Pat Speer

Thanks Lee, that caption is priceless... and helps explain the Miller photo---who'd have thought there was a Secret Service Agent hidden on the floor of the car!

I'm not sure if there is any significance to the numbers supplied by Seaborg (through McNamara?) but I feel quite certain that the numbers were immaterial, and that Johnson was just trying to scare Warren into performing some dirty work. From the next upddate of my presentation: "While Chief Justice Earl Warren is reported to have told the young lawyers working for his Commission that “truth was their only client,” much evidence has arisen in the years since to indicate this was not so. Warren’s memoirs, for instance, indicate that he was strong-armed into chairing the Commission only after President Johnson told him that if people came to believe there was foreign involvement in the assassination it could lead to a war that would kill 40 million. This, one can only assume, gave Warren the clear signal he was NOT to find for a conspiracy involving a foreign power. While preparing his own biography of Warren, Ed Cray spoke to a friend of Warren’s who claimed there was an even higher priority, quoting Warren as saying “There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and , second, that the Russians were not involved.” This quote sounds accurate, and is supported by a 2-17-64 memo of Warren Commission counsel Melvin A. Eisenberg. .In reporting on the Warren Commission’s first staff conference of 1-20-64, Eisenberg wrote of Warren’s “discussing the circumstances under which he had accepted the chairmanship of the Commission.” Eisenberg reported that Warren resisted pressures from Johnson until “President Johnson called him. The President stated that the rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives.” While Warren was purportedly asked to chair the Commission because as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he had unparalleled credibility with the American public, the truth is that Warren was probably the last person Johnson would want to deliver the message that the Russians were not involved in the assassination, as those likely to believe communist involvement would not believe anything Warren had to say, and considered him pretty much a communist himself. It seems likely then that Johnson drafted Warren onto the commission chiefly to convince those who trusted Warren, the liberals and intellectuals throughout the world who loved Kennedy and were most suspicious of Johnson, that there was no right wing conspiracy behind the killing. Warren may have even provoked Johnson into taking this action by publicly eulogizing Kennedy within hours of the assassination as having “suffered martyrdom as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.” Johnson, who counted among his supporters many of these very same bigots, could not have been pleased. And so the Warren Commission was born."

This topic has come up before. The 40 or 39 million dead numbers came from McNamara. Johnson requested he come up with the figures, and the ultimate bean-counter crunched away and out came 39 million. The thinking was presumably that IF Castro did it, Johnson would have to attack Cuba, and then Russia would have to retaliate. The whole thing is obvious BS, and only a chump falls for it, IMO. If Castro had really killed Kennedy, Johnson would have had a GOLDEN opportunity to present his case to the UN and OAS, whereby he would probably get permission to retaliate. If not, at the very least, he would be able to further isolate Castro and minimize his influence in Latin America. The blackmail argument rings true, but not as an overt threat. Johnson may simply have laid out the facts for Warren..."There's something fishy about this whole thing--some people are gonna try and say that I did it, and de-stabilize the country, but you know I had nothing to do with it, don't you Earl? Of course, you do. So what I need you to do is to investigate this thing as best you can, but the public has gotta be satisfied that I had nothing to do with it, because you know what happens if those right-wingers get ahold of this, don't you? They'll use it to get this Goldwater elected, and you know how he is. He's saying we can use the nuclear bomb strategically in South East Asia. That's crazy talk. Next thing you know he'll have us in a war with the Russians. Well, I don't know but I just had a talk with Bob McNamara and he says such a war will cause at least 40 million deaths. Now we can't have that on our conscience, can we, Earl? It's time we both serve our coutry. There's tough work to be done, and we need to do it. Now I'm your president, and I'm asking for your help. We need to calm the people down and prevent this war on our horizon. Before things get out of hand."

If only we could all be clear...

I discuss this in the presentation. The current version of the discussion, not yet on the internet, reads "That rant having passed, let me throw a log on the lone-nut fire by asserting that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) was indeed mistaken in their analysis of the back wound. But not by much. While they were correct to note that the abrasion collar in the back wound photo was on the lower half of the entrance wound, and that this indicated the bullet was heading upwards along the skin, they were mistaken to say “the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward.” As the upper back is slanted towards the neck, any bullet striking the upper back at a downwards angle less than the upwards angle of the slant will leave a mark along the skin reflecting an upwards trajectory. On the Coat Check slide of this presentation, for example, a bullet traveling along the arrow’s 21 degrees would hit the back heading 10 degrees upwards against the plane of the back, which was angled 31 degrees towards the neck. The abrasion ring noted by the FPP therefore could have represented a bullet heading downwards within the body as well as upwards. Unfortunately, the forensic pathology panel’s failure to catch this was not an anomaly. They made other mistakes as well." As far as the FPP's pooh-poohing the quality of the photo...you have to realize that by placing the back wound around T-1, they were exposing Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel as an incompetent, or a xxxx. Fisher was Spitz's co-writer on a text book. Fisher was Baden's mentor, if I remember correctly. In Wecht's testimony, I believe, he talks about the close relationship between most of the FPP and Fisher. As Fisher had stated that the relative positions of the back wound and throat wound indicated a downward trajectory in the body, and that the throat wound was significantly BELOW the back wound, the FPP had to account for his mistake in some way, or damage his reputation. So they blamed the photo. Since Humes and Boswell didn't question the photo to the ARRB-even though it exposes them as liars or buffoons--and as Stringer said he'd taken the photo--I see no reason to question it. The apparent differences between this photo and the top of the head photo are simply because the hair is pulled forward in the first and hanging down in the latter, IMO.

Pat, Intense? Why do you see Shaneyfelt's testimony as "intense"? Slam dunk time isn't it? Healy Shaneyfelt testified that they were day-long sessions. As one of the participants, Howlett, had already written a report saying three shots and three hits were evident, and as another, Gauthier, had created exhibits depicting a shot after the head shot, and as the Commission staff ended up disagreeing with both of them, I would be interested in reading an account of their discussion.

Cliff, you clearly don't spend much time reading other people's work. I updated my presentation in January and gave props to you for your collar suggestion. I also argued against Hunt's claim that the collar was bunched enough to support the SBT. I used images from his presentation and everything. As far as the top of the head photo....you can not see the back of the head or the top of the back of the head in that photo. You see blood and brain encrusted hair. Now at the top of the head, in front of the ear, where the Parkland witnesses saw nothing, you can detect a large opening. This opening matches the x-rays and the early descriptions of the wound by Newman, Zapruder, and Burkley (via Kilduff). As far as your argument with McAdams, maybe you should point out that the Artwohl comparison on his website, used to show the back wound was above the throat wound, GROSSLY mismatches the size of the heads in the back wound photo and left lateral photos to do so, and then misrepresents the size of Kennedy's ear in order to use it as a ruler and lift the back wound high enough to support the SBT.

I was just re-reading Shaneyfelt's testimony where he described the intense Zapruder film viewing sessions of the Warren Commission, Secret Service, and FBI beginning on 1-27-64. It seems like I read a Warren Commission memo on these activities. But maybe I'm thinking of Eisenberg's memos from April. Does a report or memo exist on the January film conferences, and if so, where can I find it? Any help appreciated.

Pat, There is a good map of the first, second and sixth floors of the TSBD in the WC Exhibits. I think it is also part of the Report. I just ran past it a few weeks ago. Will try to find it again. Geeze, where's Gary Mack when you need him? BK Bill, the WC printed the interior maps of a few of the floors. These were used to help show Oswald's movements. What I was curious about was if there was a map of the offices, showing which company was behind each window, etc. Someone asked me about the background of one of the publishing firms, and I realized I had no idea which window corresponded to the offices of this firm. It's probably nothing. We do know that there were no offices above the fourth floor.

Cliff I honestly can't follow the logic in your arguments. I AGREE with you that the holes in the jacket are too low for the SBT to make sense. I AGREE with you that this fact alone indicates the likelihood of conspiracy. And yet you consider me some sort of trader (a vichy CT) simply because I believe Kennedy's elbow was raised around frame 190, and that this could indicate that his jacket was SLIGHTLY raised in comparison to his back. Whatever, dude. Attitude's like yours will prevent the truth of your statements--the SBT IS a joke--from being recognized by many. And. by the way, I fail to see the back of the head in the top of the head photo... The large skull defect in that photo is in front of the ear, as is the large defect seen in the other photos.

Cliff, my analysis of the back wound photo and my comparison to the other autopsy photos is available online in the presentation at the link below. You post above that the photograph showing the top of Kennedy's head is incompatible with the back wound photo. This is preposterous. The two photos show different parts of Kennedy's head, so how can they be in conflict? From my perspective it is your refusal to look at the evidence that is indefensible. I think Kennedy was first hit at frame 190. Yes, the Betzner photo was closer to that time. But the point is that if we accept the Croft photo as indicative of Kennedy's position a la the HSCA, a la the LN community, then we WIN the argument. Unfortunately, it seems clear you're happy with the status quo of the last 20 years..."everything is fake" and "they lied." To my mind, this has done nothing but discredit the CT community with journalists, historians and scholars. Since the evidence reveals the likelihood of more than one shooter, WHY should we fight the evidence? It just makes no sense to me.

Steve Thomas has posted some info from a reverse phone directory on another thread. (Thanks, Steve) In looking at it, I realized there were more occupants in the TSBD than I'd previously believed. Does anyone know if there's a map of the TSBD anywhere in the Warren Report, explaining where each company's offices were located?

More dirt on Deloach. Acccordng to former FBI Assistant Director William Sullivan in his interview with the Church Committee staff, Deloach was the one who leaked the FBI's Summary Report (conveniently blaming Oswald) to the press in December 1963.

Cliff, the right shoulder tiip of the jacket in the motorcade photo is clearly elevated. In Z-161 we see this same elevation. Hunt made a mistake and believed the clothing sticking out from the back in the Croft photo stuck straight out. He felt this meant the jacket was "bunched up" enough to support the SBT. The color Croft makes clear, however, that the clothing appearing to stick straight out is the shoulder tip, seen at an angle. In my presentation, which I know you've visited (You actually gave me a good tip once), I make clear my belief that there is not enough bunching visible in the photos to support the SBT. The wound in the autopsy photo--which does not support the SBT, no matter how much smoke is blown by the HSCA and those on alt.assassination.JFK--IS in line with the holes on the clothes, if you accept that there was a small amount of bunching of the clothing, as confirmed by the Croft photo. While you once single-mindedly (AND CORRECTLY) sought to show that the holes on the clothing demonstrated that the SBT was unlikely, you have now embarked on an effort to use the clothing holes and motorcade photos to show that the autopsy photos of the back wound are fake. I'm sorry I can't support that. After studying the autopsy photos for years I am firmly of the belief the autopsy photos and x-rays indicate conspiracy. I am also 100% convinced that only through the acceptance of these photos by the CT community will this issue come to any kind of resolve.

I believe Zapruder rented out parts of the second, third, and fourth floors of the Dal-Tex. If anyone has a list of all the occupants on the West side of the building, that would be helpful. As far as why he only filmed the one film...well, he had just purchased the camera and was trying iit out, only to have this incredibly pleasant experience with it. Then the government took his camera from him. His reluctance in re-embarking into the cinematic world is understandable.

Thanks, James. Sounds like I finally got my answer on that little annoying question. One of the things that made me think they were brothers was that the only male Stovall born in Dallas in the year Richard Stovall said he was born, was the son of a Robert Stovall. Since the Robert Stovall of Jaggers Chiles Stovall was born a few years ahead of Richard, I assumed he was the first born, and had received his father's name. If I remember correctly, I think I found that Robert Stovall had a son named Richard--who I figured was named after his uncle. Even if they weren't brothers, I'd suspect they were related in some way, Dallas wasn't that big a town in 1963 and Stovall is not a common name.

I've read some on Deloach, including most of his book, and consider him a mixed bag. He certainly tells the truth some of the time. In his oral history with the LBJ Library he admits that Johnson never believed the Warren Report and was always asking Deloach if he thought the CIA killed Kennedy. Deloach says he always told Johnson that "we've already looked into this and it was Oswald", or something to that effect. The Church Committee uncovered a April 4, 1967 FBI document from Deloach in which he discussed Johnson's suspicions that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Deloach also dishes some good dirt in his own book. He says that, on the night of the assassination, Hoover was outraged that Dallas Police Chief Curry told the press that the FBI knew all about Oswald but failed to act, and Hoover decided right then and there to ruin Curry's career. He says that Hoover called up his friends in Dallas (read Murchison) and got them to bring Curry into line, and that, outside the Kennedy assassination, Hoover forbade the FBI crime lab from helping the DPD until Curry was removed as Chief of Police.

Zapruder went on TV and indicated the shots came from behind him. He also indicated that there may have been a third shot, AFTER the head shot. There is no reason to think he was involved in anything insidious, outside of making BANK off his winning lottery ticket. And Ashton, Zapruder did flinch. The blur analysis of William Hartmann for the HSCA indicated that Zapruder's strongest flinch prior to the head shot was around frame 190. The largest response in fact comes right after the response associated with the head shot, indcating that this is when the third shot occurred. Hartmann, who was probably not familiar with the plethora of earwitness testimony indicating there was a shot just before or just after the head shot wrongly interpreted this response as Zapruder's crying out. The blur/jiggle caused by Zapruder's crying out came a second afterwards. IMO.

Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat.

The link didn't work for me. Is the site temporarily down? Brendan, even if you want to believe the photos are authentic there's a problem. The tally is now 3 photos. The negatives to all 3 photos were at one point in the possession of the DPD. Only 1 negative was handed over to the WC. Someone in the DPD stole 2 of the negatives. 1 of the photos was not given to the Warren Commission in any form. Robert Studebaker admitted making copies of the photos for his fellow officers to the HSCA. There is nothing in the record, as far as can be ascertained, on what he did with these negatives. Was he the one who took them? Were they sold to a collector? Were they made to disappear because they weren't authentic? Marina remembered taking one photo. Marina and Marguerite remembered seeing one photo, and destroying this photo. Then three photos appeared. How could this happen? Well, Michael Paine, for one, admitted to seeing the photo. If he had told this to police on 11-23,and the police couldn't find the photo, might not they have been tempted to create one? This man (in the DPD's mind) killed one of their own, as well as the President. No way would they let him walk. They knew DA Wade would never question the photo. Richard Stovall, one of the detectives "finding" the photos, just so happened to be a close pal of J.D. Tippit's. It just also so happened to be that his brother was Robert Stovall (I've seen birth records indicating they're related but haven't had the gumption to call any of the Stovalls in Dallas, to confirm their relationship.). Robert Stovall was Oswald's boss at the company where Oswald admitted that he'd learned to fake photographs. Isn't that a juicy coincidence? Isn't it possible that there's more to this story than at first meets the eye? You need to get off your high horse and accept that some CTs, as paranoid as they may be, are better-informed than you on many of these topics. Slip out of attack mode. Slip into learn mode.

Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean.

Jack, can we see the frame before the one on top. It looks like the front wheel of the motorcycle is blocking the boy/girl's lower leg.

" ... it was apparent to me that we're being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the - to notify the officer who was leading the escort that he had been hit and that we're going to have to move out. [The shot,] it was back over my right shoulder." Thanks so much, Bill. Apparently Chaney didn't mention Connally until later. Eventually, I'll buy the book eventually but right now money is getting tight. Thanks again.

I just noticed that Richard Trask's book "That Day in Dallas" has the full transcript of motorcycle officer James Chaney's 11-22 interview on WFAA. I've been looking for this for awhile. (Has anyone seen this?) Anyhow, Amazon let me "Look inside" on one page of the interview, but shut me out of the other. If anyone has the book and can tell me what he says after the word "apparent" on page 115, I'd be greatly appreciative. Based upon Wikipedia and other sources, I believe he continues on to describe Connally's getting hit and where he thinks the shots came from, but would like his exact words. Thanks

I think Hosty is probably an honest man. I tend to find statements from lone-nutters, which hint at or support the possibility of conspiracy, credible. In Hosty's book, he makes one claim which is truly surprising. He claims that he got access to his personnel records somewhere along the line, and found out that much of his personnel file had been fabricated, to make the FBI look better than it was. I don't remember the specifics, but find the idea that the FBI is not above altering the historical record in order to protect Hoover's legacy, including its own personnel files, disturbing. When one discusses Hosty, one should always remember that he was punished by Hoover, suspended without pay and transferred to Kansas City, for failing to put Oswald on the Security Index. It was Hoover's belief that Hosty should have considered Oswald a possible threat. The problem was that Hosty was not told of Oswald's trip to Mexico until it was too late. Thus, Hosty was basically innocent of the charges. Meanwhile, the saintly Hoover was a perjurer, a monster, or both. In sworn testimony, he told the Warren Commission that "there had been no information that would have warranted our reporting him (Oswald) as a potential hazard to the security or the safety of the President.” He said this at the very time he was secretly disciplining 17 agents, including Hosty, for failing to report Oswald as a potential hazard to the security of the President. Willam Sullivan testified years later that Hoover punished these agents for his own protection, so that if the Warren Commission ended up publicly criticizing the FBI for its failures, he could tell them that he'd already taken care of things and punished the incompetent flunkeys. Nice guy.