wound at Parkland.)

Ha! Thanks Bernice. You can see me back behind the speaker at 8:47, and then again between 9:11--9:14. I was trying to adjust my backpack. That first speaker, BTW, was Mike Brownlow.

Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact. The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest? While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions... NO mention that Oswald, at the time of the Tippit killing, had traversed almost a mile from his rented room, and was still on a direct route to Ruby's apartment, only a half mile away. NO mention of Seth Kantor's assertion Ruby was at Parkland Hospital, which might lead one to think Ruby's involvement pre-existed Oswald's arrest. (And would also lead one to conclude Ruby was a xxxx.) NO mention of DPD officer Billy Grammer's assertion that Ruby called the police station the night before Oswald was to be moved, and warned him that Oswald was going to be killed. NO mention of any dispute about Ruby's coming down the ramp. Yep, that's right. It says Ruby said he came down the ramp without pointing out that this was disputed by the officer guarding the ramp. Of course, this allowed them to hide that the HSCA believed this officer, and that the head of security for the basement, Patrick Dean, failed a polygraph, and had been singled out as a xxxx in 1964 by the Warren Commission counsel tasked with interviewing him. NO mention of Ruby's phone call records, which showed him to have been in ever-growing contact with underworld figures in the months before the assassination. NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington. NO mention of the HSCA's conclusion that Ruby lied on his polygraph. The program did, however, repeat a number of single-assassin theorist factoids. Including... That Oswald brought about his own demise by putting on a sweater, and delaying his departure. This load of crud has been uttered repeatedly by the Dallas Police, but even a marginal study of the evidence indicates the police were not prepared for his departure at the time. I believe several of the officers even indicated that AFTER this supposed delay, Oswald was held in an office for a few minutes before being brought downstairs. The possibility has always existed, and still exists, therefore, that Oswald was held up by the police until Ruby was in place. That Ruby's arrival downtown after 11 indicated he'd not come down to shoot Oswald, but only did it as an afterthought. Dallas PD chief Jesse Curry admitted in his book that, although he'd told the press to be ready for a transfer after 10, he, and therefore most certainly other policeman, KNEW the transfer wouldn't take place till much later. I believe he said after 11. This leaves open the possibility someone on the DPD was in contact with Ruby...perhaps even the same officer who let him in the building. The program also made some really STUPID statements. One glaring moment of "DUH" comes towards the end when the narrator says the fact that Oswald was allowed to live for so long after Kennedy's death indicates he wasn't killed for a reason. HOW could the conspirators know, after all, that he hadn't talked? UGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. ONE, because the Dallas Police were parading every bit of evidence before the press, and had repeatedly TOLD the country Oswald wasn't talking. TWO, pretty much every conspiracy theory worth noting accepts the probability one or more DPD officers or FBI agents were involved on some level. Just a really STUPID statement, IMO, and one designed to confuse newbies unaware of the real issues. In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent. I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation. I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death. Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas County DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.) Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing.

Do they sell Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked?" No. If I recall, I pushed Mack to carry Larry's book several years ago. He said that Lancer had never solicited him to carry the book or some such thing. The store carries two items--First Day Evidence and a 4oth anniversary DVD of WFAA footage--that I had tried to purchase in the past through Amazon, but had found unavailable. Neither of these items has a national distributor. It's clear the museum buys these titles directly from the author and/or producer. So why not buy from Lancer? There's no excuse. Unless, as Mack claimed, Lancer never solicited the buyer on Larry's book.

I am watching the program on Tivo, and have noticed a few mistakes. It has Oswald deny the charges against him (a comment he made on Saturday) before he was even charged with the murder of Kennedy. The scene is captioned "Friday Evening." OOOPS.

While in Dallas for COPA, I decided to check out the 6th Floor Museum's store to see if its book selection had improved since I was last there in 2004. To my pleasant surprise it had. It appears that its selection has improved. It had several books which propose a conspiracy: JFK: the Book of the Film Real Answers by Gary Cornwell The Zapruder Film by David Wrone It had two others which if I recall suggested as much: Brothers by David Talbot Sons and Brothers by Richard Mahoney It also had a few books which, while leaning towards a single-assassin scenario, are informative to interested parties of all stripes: Pictures of the Pain and That Day in Dallas by Richard Trask No More Silence by Larry Sneed And then of course there was Reclaiming History, Four Days in November, First Day Evidence, Mrs. Paine's Garage, the DVD to some of the History and Discovery Channel programs, the DVD to Oswald's Ghost, etc... So...there's still a bias, but it's a lot better than it used to be...

I guess we missed each other, Doug. I was wandering in and out Saturday afternoon. I'm not sure if my presentation, which was right before Wecht, was broadcast or not, but if it was, you might want to check it out. I think it was on Saturday afternoon that someone asked me about Henry Marshall, and Billie Sol Estes, etc in the hallway..., and I mentioned your involvement with Estes and that you'd previously been a lawyer for the Watergate burglars. Little did I imagine that you had either just been or were just about to be in our presence.

If memory serves, and without having gone back to study the films and photos, JFK's head was turned somewhat to the left, leaving the right side of his head facing somewhat towards the front when the bullet struck. If that is correct, then it would appear that the fatal bullet must have come from the right front. I spent a lot of time on this with plumb line and plastic skulls, and came to conclude that Kennedy's right temple was indeed accessible from the sniper's nest at frame 313. His head was tilted to its left in the Z film, but Z was filming from 10 degrees above Kennedy. The Moorman photo shows the true angle of his tilt--about 25 degrees. This lifted the area just above Kennedy's right ear into the space normally occupied by the top of his head, and made it accessible from behind. The outtake of Inside the Target Car showed what happens when a shot from behind hits the edge of the skull in this area--it was a close reproduction of the explosion at 313, much closer than the simulation on the show with the bullet hitting the back of the head..

Ken, publishing the transcript for re-sale or profit is one thing--but I am 99.99% certain you can re-type and re-use what is on the transcript for education purposes under the principle of fair use. People can own a work of fiction, but people can't own a public quote. In Part 3 of my video series, we re-enact an interview of Dr. Humes performed by Dan Rather, where Humes lies through his teeth. We wanted to use the actual interview, to show people Hey! This is real! This good doctor was given a script by the Justice Department and went on national TV and LIED to one of the largest TV audiences of that era. But CBS wanted to charge us a thousand dollars to put a 30 second segment on Youtube, or some such thing. So we just re-shot it, using a comedian friend of the director. CBS owns the footage of what was said, but they do not own what was said, once it's been broadcast. So..the question is has this footage ever been shown publicly?

You're absolutely right. The man was shot multiple times, several times in the head even. It appears that one shooter jumped the gun, literally, and that is the first blow we see impact, apparently on the right top part of the head. The other video purporting to be of Mussolini shows this same impact from a different angle. There we can see that the brain matter not only exploded to the right side of the head, but back of the head. This is what should be seen on the Z-film, but is not. There is no explosion from the back of JFK's head on the Z-film. This is one of the many reasons I've concluded that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame Z-313 did not enter the back of his head.

Pat, in order to sustain the theory that JFK was shot from behind, I have always thought that you need either the Jet Effect theory or the "neuromuscular reaction" theory (or some combination of the two, as the HSCA medical panel claimed) to explain the violent backward "head snap" we see in the Zapruder film. I gather you are arguing that the head shot came from the rear, but I could not find either of these theories discussed in your web article on the "Target Car" Am I missing something? Ray, I wanted to keep that chapter a commentary on the show. I discuss back and to the left etc. in Chapter 16b. As discussed, the Zapruder film makes it clear that Kennedy's head goes back and to the left after the fatal head shot. Conspiracy theorists have long held that this means the shot came from the front. Single-assassin theorists, on the other hand, have pointed out that Kennedy's head initially goes forward, and have used supposedly scientific explanations, the "jet effect" and the "neuro-muscular response," to try and explain Kennedy's subsequent backwards movement. When I started suspecting that the head shot hit Kennedy at the supposed exit, one of the first things I did was slap myself at this exit location from behind, to see if this impact would re-create Kennedy's movements. To my surprise, it did. I subsequently learned that there is a certain elastic recoil in muscle tissue. You stretch it out far enough, and it snaps right back on its own. Some runners learn to use this to their advantage. This led me to believe that Kennedy was hit towards the top of his head, his head was driven down, his chin hit his chest and his head sprang back up from the recoil of his neck muscles. In July 2007, researcher Gil Jesus alerted the Education Forum to a number of videos he found online, depicting head shots. One of these was news footage of a hostage-taker getting killed by a sniper. The shot came in from the man's right. The man's head turned to his left, traveling with the bullet. Then snapped back to his right, facing the sky as he fell to the ground. Not enough fluid was ejected from his head to create the "jet effect." His body failed to stiffen as in a neuro-muscular response. This video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTaYzDrnqk Kennedy contorts in a similar manner, only more vertically. This is consistent with his getting hit more towards the top of his head, at the supposed exit. Should one continue to doubt such a shot occurred, and insist that the “back-and-to-the-left” movement of Kennedy’s skull could only have come from the front, I suggest a simple test. I’ve done it way too many times. Lean forward 30 degrees…tilt your head 25 degrees to your left… and SLAP the top of your skull above your ear downwards, and see what happens. NO. I'M KIDDING. Don’t do this!!! It hurts a bit. Take my word for it, instead,--your head will bounce right up and throw your body backwards, exactly as Kennedy’s did in the frames after the fatal headshot. (By the way, I'm not just making this up. This unique attribute of tangential hits is mentioned in the online paper Wound Ballistic Simulation by Jorma Jusilla, presented at the University of Helsinki: It states “A tangential hit also causes a torsion motion of the head which can cause serious injuries.” According to Funk and Wagnall’s, the word “torsion” means “The act of twisting.” I say that in case you might need to look it up. I did.) In retrospect, the mystery over the cause of Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement should have been solved a long time ago. All the debate over the “man behind the picket fence,” the “jet effect” and “neuro-muscular response” would have been unnecessary if someone used some common sense back in 1964. People knew the bullet broke up. People knew that bullets normally pierce a body without imparting enough energy into the body to throw it one way or the other. People knew that, on the other hand, a bullet striking tangentially, creating a gutter wound, and breaking up, could impart enough energy into someone to slap them one way or the other. People knew as well that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy being slapped back into his seat. The problem, one can only guess, is that the people knowing these things were not the same people. The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Evan, I was so irritated by the program I created a whole chapter on my webpage about it. You can read it here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16c%3Aconfi...ddisappointment If you don't have the time, you might want to just read the captions to the slides in the chapter. In short, I found the program to be deliberately deceptive and dishonest. The irony, for me, is that I agreed with the program's central conclusion--that the head shot probably did not come from in front of Kennedy--and was totally prepared to like it. Boy was I disappointed.

Even more intriguing is that one of the "Chicago mob bosses" sprung by Clark was Johnny Rosselli... I mean, what are the odds? JFK is killed in Dallas on the very day New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello wins his lawsuit against Robert F. Kennedy. At Marcello's side is David Ferrie, who knew Oswald, JFK's supposed assassin. Lyndon Johnson is also rumored to have once been associated with Marcello. Another of Marcello's rumored connections is Tom Clark, a Supreme Court Justice. For a time the public is convinced Oswald acted alone, and then, JUST WHEN the public is starting to ask questions and doubt the official story, Johnson appoints Ramsey Clark, Tom Clark's son, to run the Justice Department. Clark arranges for the autopsy doctors to re-examine the medical evidence; their supposed report is instead written by the Justice Department. Around this same time, Johnny Rosselli, a Chicago mobster who'd once been released under then-attorney general Tom Clark's orders, starts maneuvering to get excused from his most recent run-in with the law. His lawyer leaks to columnist Drew Pearson that the CIA had hired him to kill Castro, and that someway somehow this had backfired and that Castro had killed Kennedy instead. Pearson then meets with Johnson and discusses how they can best use this information. Shortly thereafter, Clark tells Johnson that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison has a key witness, Ferrie, and that Garrison now suspects Johnson's involvement. Literally days later, Ferrie dies unexpectedly, and mysteriously. Shortly after that, Robert F. Kennedy breaks with Johnson over Vietnam, and the next day Drew Pearson's column reports that JFK had been killed after Robert Kennedy's plans to kill Castro had backfired. Weeks later, the Justice Department provides Dr. Humes with "talking points" for an interview on CBS; these talking points amount to an order that Humes lie about the location of Kennedy's back wound so that the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion can be preserved. Over the next year or so, the Justice Department under Clark continues to interfere with Garrison's investigation. Then, in early 1968, within weeks of Johnson's deciding not to run for re-election, and his presumed acceptance that Robert Kennedy might become the next President, he has Clark create a secret panel to re-examine the medical evidence. Aware that the entrance wound on the back of JFK's head does not connect to the large defect presumed to have been an exit, this panel either convinces itself or flat-out lies and determines that the entrance wound was actually 4 inches higher on Kennedy's skull. They then refuse to be interviewed about their findings, and destroy all their notes. Their report is not released for almost a year. It is finally released on the first day of Garrison's trial of Clay Shaw, just a few days before Johnson was to step down from office. Not surprisingly, NONE of the national media even reads the report; they report that the new report refutes Garrison's belief in a conspiracy and supports the Warren Commission. NOT ONE paper notes that Clark's secret panel moved the head wound 4 inches, etc... From this, it certainly seems likely that Clark was brought on board to help with the cover-up. Was he too dumb to see what was going on? Maybe.

John, even if one discounts the practical argument that Oswald worked at the TSBD, Dealey Plaza--particularly that segment of Dealey Plaza--was an ideal location for an assassination attempt. Why? 1. The turn from Houston onto Elm necessitated the limo's cutting its speed roughly in half. Since it was leading a motorcade, moreover, it would not rapidly increase its speed after completing the turn. This was a huge advantage. 2. Elm Street after the turn ran directly away from The Dal-Tex Building. This would serve as as a second huge advantage for a shooter in that location. 3. By having a shooter in the Dal-Tex, the trajectories of the TSBD sniper's nest window would be closely replicated, increasing the chance the shooting could be blamed on a lone "commie". 4. By firing the shots when the limo was heading down Elm, by the knoll, the illusion could be created that the shots came from the front, or even from the south. This would help add to the confusion, and help insure the escape of the snipers.

That's reaching, IMO. Apparently, McHugh claimed from the get-go that LBJ's behavior aboard AF1 had been "obscene". All indications are that McHugh was a Kennedy loyalist. His involvement in a plot seems most unlikely.