Pat Speer

They showed footage from each angle to back up what they said. I don't recall if it was clear, however, if the footage was shot from the absolute top of the slope, or just towards the top of the slope. It was interesting, however, that from this angle the bullet passed through the windshield quite close to where there was a defect in the windshield. Of course, that defect was supposedly caused from the other direction. They failed to discuss this in an intelligent fashion, of course. It was "Look, this trajectory would pass through the windshield! Next!"

Here is my discussion of Inside the Target Car. It includes a number of images, demonstrating my points. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16c%3Aconfi...ddisappointment

I just watched the program and was not surprised by the usual mischief. Much like their horrible production Beyond the Magic Bullet, they ignored a bunch of evidence in order to test something, tested it, found it DID NOT tell them what they wanted to find, and LIED and said it did--hiding from their viewers that the test failed. Sickening. But helpful to me personally. In chapters 15 thru 17 at patspeer.com, I discuss wound ballistics in great detail, and conclude that (1) FMJ bullets like the ones fired in the supposed assassin's rifle create large gutter wounds of both entrance and exit when fired at a shallow angle in the skull, and (2) a bullet impacting at the HSCA location from the sniper's nest WOULD NOT create a small entrance on the back of the skull, travel a few inches, and then erupt in a large explosion, as supposedly happened on JFK, but create a gutter wound. The sniper's nest head shot in this program, fired at the HSCA entrance, behaved exactly as predicted. Of course, the program failed to note that they'd created one large head wound, and not one small one and one large one. They simply pretended that getting some brains to fly forward proved Kennedy was shot as proposed by the HSCA. What nonsense!

Bill, Mitrokhin claimed the Dear Mr. Hunt was not created to embarrass Mark Lane. but the U.S. Government. The KGB forged the letter in an effort to tie Howard Hunt to the assassination at the height of Watergate, but for whatever reason--evidently caution--Penn Jones and other recipients of the letter held up its circulation for several years, by which time many CTs assumed the Hunt in the letter was H.L. Hunt. While Mitrokhin is often cited by LNs as proof the CT community was commie-influenced, a close read of Mitrokhin's statements indicates the KGB's efforts to infiltrate and influence the CT community failed, and that the CT community was beyond their control.

I'm guessing the program is gonna show some tests demonstrating that Kennedy's head wounds, as officially interpreted, are incompatible with a shot from the grassy knoll. They are then gonna claim they've proved that no shot came from the front, and thus that there was no conspiracy. What they won't say is that the vast majority of CTs, for many years now, have made this very same claim--that the head wounds (as officially interpreted) are incompatible with a shot from the front. CTs of course take from this that the official interpretation is incorrect. I'd be surprised if this program gets into this. So Don, what contributions did you make to the program? Just after making this post, NBC ran a report on the upcoming program. The blurb they showed said exactly what I thought it was gonna say--that we tested shots from the front, blah blah blah, and they show the shot must have come from behind. But did they get a piece of bone to explode from the skull and land 100 feet away? I'd bet my life they did not. I can pretty much guarantee they'll claim they replicated JFK's head wounds, when they did not.

Bad analogy, Wim, but if you want OJ, it IS like saying I have no quarrels with the way OJ was convicted in his recent trial in Nevada. J Dave Perry quite rightly points out that neither Files nor Judith is a credible person, and I know of very, very few researchers who still doubt that Dave is right. I do not agree with Dave that the La Fontaine's solved the three tramp mysteries,( or any other mysteries) but I have not investigated the tramps enough to have a firm opinion about Chauncey Holt. If Dave is correct that the ONLY corroboration for Holt's story comes from James Files, then I would run a mile in a New York Minute -- in the opposite direction. A word to the wise, Wim: Dave Perry is no more infallible than I am, but when he speaks people pay attention, as I discovered recently in the thread entitled Detective Paul Bentley. Thanks to Dave Perry's timely intervention, the New York Times published a correction acknowledging a significant error in it's recent reporting on the JFK assassination. Ray, please tell us more about this. I'm not aware of the Times publishing a correction about anything to do with the assassination. They just report weird stories making people think there was a conspiracy, and then quote experts saying there was no conspiracy, and then sum things up by saying something like--"Well, we'll never know anything beyond that Oliver Stone is a xxxx." The lack of curiosity and insight by the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has been most perplexing. If Perry (and Mack for that matter) have reached the level of acceptance whereby the Times will actually listen to a logical argument from them that could be a good thing. Mack, while defending the official story 90% of the time, remains a conspiracy theorist. I think Perry leans to no conspiracy, but is uncommitted. Their influence, over time, could do a lot to offset the agenda-driven ravings of Posner and Bugliosi.

I've read it and consider it outstanding. I'm not sure if people looking for a smoking gun or proof-positive there was a conspiracy will be satisfied, but anyone reading the book should come out amazed at the number of strange characters and weird leads. The book would make a great mini-series, IMO. Although I've never subscribed to the "single-assassin theorists are all cognitively-challenged" argument, I will venture that anyone reading this book and still feeling absolutely sure Oswald acted alone is lacking curiosity, and lacking understanding of their own lack of understanding. As per the bard, speaking through Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Dick Russell has showed us some of those things.

This program sounds like another orchestrated lie, a la Beyond the Magic Bullet. I'm finally starting to face the fact that this program is not a series of out-takes, but a brand new program designed to rehash the same old lies. I wrote the producers of this series a few years back and went through Beyond the Magic Bullet point by point, scene by scene, demonstrating beyond any doubt that the program was incredibly deceptive. I never received a response. That they have popped back up to tell more lies without ever addressing the issues I raised by the last one is most disappointing. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt--I tend to believe that people like Bugliosi and Posner actually believe their nonsense, and lie due to some blind spot or reckless disregard for the truth. But I find it hard to believe the producers of these programs have any interest in the truth. They're just spinning factoids to fit an agenda, and impress someone they want to impress. And depressing the heck out of those actually concerned with the truth. Oh well, it looks like I'll have to add another section to chapter 12b.

While it's true that many Democrats have been dismissive of LBJ's involvement, and have even conspired to shut down investigations into his involvement, it's not fair to say that Republicans have been open to his involvement. Republicans--particularly today's Republicans--interpret the possibility that Kennedy was killed for a reason, any reason, and that the government failed to bring the culprits to justice, as an attack on AMERICA. Or more specifically, Reagan's America, the land of the free home of the brave, shining mansion on the hill blah blah blah. It's not a coincidence that the only fruitful investigations into Kennedy's death post-LBJ occurred during the Carter and Clinton Administrations, and that Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush family did everything they could to prevent important information from coming forward. The Nixon White House not only interfered with the investigation of Kennedy's death, they created fake documents to make it look like Kennedy was directly responsible for Diem's death. The HSCA, which was barely able to function during the Carter years, asked the Justice Department to investigate further during the years to follow, and the Reagan Justice Department did nothing besides report that they had debunked the dictabelt evidence. Bush I did help create the ARRB, but only after it became clear the public wanted it, and it came to a vote just before an election. Bush II's Administration has refused to follow the law his father had signed, and has refused to release pertinent information (e.g. Joanniddes).

So let's get this straight... After years of speculation about who ordered the break-in, Magruder says Mitchell talked to Nixon in his presence, and he heard Nixon tell Mitchell "You need to do that." Result: no one wants to believe him. Similarly, after years of speculation about the identity of Deep Throat, Bob Woodward says it was Mark Felt. Result: people who previously thought it was someone else convince themselves it was who they originally thought it was, and that Woodward is part of some conspiracy to hide the real identity of Deep Throat. Never mind that everyone else who'd been told Deep Throat's identity confirms that the name they'd been told back in the day was Felt. Never mind that Nixon himself knew Felt was leaking. Never mind that of all the "suspects" of being Deep Throat, Felt is actually the suspect one would least have wanted to make a "patsy", as he was pretty much running the FBI, and engaging in illegal wire-tapping and break-ins with no-one's approval but his own. While Nixon and Mitchell's simply being corrupt may not seem sexy or interesting to some hoping for something a little spicier, it is actually the worst scenario one can reasonably imagine. CIA chiefs can be fired, and the CIA can be re-organized. The Office of the President has only gained in power since Watergate. The Attorney General is STILL more likely to be a political hatchet-man than a conscientious protector of the American people even against its President. The challenge to the American people, then as now, is to find a way to keep Presidential corruption in check by assuring that the Justice Department is not twisted to the President's political advantage. Perhaps the long-overdue investigation of Gonzales' activities will shine some light on this problem, and lead to some sort of compromise whereby a special office of the congress keeps a constant eye on the Justice Department. But I wouldn't bet on it. The President has too much power, and the weakness of his character is amplified by this power. We've seen this with Nixon, who was totally unqualified--personality-wise--to be President. And we've seen this with the current President. And we'll see it again.

I think there's a difference between corruption and delusion. I believe Nixon was more corrupt than Reagan or Bush 41, in that he would unblinkingly discuss hush money and such in the oval office. I think it's also likely he knowingly got kickbacks from Meyer Lansky et al via Rebozo. Reagan and Bush 41, however, were quite possibly more deluded. All the evidence is that Reagan honestly divided the world into good people and bad people and felt that commies were the bad people and that as President it was his job to fight bad people. Once he got to know Gorbachev, however, he melted a bit, and thought it would be just peachy to get rid of all the nukes. Bush 41, on the other hand, was a soldier of the MIC, and would never countenance such a thing. He saw that a strong U.S. military was a necessary component of the "new world order" he envisioned. Bush revealed his corruption, however, after leaving office, when he cashed in on his "public service" via the Carlisle Group, and traveled round the country speaking to those who'd most benefited from his policies, for a million bucks a speech. (They were tipping the help.) The current President, IMO, is the worst of them all. He swallowed whole-heartedly the culture war engineered by Nixon, and bled those he considered enemies of the righteous (liberals, the poor, the uneducated, those suckered into fighting his dirty war) for the benefit of his "base". He threw out the Geneva convention when inconvenient, threw out the Constitution when inconvenient, reserved the right to interpret laws as HE felt they should be interpreted, and not as written, and re-organized the Justice Department as a wing of the GOP. He stole an election, possibly two, and drained every penny from the future of this country into the pockets of a select few. If the populace hadn't been distracted by reality TV and the hope that next time we'll do better, they'd have risen up and lynched him a long time ago.

Stephen, I guess our resident Larouche devotee doesn't read this section. May I inject that Britain only sucked in the seventies to throw Larouche and his detectives off its trail? Sort of a "limited hang-out" if you will. Always one step ahead. Only thing is... I can't figure out who's to blame for the whole punk thing. I'd like to say the Sex Pistols and The Clash, but something tells me they'd point back to the Ramones, New York Dolls, and Stooges, who'd in turn point back to the Stones, who'd in turn point back to Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, and Howlin' Wolf. Hmmm... OH THAT'S RIGHT... Howlin' Wolf was totally gaga over Vera Lynn!

Why do you assume that a bullet penetrated his sleeve? Jack Officially, the bullet exiting Connally's chest entered the back side of Connally's jacket sleeve, and both entered and exited his shirt sleeve. I'm trying to establish the precise locations of these bullet holes, but can't find an actual photo of them. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0080b.htm http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0081a.htm

Like a lot of people, I've read a ton about Kennedy's wounds but have mostly neglected Connally's, outside his chest wound. Today, however, I decided to look at the holes in Connally's shirt and jacket sleeves to see if they support the official story re the wrist wound. The Warren Commission and HSCA photos are pathetic, and show basically nothing. Does anyone know of any other photos of his shirt and coat? Thanks, Pat

Terry, if you can arrange a debate between myself and ole Lyndon on the topic of music and its role in society, I promise to wipe up the floor with him. I have 25 gold and platinum records on my wall. I have had thousands of meetings with label owners and artists. And not once has anyone mentioned "Geez, if only people were more scared, they might buy our record." That's not the way it works. People sell freedom ("this band is really wild and wears a lot of funky costumes and the kids are gonna wanna be like them") and friendship ("this guy's songs are so personal you feel like he's confessing his soul to you and you wanna be his friend") and sex ('Just look at her, she's gorgeous, and listen to that voice, she's gonna be a star.") If there's any music that feeds off fear, it's country music. Was Johnny Cash part of a British plot? Maybe we should ask ole Lyndon what he thinks about Toby Keith. BTW: reggae music was ANTI-British, and many of its leaders were persecuted by the Jamaican police. P.S. I found Chaitkin's book quite provocative, and considered it somewhat credible--particularly as it related to Aaron Burr. Your posts demonstrating that his research was only part of an over-all scheme designed to blame everything on the Brits, however, makes me doubt it has any merit whatsoever. And George Shulz is not a Nazi! He was probably the most moderate leader of the Reagan/Bush era. Calling him a Nazi has no more merit than calling Obama a communist via his connection to Frank Marshall Davis.

No one truly familiar with American blues, jazz, and rock and roll music can honestly believe that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" was a British invention. It was quite the opposite. The Brits were so uptight that the playing of Bill Haley's song "Rock Around the Clock" in The Blackboard Jungle caused riots. Elvis' cultural impact on Britain and the world dwarfed that of the Beatles. AMERICAN Rock N Roll changed the world. The fact that some boys from Liverpool, under its influence, were able to modify it a bit and change America as well, is not a sign of any conspiracy. Music was and is a two-way street. Reggae music grew out of American R & B. Now I suppose we'll be told that Bob Marley was part of some British conspiracy to blind us all with ganja. Oooh, maybe he was murdered so he wouldn't spill the beans. Call me superstitious but I say never trust anyone named Lyndon. I have Chaitkin's Treason in America in my bathroom. Seeing where these anti-British rants lead makes me want to flush it.

I'm wondering if any of the Brits on the Forum are familiar with any British cult figures claiming that everything bad in the UK came courtesy of the States. It's clear that the British invasion was heavily influenced by the music of American "negroes". It's also clear that the musicians of the British invasion were first introduced to psychedelic drugs via American musicians. I wasn't there, of course, but it's been reported that the cultural impact of American GI's on British culture during WWII was significant. One wonders then if there are Brits who see the decadence and decay of modern society as an American import.

This thread is surreal.

With Day's death, another door closes. Everyone said he was a nice guy. But he was undoubtedly involved in some hanky-panky. His statements about the paper bag supposedly used by Oswald to transport his rifle into the TSBD smell to high heaven. From patspeer.com, chapter 4: According to the report of the Dallas Detective who found the bag, L.D. Montgomery, the bag was initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon its discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314). All three of these men testified before the Warren Commission in Dallas on 4-6-64. So why weren't any of them shown the bag, or asked to verify their initials? Was it simply because the counsel taking their testimony had left the bag behind in Washington? Perhaps. The bag was indeed shown to the FBI's fingerprint analyst, Sebastian Latona, during his 4-2-64 testimony in Washington. And it reappeared on 4-22-64, in Washington, during the testimony of Dallas Crime Lab Chief Lt. J.C. Day. Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box? Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here. Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack. Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture. Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall. Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember? Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge. (Note: this suggests that Day was not present when the bag or sack was discovered.) Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142. Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate? Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI. Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day." Mr. BELIN. When did you write that? Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession. (Note: when he says "our possession" he presumably means the possession of the Dallas Police, who had the bag until 11:45 or so that evening, when they purportedly gave it to the FBI. This leaves a large window in which he could have written his name on the bag or sack.) Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day." Well, why is there no mention of the other men's initials on this sack? Now consider the next bit of Day's testimony... Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this? Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no. Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place? Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24. Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these? Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver nitrate. Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a---- Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for fingerprints. Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you found it? Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at all. Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it? Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you? Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in. Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Well, hold on there. According to the reports of the Dallas Police (24H260) and the officers involved (24H314, 24H307) the paper bag by the sniper's nest was both discovered and brought in to the Dallas Police Crime Lab by Detectives L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson. So why does Day, who's already IDed his initials on the bag, and failed to mention that they initialed it before him, fail to mention that they brought the bag into the Crime Lab, and instead mention Hicks and Studebaker? Is he really that forgetful? Or is he trying to hide something? In his 3:45 PM April 6 testimony, Detective Studebaker never mentions Detectives Johnson and Montgomery when he discusses picking up and dusting the bag. He also fails to mention Day. He marks some photos to show where he first saw the bag. (7H137-149) In his 4:00 PM April 6 testimony, just after Studebaker, Detective Johnson mentions Montgomery's finding the bag and the bag's being dusted for fingerprints at the scene, but fails to mention who dusted the bag. (7H100-105) In his 4:50 PM April 6 testimony, Detective Montgomery mentions his finding the bag and the bag's being dusted by Studebaker. Strangely, however, he is less sure than the others that the bag was laying on the floor in the corner. He testifies: "Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was...I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there." (Even stranger, years later, he told Larry Sneed "I don't remember exactly where I found the brown paper that Oswald had wrapped the rifle in...I recall that it was stuffed between the boxes, not lying out open on the floor as were the shell casings.") Montgomery's testimony is vague on other points as well. When asked if he picked the bag up off the ground upon discovery, as claimed by Johnson, he at first says "Yes" but then changes his answer to "Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did." (7H96-100) For his part, in his April 7 testimony, Detective Hicks not only expressed that he had no recollection of seeing the bag in the building, but seemed to know nothing of it at all, as if its existence had been kept a secret. (7H286-289). So why did Day think he left him holding the bag? The testimony of another Dallas detective, Richard N. Sims, on the morning of April 6, 1964, only adds to the confusion. When asked if he'd seen the paper bag found in the depository, Sims testified: Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there. Mr. BALL. Where did you see it? Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls. Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls? Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was. Mr. BALL. On the east side of where the boxes were would that be the east? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some loose paper there. Mr. BALL. Was Johnson there? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found. Mr. BALL. To stay there? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. That was Marvin Johnson and L. D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; they did. I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls. (7H158-186). My, what a mess! Sims acknowledges that Johnson and Montgomery were stationed by the hulls (which were found by the sniper's nest) and seems to be aware that they "found" the bag, but never mentions witnessing the "discovery" of the bag, nor of Day or Studebaker's dusting the bag upon its discovery. Sims also describes the "bag" as "loose paper," and not as a carefully folded and taped piece of wrapping paper in the shape of a gun case. He also "guesses" the location where the bag was found. Even worse, Captain Will Fritz testified that Sims was with him when he left the depository, and that he (Fritz, who was only in charge of the investigation) had no knowledge of the paper bag before their departure. (4H202-248) This indicates that Sims had but a vague recollection that some paper was found, but had no real recollection of its appearance or of its discovery, even though he had stood but a few feet from the bag's purported location when picking up the hulls from the sniper's nest, and had accompanied Lt. Day from this location after the discovery of the rifle on the other side of the building. This, in turn, suggests that either no one placed much importance on the "bag" when it was first found in the depository, and that its possible importance only became apparent later on, or that Sims was trying to support that a bag was found in the sniper's nest without actually having seen it. In support of this second, more disturbing, possibility, Detective Sims' report on his activities on the day of the assassination makes no mention whatsoever of the bag or its discovery. (Sims' report on his activities can be found in Box 3, folder 4 of the Dallas Kennedy Archives.) Perhaps aware of this problem with the bag and its discovery, on April 9, 1964, Warren Commission counsel David Belin took the testimony of Dallas Motorcycle officer E.D. Brewer, who claimed to have been on the sixth floor during the search of the depository, and to have seen a "relatively long paper sack" in the southeast corner of the building. Unfortunately for Belin, he didn't stop there: Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like? Mr. BREWER. Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that. Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle? Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed. (6H306-308). Brewer also testified he was present when the rifle was found. The problem with his testimony is that, as we've seen, Captain Will Fritz testified that the bag was not "found" or discussed until after the rifle was discovered, and that he was not aware of it at any time before he left the building a short time after the rifle's discovery around 1:25. If the bag had been discovered, dusted, and discussed before the discovery of the rifle, or even before Fritz left the building shortly thereafter, certainly someone more involved in the investigation than a common motorcycle officer would have remembered this fact, and have remembered it long before 4 1/2 months after the assassination. The bottom line of all this testimony is that none of these men mention Day's initialing or dusting the bag in the depository, and that Montgomery and Studebaker specifically recall that Studebaker was the one who did the dusting. Studebaker also claimed to have found a "partial print" on the bag, and to have put a piece of 1 inch clear tape over it to "preserve" the print. (7H137-149) The FBI's Sebastian Latona, who examined the bag the next morning, testified that he could tell the bag had been previously examined by the "black fingerprint powder" on its surface, but noted further that "There was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there at that particular time". (4H1-48) Well, what happened to the partial print discovered by Studebaker? Could the bag or sack removed from the sniper's nest have been smudged with someone other than Oswald's fingerprints? The Dallas PD's Case Report claims Day lifted a print from the "paper rifle was wrapped in" (24H249). As we've seen Day testified "no legible print was found". Well, it follows then that an "illegible" print was found. If this is so, then what happened to it? More to the point, could the sack initialed by Day and placed into evidence by the FBI have been a different sack entirely than the one found in the sniper's nest by Montgomery, and dusted by Studebaker? Amazingly, yes. Consider the next section of Lt. Day's testimony: Mr. BELIN. Did you ever get the kind of sample used at the School Book Depository? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, I had the bag listed as---- Mr. BELIN. Commission Exhibit 626 or 142. Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag. Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do? Mr. DAY. Sir? Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench. Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 677, I will ask you to state if you know what this is. Mr. DAY. This is the tape and paper collected from the first floor in the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Does this have any identification marks on it? Mr. DAY. It has my name, "J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department," and also in my writing, "Shipping Department." Mr. BELIN. Any other writing on there that you recognize? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; Detective Studebaker, who was with me, and in his writing it says, "Paper sample from first floor, Texas School Book Depository, Studebaker, 11-22-63." The tape also has Studebaker's writing on it, "Tape sample from first floor." (4H 249-278) There is no mention of the size of this sample. As it was not considered evidence, furthermore, it was not even photographed by the Dallas Police in its original state (as far as I've been able to ascertain). An 11-26-63 report by the FBI's Vincent Drain on his flights from and to Dallas with the primary evidence, moreover, notes that "sample of brown paper used by Texas School Book Depository and brown tape used by Texas School Book Depository were not returned since Chief Curry stated these were not evidence and had only been sent to the FBI Laboratory for comparison purposes." (CD5 p161). As this decision was made before the FBI gained jurisdiction over the case it suggests that the Dallas Police were not particularly concerned about the samples at this time. Perhaps they'd felt they could have the FBI testify that the sample paper and sample tape matched the bag and tape placed into evidence without having the samples placed into evidence as well. Or perhaps this indicates that the FBI, having helped the Dallas Police with the creation of a new and improved bag complete with Oswald's fingerprints, thought it a waste of time and an unnecessary risk to send back to Dallas a sample far smaller than the sample originally obtained by Day, and as seen by other Dallas detectives not in on their scam. Adding to this possibility is that, on June 9, 1964, as a response to a May 20th Warren Commission request, the FBI took the paper bag back to Dallas, and inadequately traced back its chain of custody. While the chain of custody on the other items brought back to Dallas--the various bullets, cartridges, and bullet fragments related to the assassination, and even the blanket used by Oswald to store his rifle in the Paine family's garage--were traced back to the first ones to discover them, the brown paper bag was never shown to Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker, the three men who first saw the bag in the depository, and who reportedly initialed it on the premises. It was shown to just one man: Lt. J.C. Day. The words to this report are as follows: "On June 9, 1964, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited the wrapping-paper bag, C10, by Special Agent Vincent E. Drain, Federal Bureau of Investigation. After examining this bag, Lieutenant Day advised he could positively identify this bag as the one he and Detective R.L. Studebaker found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Lieutenant Day stated this paper bag was marked on November 22, 1963 by him. This bag was subsequently delivered on November 22, 1963 to Special Agent Vincent E. Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C., for examination." (24H418). Notice that there's no mention of Montgomery and Johnson, the detectives who, according to the Dallas Police Department's own records, found the bag and took it over to the crime lab. (24H260). Notice also that Day says only that he marked the bag on the 22nd, not that he marked it on the scene. Notice as well that the agent tracing the chain of evidence, Vincent Drain, was the one who first took the bag to Washington, and the one who later claimed returning the paper sample to Dallas was unnecessary. Day's claim that he found the bag, and Drain's failure to track down Montgomery and Johnson, and even Studebaker--who'd previously testified that they'd found the bag--is undoubtedly suspicious to those even slightly prone to suspicion. But, wait, it gets even more suspicious. Drain had discussed the bag with Day at an earlier time as well. An 11-30-63 report by Drain on an 11-29-63 interview of Day reveals: "Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory. Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129). Beyond offering us yet another witness purported to have seen the bag in the depository not shown the bag at a later date by either the Warren Commission or FBI (Roy Truly) this report has numerous, undoubtedly suspicious, errors. The report makes out that Day himself found the bag. There's no mention at all of Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker, nor of Studebaker's claim in an 11-22 FBI report that he was the one to find the bag.(CD5, p129) The report also errs in that it says the bag was "immediately locked up by Day", and that it was not exhibited to anyone else. This conceals that on this same day, 11-29-63, Drain interviewed Dallas detective R.D. Lewis who acknowledged giving Buell Wesley Frazier a polygraph on 11-22 during which Frazier was shown the bag and refused to identify it as the bag he saw that morning. (CD7, p291). Is it just a coincidence that Drain's report on Day, containing false information, was written up on 11-30, and included in the FBI report of 11-30, and that Drain's report on Lewis, conducted on the same day, wasn't written up till 12-1 and forwarded to Washington till 12-10, after the completion of the FBI's 12-9 summary report given to the President and Warren Commission, and leaked to the press? There is also this to consider. In Lieutenant Day's official report on his activities on the day of the assassination, written up on 1-08-64, he completely fails to mention his "discovery" of the bag. Instead, he says he was pulled from the sniper's nest, where he'd been photographing the hulls, at 1:25 PM, to photograph and inspect the rifle found on the other side of the building. He then left the building at 2:00 PM in order to transport the rifle to the crime lab. According to this report he did not return to the building until 2:45 PM. (26H829-831) Big problem.The reports of detectives L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson reflect that they transported the bag over to the crime lab about 2:30.(24H314, 24H307) This suggests that Day never even saw the bag in the depository, or that he saw it only briefly but thought nothing of it while photographing the area. Adding to this probability is that the 4-1-64 FBI report on Roy Truly's recollections of the bag reflects only that Truly remembered giving paper samples to Lt. Day "on the afternoon of November 22, 1963," but makes no mention of his being shown the paper bag found in the sniper's nest, as purported in Drain's 11-29 report. (FBI file 105-82555, sec 142, p15). Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, support that he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered". In an interview with Larry Sneed, published in 1998, he said "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't." Furthermore, in 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Tellingly, he never describes his first seeing the bag, only that there was a bag, and that it was found by...someone. There are other reasons to doubt the story recounted by Drain. It seems highly unlikely that Day could photograph, dust and study the rifle as purported, return to the sniper's nest, discover the bag, show the bag to Roy Truly, transport the bag downstairs, and get paper and tape samples from the shipping table--all in less than 35 minutes, mind you--and then decide to take the rifle over to the crime lab and leave the bag behind. It seems much more likely that he worked on the rifle exclusively before taking it to the crime lab, and that the story of his finding the bag and comparing the paper of the bag to the paper at the shipping table is an orchestrated lie. Perhaps this lie was created to hide that Day took the paper sample later that afternoon, after the paper bag found in the school book depository was inspected and found to have no connection to Oswald or the rifle. Perhaps this is paranoid nonsense. We may never know. Drain's report on R.D. Lewis presents still another problem, though not an insurmountable one. Although Day testified that "the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m." Lewis claimed it was shown to Frazier during Frazier's polygraph examination. Well, when was this polygraph examination? Drain's report on Lewis doesn't say. According to the report of Officers Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik, the detectives tasked with picking up Frazier after the shooting, however, "R.D. Lewis arrived on the fourth floor about 11:20 PM and conducted the polygraph examination until approximately 12:10 AM 11-23-63." (21H602). Unless Frazier was shown the bag towards the beginning of his examination, he would have to have been shown a different bag than the one released to the FBI. There is another question that is harder to explain. The only photo of the paper bag in the Dallas Police Archives is a photo in box 12 folder 7 file 1. Its description reads "Photograph of the evidence sent to the FBI. Date unknown." The bag in this photo appears to be about 8 inches wide and could quite possibly be the bag in the FBI and Warren Commission photos. The bag appears to be discolored, however, which suggests that this is a photo of the bag after its return from the FBI Crime Laboratory, where it had been discolored by silver nitrate. This photo makes a second appearance in Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's 1969 book JFK Assassination File. Here it is listed as "Evidence released to the FBI Laboratory for tests." Curry lists all the items in the photograph, however, and this tells us what we need to know. Item #5 is listed as "Textile fibers found on the left side of the butt plate of the recovered rifle." These fibers were officially undetected in Dallas, and only discovered during an examination in the FBI Crime Lab on 11-23. This proves that this photograph was taken after the return of the evidence to Dallas. So why did the Dallas crime scene investigators not only fail to photograph the paper bag when found on the scene in the school book depository, but at any time on the day of the assassination? Something's undoubtedly wrong here.

I agree with those critical of Dallek. I touch on the media's obsession with Kennedy's personal life, while refusing to fully investigate his death, in chapter 19 at patspeer.com. "In the 2003 book Four Days in November, Tom Wicker, the long-time White House correspondent for the New York Times and a witness to the chaos of Dealey Plaza from behind the windows of a press bus, offered a mea culpa of sorts, explaining how those so close to a big story like the assassination might miss it. He wrote: “After long and unhappy consideration of my own and others’ failure, I believe we didn’t work hard enough to get behind the surface to reality. In the early 1960’s, in what still was basically the Washington of the 1950’s, still under the spell of Eisenhower the father figure, White House reporters, including me—were not skeptical enough, challenging enough, diligent enough, dedicated enough to the watchdog function of the press, its best reason for First Amendment protection. We didn’t work hard enough to find out the facts, and that meant we didn’t do our duty as reporters. Many critics—of the press…believe that reporters… “covered up”…I believe the greater fault was a complacent belief among reporters like me that we were being told what we needed to know and that what we were being told was the truth. “Handout journalism” still was the custom of the day, until dislodged by the lies of Vietnam and Watergate—dislodged, at that, only among those willing to learn the lesson.” Pretty powerful words…about as scathing an attack on the complacency of the White House press as one will find from a long-time journalist. Sadly, however, Wicker was not talking about the failure of the Washington press to accurately report the assassination and its subsequent investigation, but its failure to tell the world the sordid details about President Kennedy’s sex life. Feel free to scream.

Terry, how does your former hero Che Guevara connect to all this? It seems he must be involved, someway, somehow.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that Terry's having a bit of fun. She's too independent-minded to swallow the Larouche nonsense whole. No, I'm guessing she brought this up as an ironic commentary on the recent Republican shift of tactics. As exemplified by some of Craig Lamson's posts, despite nearly everyone's initial agreement that the current financial crisis was brought about by "Wall Street greed" and the "climate of deregulation" fostered by Reagan/Bush/McCain, many conservatives are now trying to claim that the real culprits are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and those darned greedy poor people. This IS as absurd as blaming the Kennedy assassination on Bertrand Russell, who, after all, was the first major international intellectual figure to cast doubts upon the Warren Report and embrace the rantings of the otherwise-marginalized Mark Lane. I hope I'm right. If not, Terry's bound to respond by saying that Russell's embrace of Lane was part of the plot, and designed to throw us off the trail, and that, furthermore, Mark Lane himself was witting of this. She might then cite the FBI files proving that Mark Lane had...sex. I would then be forced to ask Terry if her former employer Hugh Hefner was part of the plot, as he not only gave Jim Garrison a forum for his views, throwing Americans off the trail of the real assassins, but had, years earlier, set the table for the main course of British-flavored sex and drugs by showing the curious and not yet horny Marilyn Monroe's boobies. I might then ask her if Hugh had had Marilyn whacked (which would have been a bit of a twist, seeing as Hugh's publishing of her pictures had provoked so much whacking by others), so she could not warn Jack what was a-coming, or tell Dorothy Kilgallen what had happened on the day after it came. (Note here that Peter Lawford was the last one to talk to Monroe, and that he was...British. Perhaps then it was he who did the whacking, to shut Marilyn up before she could warn Bobby of Hugh and Bertrand's plans for whacking Jack.)

BINGO, Craig, you're finally beginning to see the light. The pros and cons of any policy should be constantly re-analyzed. As Clinton's presidency ended with the country in rapid ascent, HIS policies can only be judged a success. As Bush not only failed to correct these policies when they showed signs of being not-so-good, but added to it by deregulation of the financial markets, and by artificially keeping interest rates low so that he could be re-elected in 2004, he alone is responsible for what happened 7 1/2 years after his taking office. Blaming Clinton for this would be like Clinton blaming Bush I for a bad environmental policy in 2000. HUH? You've only had 7 years to correct it--what kind of incompetent are you? That said, the vast majority of these loans were made in recent years, after the tech bubble burst and, lured by artificially low interest rates, people started buying houses instead. I live in California where EVERYONE I know has seen the historic rise in housing prices when compared against income. EVERYONE I know has been discussing the impending CRASH of the housing market for at least 4 years. So why didn't Bush and his boys do something about this? Hmmm... could it be because they were hoping that the CRASH would happen on someone else's watch? It was ridiculous when Bush supporters tried to blame Clinton for 9/11, when Bush had been in office for months and had done absolutely nothing to go after Bin Laden, and it's even more ridiculous for them to try and blame Clinton for the current financial mess.

The "CRA is to blame" argument has been totally debunked by researcher after researcher, journalist after journalist. Craig's defense of it is most disturbing, and perhaps indicative that he likes the taste of Konservative Kool-Aid...the same Kool-Aid that has led McCain to propose that the best way out of this mess is to cut taxes on the rich. Here is one such debunking by a blogger named Rick Holmes: "The intensity of blame game being waged over the financial crisis requires a constant supply of new targets. It’s been blamed on Phil Gramm, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, greedy bankers, spendthrift borrowers and affordable housing advocates. The latest target is a well-regarded federal law that has been on the books since 1977: the Community Reinvestment Act. According to the current line in the conservative media echo chamber, the CRA forced banks to give subprime loans to minorities in poor neighborhoods who are credit risks. Those irresponsible poor folks couldn’t keep up their payments and now the economy is going down the tubes. If you’re not turned off by the undertone of blaming the victims, you might find this explanation plausible - as long as you don’t know much about the CRA. Here are three things you should know about it: 1. The CRA doesn’t require loans to be made; it requires that the same rules apply to people seeking mortgages in poor neighborhoods as those buying in other neighborhoods. “Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety, according to the Fed’s CRA Web site, “To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.” 2. The CRA only applies to banks and thrifts whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. Mortgage companies like Countrywide and cheapmortgage.com aren’t CRA banks. Eighty percent of subprime mortgage loans weren’t covered by the CRA. 3. The CRA only works in designated low-income neighborhoods. As Rep. Jim McGovern noted in Hopkinton Wednesday, the CRA has nothing to do with a mortgage on a $500,000 home in Hopkinton, let alone a $800,000 home. Yes, some low-income, urban neighborhoods have been especially hard hit by foreclosures, but poor families live closer to the edge and are always the first hurt when the economy turns. But because CRA banks operate under more supervision, the failure rate for those mortgages is well below that of non-CRA lenders. The CRA is declared innocent. Next target?" Another frequent target of those drinking the Konservative Kool-Aid is Freddie and Fannie, and the ties of Democrats to same. This neglects that the Republicans had control of congress for 12 of the past 13 1/2 years, and the control of the Presidency for the last 7 and a half years. Trying to blame this economic meltdown on Carter and Clinton and the Democrats is like trying to blame World War II on President Woodrow Wilson. SORRY... IT JUST DOESN'T FLY!!! That conservatives have resorted to this kind of "dog ate my homework" nonsense indicates that a wheel has come off the short bus. Time to re-think what was never properly thunk.

In a recent attack on Jim DiEugenio, Dale Myers boasted that when I got him to admit that his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted and misleading he was in reality handing me my head. Hmmm... From Myers' website: "I was grilled for seven hours by eight world-class producers in New York City prior to the decision by ABC News to use my work in the 2003 Peter Jennings special (now seen in repeats on the History Channel), after which news executives took it a step further and arranged to have Z Axis Corporation, world-renowned specialists in computer generated reconstructs for courtroom presentations, examine my computer models and methodology first hand. Their report is available here for all to see, as Mr. DiEugenio well knows. What obviously chaffs Mr. DiEugenio’s backside is his own inability to get anyone with authority interested in anything he has to say about the case. Boo-hoo. What does Mr. DiEugenio offer to counter the vetting of my computer work by highly qualified individuals? Get a load of this: “… [Myers] simulation has been thoroughly skewered at least four times, once by David Mantik (Probe Vol. 2 No. 3), twice by Milicent Cranor, in The Fourth Decade Vol. 2 No. 4 and here, and by Pat Speer. The amazing thing about these critiques is this: there is very little overlap in the deconstructions. Which means that on every possible angle the Myers simulation was open to very effective attack…” Effective attack? Come now, Jim, you don’t really expect anyone except the mentally challenged to believe this nonsense, do you? Dr. Mantik’s so-called critique involved reviewing an article I wrote for a computer magazine without ever having seen the actual computer reconstruction (you can read all about it in my 1999 response republished here); Ms. Cranor’s objections were soundly rebutted on my FAQ page at www.jfkfiles.com; and Mr. Speer was handed his head in my blog article, “Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers.” ‘Nuff said."