Pat Speer

I think VB is basically re-writing Case Closed, minus some of Posner's bigger distortions. On the face, one can make a good case for Oswald and Ruby being dual lone-nuts. But, when one looks at the medical, ballistic, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence one runs into some serious problems. I suspect Bugliosi ran into these problems a few years back, and has spent the last few years finding ways to argue around them. As a result, I suspect he'll pull a Fuhrman...he'll tell us the WC botched a couple of its conclusions, but never fear Oswald dood it. Hopefully, some CTs will be given the chance to respond. But I have a mighty queasy feeling in my stomach. The mainstream media just LOVES ole Vince.

Quite so. But you unquestionably imply it, presumably unintentionally, we now learn. Myra Bronstein was right. Fiddlesticks. I agree with Paul about Halpern, except I suspect Halpern was mistaken, not lying. It seems there were a number of CIA employees under the impression RFK was running every aspect of the Cuban operation. The testimony of Helms and Harvey before the Church Committee, however, demonstrates this to be untrue. Both admitted that they'd kept assassination plots away from RFK, and even from McCone. In Michael Kurtz's recent book he says it is unthinkable that Fitzgerald would represent himself to Cubela as RFK's rep, without RFK's approval. Think again. No matter how hard some try to put the blame on RFK, the fact remains that Helms and Harvey had the chance to blame him, and refused to do so, even though it made themselves look bad in the process. RFK was dead when they testified, and neither of them was then employed by the CIA. Thus, there was truly NO reason for them to lie.

http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO. Of course you may say so Pat. I welcome civil input from about anyone. I don't welcome uncivil input of the type displayed by Ms Mellen, and the fact that she's a published author doesn't give her license to cop a huge attitude. Furthermore the traits she exhibited in her speech and most recent post mirror the traits that have lessened her effectiveness as an author. By the way, what is the logic behind your reference of me as a "relative" newbie? Does that mean she does have to justify herself to wily veterans? And your comparison of a baby with a book doesn't work. Babies aren't expected to be reviewed by second parties, and no one is looking for reviews to guide them on whether or not to purchase a certain baby. Whereas authors must expect to have their books reviewed, and many people look to the reviewer for guidance on whether or not to bother with a book. Myra, seasoned veterans in this case can make mistakes or jump to incorrect conclusions as fast as anyone else. I have a whole list of questions for Cyril Wecht, for example, regarding what I believe to be his mistakes. I'm painfully aware, on the other hand, that those who have published feel superior to those that have not, whether they admit it or not. I'm painfully aware, as well, that those who publish tend to feel protective of their earlier research. Those that believed that the dictabelt proved a conspiracy, for example, continue to avoid intelligent conversation on the Hughes film, which proves McClain was in no position to record the shots. It's hard for people to let go of theories and ideas they spent months or years developing, and hard for people to listen to criticism once they do let go. Look at Arlen Specter. I believe in his heart of hearts he KNOWS the Warren Commission was a cover-up, but he'll never admit this to himself. So much of his life is wrapped up in his belief that, all problems withstanding, he got it right, that he can't admit he was wrong, no matter how clear it is to anyone else. Like William Jennings Bryan after the Scopes Trial or George III after the American Revolution, his system can't accept his failure. FWIW, many authors never read their reviews, as it screws with their heads. When it comes to books on the Kennedy case, this is especially recommended. If you go to Amazon right now, you'll see dozens of reviews of Vincent Bugliosi's book, from people who've never read it (including myself). If you go back to print reviews, you'll see that the best-reviewed assassination book probably ever was Case Closed, one of the most dishonest books written on the assassination. The reviewers knew bupkus on the case, and reviewed it on how well it was written and organized, as most of them lacked the wherewithall to review it on its research. They got it wrong.

Dear Myra Bronstein, I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader. Joan Mellen Ms Mellon, Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure. The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it. Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly. And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded. http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO.

As an American who has traveled a bit, and lives in an international city, Los Angeles, with as large a percentage of immigrants as any city in the world, I feel I can comment on Andy's statements. He's right. Americans are extremely aggressive, among the most aggressive people in the world. Part of this is our "Ugly American" attitude. If you take a day trip to Mexico you'll find Americans lined up at Papa's 'N' Beer, paying Mexican waiters to toss Tequila poppers down their throat and hold a towel over their mouths so they don't throw it back up. Part of it is purely conditioning. People in Los Angeles learn to drive fast, otherwise they won't get anywhere on time. The MTA adds extra minutes onto the route of any bus going through Chinatown, because Asian immigrants are known to drive much slower than those born here. Now, if you get outside the large urban centers, you might witness a more laid back, passive existence. (Not completely true--small town folks in the Western states drive 90 mph on the highways and Americans, everywhere, like to drink and fight over football.) When my mom moved out to the desert, she was shocked. There, most everyone is on what some call "Indian Time". If the repairman says he'll be there at two, he'll call you at 4 and say he's running late and can he come back tomorrow. Perhaps some of my more defensive countrymen come from such areas. Some have concluded this American aggressiveness is connected to our Puritan and Democratic heritage. We have no royalty. While people from other cultures are taught their lot in life from an early age, Americans are taught that they can become anything they want, and that they have to EARN their way into heaven. This combination spurs inventions, factories, music and murder. Americans are taught the world is theirs to mold. I suspect people from other countries have a different attitude.

Thank you, Tom, for posting all that info and proving I'm not nuts. I thought Burkley was in the bus because he was in the bus. I thought Burkley was taken to the Trade Mart because he was taken to the Trade Mart. Ashton, I think part of your confusion comes from your interpretation of the following quote: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital." —Dr. Charles James Carrico, Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 March 1964. I suspect you think the "he"in this sentence means Kennedy; I interpret the "he" to be Burkley. I think Carrico is simply stating that Burkley got to the emergency room as fast as he could. You may be right about some of rest. Maybe Burkley did get there in time to talk to Carrico about the steroids. Maybe Perry saw Carrico applying the steroids and assumed Carrico came up with this on his own. But your assumption that Perry lied to hide Burkley's presence at Parkland is a bit fanciful, IMO. Burkley's failure to tell Humes about the throat wound has been a mystery almost since the beginning. My suspicion is that Burkley 1) was not aware of the throat wound as there was so much blood on Kennedy's head and chest or 2) arrived just after Perry conducted the tracheotomy or 3) was well aware of the throat wound but was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck. I suspect 3. It simply may not have occurred to him that the scene downstairs was so chaotic that Humes would fail to call the doctors at Parkland and discuss the wounds as they were originally observed---standard autopsy procedure. There is no evidence, furthermore, that Humes discussed the wounds with Kellerman, Greer or Hill. Perhaps annoyed by Burkley's demand that he not look at the adrenals, Humes simply was not interested in what others had to say. He even over-ruled Finck when Finck asked to inspect the neck and asked to look at the clothes. Later he refused to let the brain be sectioned. Finally, he over-ruled Finck again when Finck suggested they list it as a partial autopsy. I think you'd be far better off investigating Humes and his superiors than Perry.

Chuck, this is a very good point. It was precisely for this reason that I spent WAAY too much time studying the "accepted" evidence. I found, to my surprise, that the accepted evidence suggests more than one shooter, and always has suggested more than one shooter. I concluded from this that it is not the evidence itself which is suspect, but the men hired to "interpret" (read spin) this evidence. This puts me on the opposite side of the fence from the "alterationsists." While they believe the case can only move forward when people stop looking at the evidence (outside of convincing themselves it's fake), I believe this case will inevitably (and hopefully soon) take a giant leap forward when previously disinterested and fair-minded scientists actually look at the evidence. This process began a few years ago when the National Academie of Sciences pulled the rug out from Guinn's NAA analysis. If only a few pieces of evidence, including F8, get re-interpreted, then the lone-nut theory will collapse under its own weight. All it takes is one TV special and it's over. Then the FBI will have to acknowledge there was more than one shooter, and resolve all the mafia, CIA and Cuban connections to the killing.

Wim: Where the heck did that come from? And what does it have to do with Joan Mellen's speech? I know that Joan totally believes Murgado, but I and many others feel she was taken in, first by Hemming, who streered her to Murgado, then by the man himself. As for Walter Sheridan, he was doing the CIA's bidding, not RFK's. This could have been a great book, in fact on the Garrison parts it is, imo. But, no matter how many critics disagree with her, such as Peter Dale Scott, Lisa Pease, JimDiEugenio- who wrote a brilliant review of this book- she holds steadfastly to her very anti- RFK views. When asked who killed RFK and why she has no viable response. And I REALLY like this woman, so this is not an attack on her, just that I feel she was conned. Dawnl Dawn, if you re-read Ms. Mellen's speech, she cites James as a confidante of Bernardo de Torres, and says James is an ex-mercenary living among exiled Cubans.

My take: telling someone they are incorrect or way off base is fine; telling someone they're an idiot is not fine. Telling Jack White he is wrong about something is fine; telling Jack White he is senile is not fine. Saying you can't understand why someone holds a particular viewpoint is fine; accusing them of being a "CIA sockpuppet" or a "resident CIA disinformationist" is not fine. That some think my questioning whether or not someone is who he says he or she is abhorrent and worse than this person's repeatedly calling me a puppet of those he or she proposes killed Kennedy, is beyond my comprehension. In the name of civility, however, I'll try and abstain from questioning the motives of such people in the future. This type of behavior spreads like an infection. I don't think it's a coincidence that the input of many of the most respected members of the forum has slowed to a trickle in recent months.

Ashton, if calling someone you believe to be a phony a phony is an ad hominem attack, I'll eat your hat. You have called people liars you believe to be liars since almost your first day here. If anyone here has met you and will vouch you are the man in your photo I'll stop. But no matter what anyone else says, nothing will make you stop. Correct?

Charlie, I agree that Mr. Gray is a deliberate pain. I actually feel sorry for those who wanted to believe in him, after he came here with his strange ideas about Watergate, but now must face the fact that his idea of "solving" the Kennedy case is to trumpet that Dr. Perry and Nurse Bowron killed Kennedy. My, what a letdown... Next thing you know he'll be saying that the Newmans' children were cardboard cutouts concealing weapons, and using Bill Newman's ever-changing memory as his proof. But Charlie, Mark has a point as well. Getting involved in a flame war is not the answer. If you combat Ashton on the facts, he will have a tirade, insult your intelligence, and announce to everyone that you're beneath his contempt and not worth debate. He will then create a name for you so that he can insult you at will without looking like the bad guy. (I'm the CIA sockpuppet, resident disinformationist, etc... that he loves to attack but refuses to name.) And why has he singled me out? Because I refuse to believe 1) that Nixon was set up by the CIA, with the cooperation of virtually everyone around him, so that Gerald Ford could become President, and keep the lid on the CIA's experiments with Remote Viewing, and 2) his name is actually Ashton Gray and, the photograph provided is actually him. I am 100% convinced he is a phony. You should be as well. Don't let him get under your skin.

If you're gonna go with the Dulles cult within the CIA as the movers and shakers, Tracy Barnes would have to be right in the middle. IMO. He was Hunt's boss in this period, and was still in the position, unlike Dulles or Hunt, to create cover companies. The government could have funded the hit without even knowing it. It's also intriguing that Helms axed Barnes as soon as he got the reins, just when Epstein and Lane were hitting the stands... Hmmm....

To Estevez's credit, he never depicts Sirhan closer than a few feet from RFK. When I announced to the crowd of screenwriters gathered for the the screening I attended that the autopsy report concluded that the fatal bullet came from behind at point blank range, there was an audible gasp from the audience. Most people, even today, just don't know this important fact. Also to Estevez's credit, the week of Bobby's U.S. theatrical release the cable channels ran a couple of RFK specials. These specials were quite well done, and gave the conspiracy angle its due, featuring Phil Melanson and Larry Teeter, among others. These programs were sponsored by the film Bobby. I just wish there'd been something over the final credits stating that Sirhan's motivation or possible involvement in a conspiracy has never been conclusively determined. I don't see how that would have hurt the film.

I meant to suggest that either Gregory Burnham or Debra Conway (or both) has it. I don't know where Burnham can be reached, but of course Debra can be reached at Lancer. Thanks, Ron. I shall ask Debra if she had a copy. I've also e-mailed the library to ask if it's possible to buy individual tape conversations online.

The transcript at the Lancer URL below includes the following note: "Thanks to Gregory Burnham for bringing this audio tape to our attention. The transcript was made by Debra Conway from a cassette tape supplied by the LBJ Presidential Library." http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html So...does anyone have it or know where I can find it online? Max Holland's and Debra Conway's transcripts vary and I'd like to hear the tapes for myself. Max says that Clark says the doctors were reluctant to sign anything, and Debra says that Clark says the doctors were reluctant to find anything, if I remember correctly. I think "sign anything" is more damaging. If the quality of the audio is any good, I might use it in my next video.

Since either no one has these recordings or this simple request fell under the radar, I'm bumping it with an additional question. It appears the recordings are available from the LBJ Library. Has anyone here dealt with them in the past?

Thanks, Mark, for posting this. It appears Burkley's statements to the JFK Library--this wasn't actual testimony that you posted--are the source of parts of Mr. Gray's theory. I think Burkley exaggerates his role somewhat. When shown these statements by the ARRB Humes was outraged, as I recall. In Humes' mind, he was running the show, after agreeing with Burkley on how to treat the adrenal question. That said, Burkley's words deflate Ashton's "Burkley and Perry did it" scenario. Burkley's strange statement about there possibly having been two headshots--I quote him in my presentation--and his later unexplored offering to the HSCA that he had reason to suspect a conspiracy--make his role in the actual killing extremely doubtful. As far as his being in a "VIP" car, I could have sworn it was the staff bus towards the end of the motorcade. My bad. He was most definitely not in any of the early VIP cars and was most definitely not in Dealey Plaza at the moment of the first shot. The only thing we have as far as his being there within three minutes is his say-so. Well, this is an obvious guess on his part. He had no idea how long the limo sat outside while people tried to co-erce Mrs. Kennedy to let them take a look at her husband. This supposedly took some time. While he says he provided the doctors with hydrocortisone, it is my recollection that it had already been administered. I believe Carrico discusses this in his testimony, as well as Perry. It is the testimony of several, as I remember, that Kellerman provided the Parkland doctors with Kennedy's blood type upon arrival. Just because Burkley provided the Parkland doctors with hydrocortisone and information does not mean they hadn't already applied hydrocortisone and learned his blood-type. To my understanding, he arrived late-on-the-scene, barked out some orders, saw people responding to what he said, and mistakenly assumed that he was the first one to say these things. If I remember where I read that he was initially taken to the Trade Mart, or why I thought such a thing, I'll post that information. In the meantime, it appears Ashton is on another one of his "There were no Diem cables" type distractions. I share Charlie's concern about his motivations. It seems to me that "Mr. Gray" delights in finding pieces of accepted information that are extremely damaging to certain parties, e.g. that everyone around Nixon believed that Hunt had created the cables to implicate the Kennedy Administration in a murder or that everyone at Parkland knew Kennedy had suffered a throat wound but that the Bethesda doctors and everyone around them were so half-assed they failed to figure this out, and twist them into some completely bizarre conspiracy that makes almost everyone out to be a xxxx, and everyone who disagrees with him a CIA apologist or disinformationist. I fail to understand what his role is here. At first I thought he was defending Nixon. Then I thought he was pushing Scientology and Remote Viewing. Now I tend to believe he's just a xxxxx, more concerned with rattling cages than getting anywhere near a truth, and more concerned with impressing people with his high-voltage verbiage than making a clear argument to support his "theories". To me, his little tag-line about Watergate, in which he deliberately misrepresents my views as a way of goading me for disagreeing with his almighty greatness, is indicative of his utter contempt for anyone who takes this forum seriously and uses this forum for anything but verbal jousting. In my opinion, whether he means to or not, his behavior is likely to drive anyone away who has any inside knowledge on anything, as, with one look at the forum, they'd see the inevitability of his illogical attacks. And this upsets me greatly, as I've been here a long time and am well aware of John's attempts to use this forum for revelatory discussion among noted experts and participants in events of historical importance. But that's just me, the "disinformationist."

It was an FBI memo on the night of the autopsy repeating what someone had heard. It is most probably a reference to the bullet fragment found behind Kennedy's right eye. There are so many mistakes like this in the early reports it's ridiculous. Let's remember that Hoover told Bobby Oswald had been in a shootout with two cops and LBJ that a bullet had rolled out of Kennedy's head. He said the sniper's nest was on the fifth floor over and over again. These men were just winging it, repeating hearsay and garbling it up even worse. And Ash, the order of silence was removed for the HSCA, and Custer was free to talk from thereon until the cows came home. And he talked plenty. As far as Burkley at Parkland..you misinterpreted your cited statement. Burkley was in a press bus and was taken directly to the Trade Mart. By the time he got to Parkland Carrico had already administered the steroids for Kennedy's adrenal deficiency. At Bethesda, he spent most of his time upstairs. There was no one looking over Humes' shoulder telling him what to do. He was asked to avoid mention of the adrenals. He was told to find the bullet(s) and was given the impression that exploring the neck would be unneccessary. The back wound was so much lower than the tracheotomy it never occurred to him that the bullet exited from the throat. You've latched onto this "they're all liars and everything's a lie" mentality which makes little sense, IMO. As stated, Sibert and O'Neill have impressed everyone who's met them as being totally forthcoming. Sibert is a CT, O'Neill is not. P.S. it's standard autopsy protocol to take x-rays first and then embark on a series of establishing shots of the whole body before progressing to the individual wounds. This was done. Humes and Boswell then inspected the head wound, removed the brain, performed the Y incision, and took a picture of the bruised lung in situ. At this time, Finck arrived, ordered a series of photos of the head wound on the skull and then RE-xrayed the neck and chest area in order to help find the missing bullet. They were stumped. The FBI then told them about the stretcher bullet and there you go... You keep saying that the x-rays were taken mid-autopsy and the back wound was inspected mid-autopsy as if this proves some great conspiracy. X-rays and photos were also taken at the beginning. So...

Tom, it appears to me that the black and white photo of CE 399 does include the outside copper ring, but that it shows up much darker than one would expect due to the angle of light to the surface. I believe the color photo of CE 399 you cite in the subsequent post is a recent photograph.

Ashton--I know you'll love this--the Assassination Manual handed out to Castillo-Armas' forces in Guatemala specified that .22 caliber rifle loads could be made subsonic and still be lethal up to 100 yards. It also specified that killing government officials in public was useful for "propaganda purposes." The Chief of Paramilitary Training for the operation was Rip Robertson, who just might be standing at the corner of Houston and Main in a photo taken by James Altgens on November 22, 1963. The Propaganda chief for the Guatemalan operation? Your favorite freshly dead ex-CIA man, E. Howard Hunt.

Sid, before you explore the possible ADL connection to the Robert Kennedy assassination, you should read up a little on RFK and Mankiewicz, his friend and spokesman. I recently read some articles from June 68 on the assassination. Kennedy was led to the pantry by the Ambassador Hotel's Security. Not by Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was RFK's appointed eyes and ears regarding the JFK assassination, and has assured every historian who's asked him that RFK would most definitely have re-opened the JFK assassination should he have been elected. I don't see an outspoken conspiracist being part of the conspiracy. I've also read a number of books by Mankiewicz on Nixon. He resented Nixon for filling the historical void left by RFK and dragging out the war. He was (quite justifiably in my opinion) vicious towards Nixon. Nixon was, of course, secretly affiliated with Meyer Lansky and the other culprits in Piper's book. I don't see Mankiewicz putting Nixon into office only to turn around and help boot him out. If you're as open-minded as you claim I'm sure you'll come to a similar conclusion. P.S. what was Sirhan's role, in your proposed scenario, if NOT to be a patsy? I'm confused. Was Sirhan secretly pro-Israel?

Tim sent me an email complaining that he'd tried to sign on but was unable. I assured him it was a mis-communication. Does he need to respond to your email before he can sign on?

I've been looking online for recordings of the two conversations President Johnson had with Ramsey Clark regarding the re-inspection of the autopsy photos in January 1967. The transcripts vary and I'd like to listen to them myself, if possible. If anybody has them and can send me a file, or knows where I can find them online, I'd be deeply appreciative.

Sid, whether or not you're a racist is beside the point. What I want to know is have you conducted any research on Mankiewicz beyond studying his heritage? If you had, you'd see he was a Kennedy loyalist extraordinaire. Accusing him of complicity in RFK's murder is as ridiculous as accusing Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell of killing JFK. It flat out didn't happen that way and anyone who convinces themselves it did happen that way, simply because Mankiewicz was a Jew, is cognitively challenged. Mankiewicz was extremely close to RFK; Bobby's death robbed Mankiewicz of his opportunity to make a difference. You can't really believe he'd throw it out the window so that Sirhan could be used for propaganda purposes, could you?

Yes, I read recently that the US armed services have lowered the entry requirements in order to boost the dwindling numbers. I don't necessarily agree that Bush's offer implies they won't see combat, Pat. Cannon fodder is what they're looking for, imo. "Allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them" sounds to me like they'll be in the line of fire. Of course, if Bush really wanted to prove to America the authenticity of his civilian recruitment drive, he would persuade some of the neocons in his inner circle to serve on missions abroad.....like Iraq. If the lobbyists urging escalation in the region want to gain public support for their cause, they could lead by example and volunteer themselves and possibly members of their families to serve in the 'defining struggle of our time'. The war on terror is a real war, they keep telling us. Dying for your cause is heroic and noble. Come on all you neocons in Washington. How about it? The Democratic response last night came from a freshman Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Why did he get the nod? Because he fought in Nam and his kid is in Iraq. This gave him the credibility to say it's time to get out. Watch for Webb in the future. He's on the fast track.