Pat Speer

I'm trying to remember John Stennis' role in all this. Was he given access to the tapes in order to tell Justice which tapes to subpoena? Or was he merely brought in to verify Nixon's transcripts?

Pat, "Indeed, the autopsy conducted by Noguchi concluded the fatal shot was fired when the gun was pressed against Kennedy's skull. " Noguchi concluded the muxxle was not in contact with the skin, but was two inched from the ear. The entry wound was not a contact wound. John Hunt My bad. I interpreted Noguchi's comments that the shot was fired point-blank to mean the muzzle was on the skull. In re-reading Coroner, he makes the statement that the gun was fired "one-inch from the edge of his right-ear, only three inches behind the head." He also said "At three inches from the right mastoid area, I discovered we had a perfect match of the tattoo pattern of unburned pattern grains on Kennedy's right ear. At this distance, the shape of the entrance wound was also duplicated, and it accounted for the carbon particles found in Kennedy's hair." It sounds like he's describing a shot from the right front of Kennedy which just barely missed his ear and hit his right mastoid process almost at a tangent, thereby creating a larger than normal wound. And yet the bullet went into Kennedy's brain, did it not? Did it deflect towards the middle of the brain upon entry? Is the autopsy report online? Perhaps we've misunderstood Ole Tom all these years. When he says "three inches behind the head" it sure sounds like he means "three inches from the entrance on the back of the head."

As John Hunt has pointed out at the Lancer conference and online, the entrance wound on Kennedy's head was unusually large for the caliber of the fatal bullet. John has suggested that the bullet was of a larger caliber than a .22. When one reads about gunshot wounds, however, one finds references to over-sized entrances created by the explosion of gases back out of the skull when the gun is held against the head. Indeed, the autopsy conducted by Noguchi concluded the fatal shot was fired when the gun was pressed against Kennedy's skull. While reading on this issue in Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases yesterday I noticed something which may be of importance. It says "A gaping wound may be caused by the explosive force of gases tearing and blowing back the skin, especially when there is bone backing the skin, i.e., flat bones of the skull. The bone behaves like a hard surface and, collaterally, there may be a back-splash of blood onto the hand holding the gun." Are there photos of Cesar and Sirhan directly after the shooting which portray their hands? If Sirhan has blood on his hands, but not Cesar, well, that's to be expected, but if Cesar has blood on his hands, but not Sirhan... We need to inspect all the photos and look for a man with blood on his hands...literally.

Mr. Caddy's presence here reminds me of something which historians should NOT overlook. Of all the Watergate-related horrors, perhaps the most insidious one was Hunt's creation of fake documents designed to discredit Kennedy, and blame hims PERSONALLY for the death of Diem. What made Nixon think of such a thing? Why pick Hunt to do it? The logical answer is that such things had been done before, and that Hunt's experience in the CIA included the creation of fake documents. Historians should not be naive on this issue. When studying Nixon's role in bringing down Alger Hiss, for instance, one should definitely question the veracity of the Pumpkin Papers. With the Kennedy assassination, there is at least one document that appears to have been created for the record, and is not legitimate. In December 63 Hoover created a memo for the record about his feelings on the Kennedy assassination, stating that the Justice Department was leaking info to the media, etc. but that he wanted his top assistants to know they were still looking into the possibility of an international conspiracy. According to former FBI man William Sullivan, and former AG Katzenbach, this memo was a LIE created by Hoover to cover the fact he was the one doing the leaking. The WC exec sessions show that they shared this belief. The smoking gun proving it was Hoover is in the details of the articles created as a result of these leaks. They uniformly represented Kennedy's wounds as interpreted by the FBI, and not as interpreted in the autopsy report, which the FBI had refused to read.

Wecht has been very active in Democratic politics throughout his life. If this investigation is punitive, I suspect it has more to do with his politics than with his interests in the assassination (although one can never fully separate the two). The one thing that concerns me about his problems (in regards to the Kennedy assassination) is the report that his files on the assassination have been seized. In light of the FBI's attempting to get control of Jack Anderson's files, one can never be too sure why this occurred. Unlike Anderson, who kept many a secret, however, it's doubtful Wecht would have anything shocking or revealing in his files at this point.

Here's a copy of a 1975 FBI interview with Chaney. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...65&relPageId=10 Nothing about being hit in the face. Their November 26, 1963 interview with Chaney revolved around him seeing Ruby in Dealey Plaza the day after the assassination (CE 2324) Steve Thomas Thanks, Steve. I'm just getting in the habit of checking the Ferrell site. The history-matters site has been down for days. Does anyone know what's up or should I e-mail Rex and find out?

Pat.. From Vince Palamara's Network anomolies (also credit Dealy Plaza UK) DPD outrider James Chaney, in an interview with Bill Lord, Chaney explained that he was "Riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's Limo during the shootingand that the President was "Struck in the face by the SECOND shot" Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "Chaney was so close his uniform was splattered with the Presidents blood"try this, plenty more besides. Thanks, Stephen. I've seen Palamara's reference, and Josiah Thompson's. And there's a fairly good summary of the interview on Wikipedia. But no transcript. One of the reasons I feel the sudden need for the transcript is that some quote "struck in the face by the second shot," some "struck in the face" by the second shot (with by the second shot not in quotes), and some "hit in the face." It occurred to me that maybe his words have been taken out of context. As you know, Chaney's a big mystery man. He was the closest witness to the assassination from behind and to the right of Kennedy, and he had a conversation with Ruby the next day. And yet NO FBI interview. NO Warren Commission testimony. And I think I know why. As a rifle shot after the head shot would indicate more than one shooter--I mean, who keeps shooting after witnessing a man's head explode--the FBI and WC were careful to try and hide all such references.

In my research I've seen numerous references to an interview of Motorcycle officer James Chaney on the day of the assassination conducted by Bill Lord of WFAA. And yet I've never seen the transcript. If anyone can post the transcript, or a link where I can find one, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mel, I will agree that you have conducted yourself well, and have often made excellent points. But I too have occasional doubts about your intentions. I mean, what is it about conspiracy talk that rubs you so wrong? Because the conspiracies didn't occur? Or because maybe they did? If you cite one possible conspiracy then you would have more credibility. Possible U.S. conspiracies since WWII. The sudden death of Warren G. Harding. The murder of Anton Cermak. The murder of Huey Long. The murder of John F. Kennedy. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. The murder of Malcom X. The murder of Martin Luther King. The murder of Robert F. Kennedy The sudden death of J. Edgar Hoover. The Watergate break-in. The CIA connection to the Watergate scandal. The "October Surprise." The Savings and Loan fiasco. The Iran-Contra scandal. The CIA's complicity in the drug trade. The death of Paul Wellstone. The invasion of Iraq due to "faulty intelligence." Is it your contention that we were told the whole truth about all these incidents, and that there was no conspiracy to cover-up or conceal the truth about any of these events? Just as some people will fall for anything and therefore have no credibility, others refuse to be suspicious about anything and therefore have no credibility.

A thoughtful post, Bernice. I, too, would like to thank everyone involved in the press conference for trying to bring important issues to the attention of the media. I would also like to thank Bruce Cormier, Doug Horne, Joan Mellen, and Jim Fetzer for their reporting on this event on this forum. It's a pity that the widespread frustration associated with this event has come to overshadow its noble intentions. But, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out, there were reporters there, and something good may still come of it.

There is so much rotten about the John F. Kennedy assassination that you'd think they'd never buried the bodies. I think Professor Kaiser has a point--that it's a big scary mess. It's understandable that historians stay away. What's unforgivable, IMO, is that most historians who write on Kennedy adopt this incredibly cowardly stance--telling their readers that while there is an ongoing controversyabout Kennedy's death there has been no concrete evidence blah blah blah that anybody besides Oswald was involved. Why do they feel it necessary to write such drivel? Why are our schoolkids fed such garbage? Such talk allows the government to slip off the hook. It's like saying that "Due to Richard Nixon resigning his office of Presidency he was not impeached and may very well have been innocent of all charges; therefore, there is no concrete evidence he abused his power in any way." It's chickenxxxx. At the very least, all books touching on the Kennedy assassination should note that two governmental investigating bodies came to different conclusions, that Kennedy's wounds were misrepresented in the Rydberg drawings, that subsequent investigations "moved" both wounds, that Oswald's assassin Jack Ruby had significant mob ties, that a number of the subjects of the various investigations, including Ferrie, Rosselli, Giancana, and de Mohrenschildt, died suddenly, and that the FBI refused to continue with the HSCA's investigation, outside of getting a second opinion on the dictabelt evidence. That way, the reader will know that, irregardless of Oswald's guilt or innocence, the investigation of the Kennedy assassin was poorly handled. Which, in the eyes of history, is half the story--how a nation's confidence in itself was weakened by the murder of one of its leaders, and the poor handling of the subsequent investigation. A comparison could possibly be made to the assassination of Aquino in the Phillipines, and how a few honest judges in that country helped overthrow its corrupt government.

This helps explain how he comes to his conclusion regarding the issue, as the witness testimony and much of the medical evidence supports the opposite. Spitz was a member of the Rockefeller Commission Panel and the HSCA Panel. He also co-wrote one of the bibles of Forensic Pathology, Medicolegal Investigation of Death, with the Clark Panel's Fisher. If he was a friend of Humes' it wasn't a good friend, as he was one of the main advocates of the cowlick entry, the bane of Humes' existence. In Medicolegal Investigation of Death, Spitz and Fisher argue that one way to tell a bullet entrance on the skull from a bullet exit on the skull is to measure which defect has the missing scalp. The entrance has the missing scalp. In light of the Kennedy Autopsy Report's claim that a noticeable amount of scalp was missing by the large defect on top of the head, the HSCA weaseled out of it by stating that the autopsists were probably wrong. This ignored that Dr. Clark in Parkland also reported a significant amount of missing scalp by the large defect. This sequence of events is one of the many reasons I concluded the large defect is an entrance defect, for a tangential wound.

Dr. Fetzer, did anyone from the media stick around to ask questions? Do you feel you made any inroads? Was everyone lumped in together, or was it made clear in the press conference that there were many faces to the CT community, and that those presenting at the conference were but a few? And what about Kuntzler? Do you think this was just a one-off, or are there likely to be other such events in the future? Your input appreciated.

Does anyone know exactly where the west door was located? On the far side of the "shed" or on the inside of the fence? Lovelady and Shelley testified they came in through the western door and Ball almost lost it, because he had no evidence the door was sealed off by the DPD.

Ms. Mellen, reading this thread has been greatly discouraging. It sounds like this press conference was a wasted opportunity. Did Jeff Morley get a chance to talk, or was he, too, shuffled off to the end after everyone compared sneakers?

Mr. Horne, I fully believe that the media will not buy all this talk of alteration, not now not ever. The medical evidence, taken at face value and honestly interpreted, convincingly points to the likelihood of more than one shooter. This evidence has been spun by various groups, from Humes on down, to fit desired scenarios. I have created a presentation which demonstrates the likelihood of an entirely different scenario. You may wish to take a look: http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

This is ridiculous, physically impossible and would be laughed out of court. Fuhrman holds it was the first shot that deflected out of the neck, at frame 190 or so. Seeing as the Single-Bullet Theory has been accepted by the juries of several mock trials, thinking that Fuhrman's theory would be laughed out of court is not very realistic.

While Stringer's testimony for the ARRB casts legitimate doubt on the brain photos, I'd bet my bum the photos are indeed of Kennedy's brain. Why? Because the damage apparent in the one released drawing matches the autopsy report. But even more so because the damage to the brain in the photos is NOT suggestive of a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting from the top of Kennedy's head. NO WAY, Jose. This is why the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Panel, HSCA FPP, etc. all have decided that the high cowlick entry (NOT OBSERVED BY A SINGLE WITNESS) was the defacto entrance of the bullet. If the Government had wanted to fake the brain from the start, they would have sectioned it and said "all's well." If they decided to fake the brain later they would have faked one consistent with an EOP entrance. OR a cowlick entrance. Instead, they have photos of a brain consistent with neither. It's the real brain, Ron. Bet on it. The problem with the weight can be partially explained by the fact that it was not weighed at the autopsy but after it was fixed.(Brains are normally weighed at autopsy.) There is also Burkley's statements that Kennedy's brain was abnormally large and worthy of study.

It's worse than I thought. Sanchez wasn't undersec of state, he was a Dep Assst. Sec of Defense....more guns to play with... I found the passage below in the USA vs. Oliver North brief available online. "In May 1986, Nestor Sanchez, DoD Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, provided the Secretary of Defense with a translation of a memorandum to President Reagan from President Azcona, calling for substantial increases in military aid for the next five years and increasing coordination between and among the U.S., Honduras' armed forces, and the leadership of the Resistance regarding UNO/FDN military operations. The letter articulated conditions for continuing to help the U.S. maintain all facets of the Resistance, including military." This makes me wonder how many other sixties spooks immigrated into the Pentagon during the Reagan regime.

We are talking about the guy who said "N****R" so many times on tape that the jury ignored his evidence of murder in the OJ Simpson trial.........his "celebrity" is based on racist notoriety and his wisdom is less than nil.......... Yeah, that's the same guy. But by some bizarre twist of fate he's written a couple of successful and respected "true crime" books, and now has "credibility" as a crime solver. It was Dominick Dunne and Fuhrman who solved the Martha Moxley murder... Who'da a thunk he'd be the one guy from the Circus of Simpson to get a second act? As I said, I think his public denouncement of the first shot miss and SBT scenarios will only help the CT community in the long run.

Having decided not to buy the book for 26 bucks at Borders, I am not in a position to defend Fuhrman's theory. But I do believe he shows the bullet deflecting upwards in the body and off the tie. In other words, he acknowledges that the back wound is lower than the throat wound. While he spends some time on the ballistics evidence, he basically ignores the medical evidence. I'm not sure if he even picks an entrance for the head wound.

As I remember the Church Report, Sanchez was both Cubela's and Artime's case officer, and was responsible for putting them together, whereby Artime created a silencer for Cubela to use on Castro. I also seem to recall that Sanchez eventually escaped the CIA and ended up in the State Department as Under Secretary for Latin America or some such thing. I hadn't thought about it much, but if this took place under Reagan/Bush/Casey it would make perfect sense.

I'll play the Rorschach game. It looks like the outline of two men standing next to each other, with the one in front holding something in front of him at arm's length with a whte end. A gun? With a muzzle flash?

John, I think Moldea has already answered your question. He has stated that he believes Sirhan did it in large part because he trusts Cesar and doesn't trust Sirhan. He has also stated his opinion that the movement of the bodies during the shots makes an accurate assessment of the wounds and trajectories impossible. In other words, he refuses to argue with you on the directions of the shots, but is nevertheless convinced Sirhan acted alone. In my opinion, you should consider that a victory. He's as much as stated that if you can disprove the trajectories, go at it, but don't expect him to change his mind. Realistically, it would be a bit much to expect him to say anything more. I mean, when is the last time a published writer on a controversial event admitted he was wrong in his overall conclusions? It doesn't happen. EGOs always seem to get in the way. Last I checked, Webernan was still convinced Howard Hunt was one of the tramps. Even after the HSCA proved the back wound was two inches lower than in the Rydberg drawings, Arlen Specter still called his Single-Bullet Theory a fact. The closest thing we've seen to a "my bad" in the history of the John F. Kennedy assassination happened only last year, when Blakey called the NAA "junk science." He has also admitted he was foolish in trusting the CIA. Unfortunately, however, such events rarely occur.

Mr. Moldea, I believe you're being inconsistent. In your book, you offered an interpretation of the bullet trajectories which differed from that of the "experts,' did you not? So, how is what Hunt is doing any different? Was your re-interpretation okay because it cleared Cesar, and his not okay because it re-opens the door as to Cesar's involvement? While I can understand your dislike for Hunt's abrasive approach I think you under-estimate him a bit. He is a determined man who has spent years researching both Kennedy assassinations. He has spent more time in the Archives than the bulk of the research community combined. There is reason to believe his research will lead to one or more published works. (If one is not forthcoming, John, will you pretty please with sugar on top put your image files online?) As far as the "cult of expertise" you seem to be promoting, if you study the John F. Kennedy assassination medical evidence you will come away realizing that this cult is pretty much the Moonies. It's BS. The "experts" have repeatedly blown smoke, and this can be proved. (And is in my presentation: http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html). The scientific interpretation of gunshot wounds and trajectories is based upon a few principles; these principles are not impossible to learn, and are widely debated even among the "experts" (e.g. the wounding mechanism involved in temporary cavities). Mr. Hunt has concluded that the entrance hole for the head wound is abnormally large, and has received confirmation on this from several sources. While there may be another explanation other than the one he's offered, the "experts" are yet to offer such an explanation. Questions can only be answered when they are asked. That said, I appreciate your coming to this forum. I take your comments about the RFK trajectories to mean that you are not 100% confident about the accuracy of your trajectories. Which is the sign of a healthy mind. You have also admitted that your judgment on the case has been influenced by your extensive contact with Cesar and Sirhan. Which is the sign of an honest man. Any new books on the horizon?