Pat Speer

Mr. BELIN - Is there any other information that you can think of that might be relevant to anything, connected with the assassination? Miss ADAMS - At the time I left the building on the Houston Street dock, there was an officer standing about 2 yards from the curb, and about from the curb across the street from the Texas School Depository, and about 4 yards from the corner of Houston and Elm, and when we were running out the dock, going around the building, the officer was standing there, and he didn't encounter us or ask us what we were doing or where we were going, and I don't know if that is pertinent. Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do when you concluded that the shots were coming from that building? Mr. BARNETT - I ran to the back of the building. Mr. LIEBELER - Ran down Houston Street? Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner? Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you go in the building? Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; I didn't get close to it, because I was watching for a fire escape. If the man was on top, he would have to come down, and I was looking for a fire escape, and I didn't pay much attention to the door. I was still watching the top of the building, and so far as I could see, the fire escape on the east side was the only escape down. Mr. LIEBELER - Since you surmised that the shots had come from the building, you looked up and you didn't see any windows open. You thought they had been fired from the top of the building? Mr. BARNETT - That's right. Mr. LIEBELER - So you ran around here on Houston Street immediately to the east of the Texas School Book Depository Building and watched the fire escape? Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody coming off the fire escape up there, or any movement on top of the building? Mr. BARNETT - Not a thing. Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do after you went around behind the building? Mr. BARNETT - I went looked behind the building and I saw officers searching the railroad cars. I looked around in front towards the front of the building and I saw officers going west. Mr. LIEBELER - Going west down the little street there in front of the School Book Depository Building? Mr. BARNETT - Yes; but there was no sign they were going into the building or watching the building, so I decided I was the only one watching the building. So since this was the only fire escape and there were officers down here watching the back door, I returned back around to the front to watch the front of the building and the fire escape. Then I decided maybe I had been wrong, so I saw the officers down here searching. Mr. LIEBELER - You mean the officers went on down toward No. 5 on your Exhibit No. 354? Mr. BARNETT - When I got to the front, some of the officers were coming back toward me, started back toward me. Mr. LIEBELER - You were still back near the intersection of Elm and Houston? Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir; I was back where No. 8 is then. That was probably 2 1/2 minutes after the last shot was fired. About that time, my sergeant came up from this way, from the north of Houston Street and asked me to get the name of that building. I broke and ran to the front and got the name of it. There were people going in and out at that time. I ran back and told him the name of it, and about that time a construction worker ran from this southwest corner of the intersection up to me and said, "I was standing over there and saw the man in the window with the rifle." He and I and the sergeant all three broke and ran for the door.

Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame.

Sandra was recalling stuff from decades before. She admitted on numerous occasions that her recollections were fuzzy and that Vickie was more reliable. It seems clear, for that matter, that she did not court controversy and would prefer the whole issue just dry up. We should trust Vickie, IMO. But not just because her statements came earlier. No, we should trust Adams because of the corroborating evidence. 1. Adams claimed she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor upon her (and Styles') descent. Lovelady said he and Shelley did indeed go in the side entrance and that yessiree he and Shelley encountered a young woman in the back of the building. The women of the TSBD worked upstairs and took the front elevator up to their offices. No other woman was in the area at the time. The girl recalled by Lovelady was almost certainly Adams. 2. Shelley recalled talking to Adams but wasn't sure whether this was on the first or fourth floor. A study of their movements, however, proves they could not have talked on the fourth floor, for ten minutes or more after the shooting. As Lovelady said he witnessed Shelley talking to this girl, and Lovelady did not accompany Shelley to the fourth floor, moreover, it seems clear he saw them talking on the first floor. 3. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs after watching Adams and Styles run down. Barring that Baker and Truly took their sweet time before running up, this corroborates Adams' claim of a rapid descent. 4. Baker said there were two white men at the back of the building when he came in with Truly. No white men were on the first floor at the time. If these weren't Lovelady and Shelley, well, then, yikes, we have ourselves a couple of suspects, now don't we? 5. Shelley said Truly told him to guard the elevator. While people assumed this meant the back elevator, he said he shortly thereafter took some policemen up to the fourth floor. Well, Sawyer said an employee took him up to the fourth floor, which he believed to be the top floor, and that he returned after a few minutes. This was roughly four minutes after the shooting. IF Shelley and Lovelady were not on the first floor when Baker and Truly came in, Shelley could not have talked to Truly, and would not have been guarding the front elevator, when Sawyer came in the building. Truly, to be clear, was up on the roof with Baker when Sawyer came in, and would remain there till 8-10 minutes after the shooting. 6. Although Ball/Belin pointedly avoided asking Shelley and Lovelady if they were the two white men observed by Baker, and if they were in the building when Truly ran up the back stairs, Lovelady mentioned Baker and Truly's running up the back stairs, when asked by an HSCA interviewer to recount what he saw after returning to the building. 7. Adams said she saw a policeman on Houston when she ran out of the building. A policeman, Welcome Barnett, acknowledged running to where she said she saw a policeman, but said he did so for a brief period but a minute or two after the shooting. This further corroborates Adams' claims of an early descent. 8. Adams said she talked to Avery Davis and Joe Molina on the front steps after leaving the building. Both said they returned to the building shortly after the shooting. If Ball/Belin were actually investigating Adams' story, as opposed to looking for reasons to dismiss it, they would have talked to these witnesses, and asked them to approximate when they returned to the building. But alas they did not. Because they suspected her story was true. Now, I know it seems unfair to accuse such esteemed lawyers of a deliberate cover-up. But a pattern emerges from studying the statements and testimony of those who worked in the building. And that pattern is that Ball and Belin were anxious to paint Oswald as the assassin, and not particularly interested in establishing the truth. This fact is demonstrated once again in Adams' appearance on the Sahl show, where she claimed Belin refused to re-enact her run down the stairs, and Shelley and Lovelady's run around the building, etc, because it was unnecessary. Her story was considered quite problematic, to such an extent they brought Piper back to say he didn't see her, and buried the Stroud note in the files. And yet they refused to test it. Shame shame shame.

Boy, you really like that Kool-Aid. I've discussed this stuff ad nauseam, for decades now. And you are screaming out long-debunked nonsense as if it's news. But I'll grant you this, you may be right about that one image of McClelland. I don't remember where I got it but it was purported to be a depiction of him pointing out the wound location. I'll double-check it to see if you're right. And pull it from my website if it turns out to be a misrepresentation. But that one image has little to do with my problem with McClelland...as a witness. I met the man and he was soft-voiced and pleasant. I said hello and introduced myself, and asked him one question, as I remember. I asked him if he'd ever been pressured to change his impressions of the head wound. And he said no. Which is as I expected seeing as McClelland's early statements on the head wound were not the least bit controversial, and he only got controversial under the questioning of Arlen Specter. In any event, his weakness as a back of the head witness comes not from his putting his hand a bit high on his head. in one image, or having someone screen grab his hand before it moved into position, but from his own statements, from day one. 1. His initial report described but one head wound, a wound "of the left temple". While some silly people wish to believe his latter-day claim he was describing a presumed entrance location, this doesn't pass a smell test, seeing as he failed to see such a wound, failed to say the wound was a presumed entrance, and failed to say anything about cerebellum or occipital which would indicate the fatal wound was on the back of the head. IF he was in fact describing a wound he did not see while failing to describe the wound he did see, he can only be described as grossly incompetent, and throughly unreliable. By assuming he saw a wound by the right temple--which was in keeping with the statements of the witnesses then on TV--and screwed up and wrote left temple as a result of his viewing the body upside down, etc, I am actually showing him a kindness. 2. When journalist Richard Dudman, who had thought he saw a bullet hole through the windshield outside Parkland, approached McClelland a few weeks later, and asked McClelland if he thought any shots came from the front, McClelland assured him that there was NOTHING about the head wound to suggest the bullet had come from the front. 3. When the initial reports of the Parkland staff were published in a Texas medical journal, but a few weeks after that, McClelland's report was slightly revised. The time of JFK's death was revised to match the official story, and McClelland's description of the wound had been changed from left temple to right side of the head. I believe McClelland was behind these changes. He most certainly never denounced the revisions. 4. In any event, this article was quite the talk at Parkland, and those reading it, including McClelland, would have to have noticed his report was at odds with the others, some of which reported the presence of cerebellum. Well, it's not much of a surprise then that in his WC testimony McClelland's descriptions were much like the others', only more so. 5. After reading his testimony, Josiah Thompson hired an artist to make a sketch demonstrating the wounds as described by McClelland. McClelland was later shown this drawing by the Boston Globe, and the ARRB. Both times he said the drawing was inaccurate, and presented a wound too low on the back of the head. Even so, due in no small part to so many ill-informed people assuming he'd made the drawing, or had supervised the drawing, it came to be called the McClelland drawing. 6. By the time of Jim Garrison's investigation, McClelland was still convinced all shots came from behind. To such an extent even, that he refused to cooperate with Garrison, and denounced him to Harold Weisberg, whilst simultaneously singing the praises of Arlen Specter. 7. And then. McClelland saw the Zapruder film on TV. By his own admission, this, and not the nature of the President's wounds, led him down conspiracy road. He was soon tracked down by CT writers, and became pretty much a darling among the CT crowd. 8. And his already questionable memory suffered as a result. Over the next years and decades, he began claiming he'd drawn the "McClelland" drawing, or had signed off on it, or some such thing, anything but admit the truth--that Thompson had had it created without even talking to him. In the end, in fact, he started creating, and presumably selling (as eBay is littered with them) his own hand-drawn facsimiles of the famous drawing, some of which included an entrance wound on the forehead, which he admitted he did not see, and an entrance wound on the back, which he admitted he did not see. The man gloried in attention. Now, one last bit. The most recent chapter in the ongoing back of the head wound hoax is this crappy film, built on interviews of the Parkland doctors When promoting the original version of the film, which failed to arouse interest because it wasn't conspiratorial enough, three of the seven doctors interviewed in the film attended the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas. None of these doctors said the back of the head was blown out, which really angered the crowd. In any event, after their presentation, I went over and chatted with them. And Salyer, in particular, was most adamant that the back of the head was not blown out and that it astounded him that so many people want to believe such a thing. Now, here's the point. Without my bringing it up, he singled out McClelland, and said he respected him and that they were friends, but that he just couldn't understand why McCllelland (I believe he called him Bob)would say the things he was saying. He frowned and shook his head, seemingly puzzled and horrified by the complexities of the human mind.

Shelley and Lovelady were walking away from the steps and saw Baker running towards the steps. They then circled around to come in through the side entrance, and saw Adams inside the building as she was running towards the back door. Moments later, Baker and Truly approached the elevators. Presumably, Baker and Truly talked for a moment about why Baker was running into the building, and how best to get to the roof, etc, and this delayed them for a bit, probably 30 seconds or so. And we know this for a whole slew of reasons. Here are a few. Adams said she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor when she came down. Lovelady said he saw a girl talking to Shelley which could have been her when they came in. Well, no other girls were in the area. Shelley said he talked to Adams but couldn't recall if it was on the first or fourth floor. He went to the fourth floor within a few minutes of the shooting, and came back down a few minutes later, and she returned there after that. As a result, it's difficult, at the very least, to create a timeline in which they were both on the fourth floor, chatting away. So, despite the WC spin, and the foolish CT spin, Lovelady's and Shelley's testimony actually supported Adams' story. Always did. Always will. And that's not even to mention that Lovelady's statements to the HSCA suggested that he saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs. From Chapter 4: On 7-5-78, Billy Lovelady was interviewed by an HSCA investigator, accompanied by an HSCA photo analyst (Robert Groden). While the tapes of this interview were not transcribed, copies of the tapes were eventually acquired by researcher Richard Gilbride and placed on Youtube. Towards the end of Tape 1, Lovelady is asked "What did you see inside the building?" after he and Shelley returned to the building. He says he saw some co-workers, but does not name them. He is then asked to describe what the police did as they ran into the building. His response is blurred as the tape runs out. At the beginning of Tape 2, however, he repeats for posterity what he was describing as the tape ran out. He repeats: "One policeman (and) Mr. Truly had run up the steps...I guess they went up the steps when they couldn't get the freight elevator to go upstairs." Lovelady is then asked "What else did you see that went on at that time after the police came in?" He responds "At that time, after Mr. Truly and (the) officer ran up, there were more Secret Service and FBI, I guess it was, that came in."

LOL, That's not Lovelady. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Lovelady and Shelley claimed they walked around the building together, and a film shows two people who look just like them rapidly walking in that direction, just when they said they were walking in that direction...as Baker ran up to the front of the building. But Karnak claims he knows it's all a hoax because a blurry image of someone who doesn't look like Lovelady appears to be talking to someone Lovelady said he'd talked to. HERE is Lovelady.

So let's be clear, you are now stating as fact that the two men walking rapidly westward in the films are NOT Shelley and Lovelady, even though they look just like them, and even though they both said they saw Baker run up behind them, not to them. Is that right? Mr. BALL - Then you went out across Elm? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, to the divider. Mr. BALL - Between the two Elm Streets? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes. Mr. BALL - The one street dead ends and the other street that goes on down under the viaduct? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Did you run out to the point or walk out? Mr. SHELLEY - I believe we trotted out there. Mr. BALL - And that's the place you saw Truly and Baker, you say, going into the building? Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, uh-huh, Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building? Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15, maybe 25, steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building. Mr. BALL - How many steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Twenty, 25. Mr. BALL - Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

Shelley said he ran in to call his wife. I presume he was on the phone near the back and that Lovelady was somewhere nearby. If so, this would have been a few seconds after Vickie Adams came down, as she placed them near the pillar with the phone. From chapter 4: For the image below I have layered R.B. Cutler's drawing of the first floor of the school book depository (which shows the western loading dock and the pillars within the building) atop the illustration of the first floor provided the Warren Commission in CD 496. I have then marked with blue arrows the presumed route of William Shelley to the location of the phone depicted above, and marked this location with a yellow star. I have then marked with green arrows Vickie Adams' purported route from the building. Now note the red star. That's where Adams testified to seeing Shelley. It was right on his route to the phone!

Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us. Mr. DULLES - Were they white men? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

In chapter 4 of my website, I run through the statements of testimony regarding what happened in the school book depository. Near the end I present a list of suspicious omissions--which I consider proof of the whitewash. Enjoy. A Quick Review: the Suspicious Omissions (and Commissions, with a Few New Additions) in Chronological Order From reviewing the suspicious omissions, and placing them in chronological order, one can get a sense of where the Commission went astray. It went astray because it wasn't willing to get it right. It seems clear, moreover, that, prior to taking any testimony, Messieurs Ball and Belin had already decided to push a scenario in which Oswald stayed upstairs during lunchtime and raced downstairs after the shooting, and Jack Dougherty rode the elevator from the fifth floor on down as Baker and Truly raced up the stairs to the fifth floor. 12-20-63. The FBI omits from a report on an interview with Eddie Piper that Piper feels certain he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00. March 64--September 64. The Warren Commission fails to call Carolyn Arnold to testify, even though she told FBI investigators on 11-26-63 that she believed she saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:15. March 64--September 64. The Warren Commission fails to call Carolyn Walther to testify, even though she told FBI investigators on 12-4-63 that she saw a man with a rifle on an upper floor of the school book depository, and that there was another man behind him, to his left. March 1964--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to call Lillian Mooneyham to testify, even though she told the FBI on 1-8-64 that she saw a man standing in the sniper's nest at a time the Commission presumes Oswald to have been running down the back stairs. March 1964--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to call Sandra Styles to testify, even though she could confirm Vickie Adams' claim she raced down the back stairs just after the shooting and didn't see Oswald. March 1964--September 1964. Warren Commission attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin fail to follow-up on the Secret Service's interviews of Pierce Allman and Terry Ford, in which they placed themselves near the back of the building at the time the commission presumed Adams and Styles had raced down the back stairs. 3-11-64. In a desperate attempt at getting them to change their recollection of the size of the bag they saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the 22nd (which they remembered as being too small to hold the rifle found in the school book depository) Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball asks Buell Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle to hold their hands apart to demonstrate the length of the bag. He then asks them to do this again, and again, at least ten times, according to Frazier, giving them the feeling he won't stop asking until they lie and tell him the bag was longer than they believed it was. 3-24-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to follow up with witness Harold Norman and find out how his not playing dominoes at lunch made him think someone else was in the room--an inquiry that would almost certainly have led to Norman's saying he thought this someone else was Oswald. 3-24-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to point out during testimony or subsequently acknowledge that James Jarman and Harold Norman's claim they re-entered the building via the back door towards the end of their lunch time supported Oswald's claim he'd been sitting in a room with a view of the back door area during lunch time, and had observed Jarman and Norman. 3-25-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin fail to follow-up on Officer Marrion Baker's claim he saw two white men by the elevators when he came into the building with Oswald's boss Roy Truly, at a time when no white men besides Baker and Truly were known to be on the first floor. 4-1-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin argues with witness Ronald Fischer about the color of the hair of the man Fischer saw staring out the window of the sniper's nest. According to Fischer, Belin tries to "intimidate" him, because Oswald's hair was not as light as the hair of the man Fischer saw, and he "wanted me to tell him that the man was dark-headed and I wouldn't do it." (Note: this was detailed in a December 1978 Dallas Morning News article by Earl Golz.) 4-7-64--Warren Commission attorney David Belin shows Vickie Adams a diagram of the first floor depicting where she claimed she saw Lovelady and Shelley, but fails to enter this diagram into evidence. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Billy Lovelady any of a number of relevant questions regarding Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty's actions after the shooting. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball also fails to ask Lovelady if he saw Roy Truly and Officer Baker by the elevators, and whether or not he could be one of the white men observed by Baker. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball asks William Shelley if he saw Roy Truly enter the depository building, but fails to ask him the more important question if he saw Truly and officer Baker by the elevators, and whether or not he could be one of the white men observed by Baker. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask William Shelley any of a number of relevant questions regarding Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty's actions after the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission's diagrams for the first floor of the school book depository strangely fail to include the west loading dock, through which Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the building, which was presumably left unsecured for some time after the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin fail to interview Gloria Calvery and re-enact the actions of William Shelley and Billy Lovelady after the shooting (in order to develop a timeline for Shelley and Lovelady's return to the building, which is essential to their assessing the credibility of Vickie Adams), even though Ball and Belin know from their testimony that Shelley and Lovelady's sense of time for the moments immediately following the shooting are at odds with the re-enactments Ball and Belin had already performed. 4-7-64--September 1964. Ball and Belin fail to consult newsreel footage which could help them establish the timing of Shelley and Lovelady's walk around the building, which could, in turn, help them establish the credibility of Vickie Adams' claim she ran down the back stairs just after the shooting, and saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to ask Joe Molina about Vickie Adams even though it has reason to suspect he would confirm Adams' claim she was outside on the front steps within a few minutes of the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to ask Mrs. Avery Davis about Vickie Adams even though it has reason to suspect she would confirm Adams' claim she was outside on the front steps within a few minutes of the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and establish the identity of a policeman observed by Vickie Adams just after the shooting, even though the identification of this policeman could help the Commission establish the veracity of Miss Adams' claim she raced down the back stairs just after the shooting, and didn't see Oswald. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and clarify the record when Charles Givens testifies to leaving his coat in the domino room upon his arrival at work, but then going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket after everyone else had left for lunch--a brand new addition to Givens' story that allowed Belin and the Commission to place Oswald in the proximity of the sniper's nest shortly before the shooting. 4-8-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to point out in testimony or subsequently acknowledge that Givens' new story was in conflict with both his previous recollections, and that of his co-workers. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin goes against the precedent established during the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams and others and allows Charles Givens to dispute the claims of an FBI report--without putting the source of these claims on the record. 4-8-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to follow-up with Givens' 11-22-63 lunch partner, Edward Shields, to see if he will confirm Givens' claim he saw Oswald on the sixth floor around 11:55. 4-8-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin, the man behind a number of re-enactments, fails to re-enact Givens' purported sighting of Oswald, to see if Givens could actually have seen Oswald where he said he saw him. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper where on the first floor he saw Oswald at 12:00, and thereby conceals from the Commission and public that Piper felt certain he saw Oswald just where Oswald said he was during the lunch period--in the domino room. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper about his discussion with Jack Dougherty, something that was desperately needed for the establishment of Dougherty as the passenger coming down in the west elevator after the shooting. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Jack Dougherty what time he came down for lunch, and thereby conceals that Dougherty had previously claimed he was on the sixth floor until 12, and would thereby have been on the sixth floor when Charles Givens claimed he last saw Oswald. 4-8-64. Warren Commission Attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Jack Dougherty if he called the west elevator to the first floor after lunch, or if it was on the ground floor waiting for him, something that Dougherty may not have remembered, but something that was of vital importance and needed to be asked. 4-8-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to test whether or not a rifle shot from the sixth floor sniper's nest window could have been heard by Jack Dougherty, standing near the opposite end of the building, as a sound coming from above him. 4-8-64--September 1964. Ball, Belin, and the Warren Commission fail to explore the possibility Dougherty went upstairs to work after the shooting, after someone else had taken the west elevator to the ground floor. 4-8-64--September 1964. Attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin and the Warren Commission as a whole fail to acknowledge that their conclusion Jack Dougherty rode the west elevator down to the first floor as Baker and Truly ran upstairs places Dougherty on the fifth floor by the west elevator as Oswald crossed an open stretch of floor before him. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin allows Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer to testify as though Charles Givens' new-found story (about seeing Oswald near the sniper's nest after everyone else had left the sixth floor) had been common knowledge on 11-22-63, when Belin knew this wasn't true. 5-13-64. Dallas Police Detective Jack Revill testifies in support of Givens' new-found story, and offers Dallas Police Detective V. J. Brian as a witness to his discussion with Givens, only to have Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin fail to ask Brian about Givens in testimony taken just after Revill dropped his smelly surprise. 5-14-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball cuts off Eddie Piper after Piper volunteers that he has no idea who brought the elevators down just after the shots, and steers him to what he believes is a more productive course--that he failed to see Vickie Adams come down the stairs. 5-14-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball not only fails to ask Eddie Piper the questions about Jack Dougherty he'd claimed in a memo needed to be asked, but uses the failure of Piper to provide answers to these never-asked questions as a means of discrediting him. 5-14-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball inexplicably fails to ask William Shelley about Jack Dougherty's 4-8-64 testimony, in which Dougherty claimed Shelley had told him he saw Oswald with a large package on 11-22-63. 5-19-64. The February 17-18 statements of Vickie Adams, who claimed she raced down the stairs just after the shooting, and Otis Williams, who claimed he raced up to the fourth floor shortly after the shooting (and who later claimed he'd taken the back stairs up to the second floor just after the shooting), are inexplicably missing from a batch of statements taken by the Dallas Police that are only now provided the Warren Commission. 6-4-64--September 1964. Vickie Adams' boss, Dorothy Ann Garner, lets it be known she'd be willing to testify in support of Adams' and Styles' claim they raced down the stairs after the shooting, and goes one step further by claiming she saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs after Adams and Styles ran down the stairs...and is totally blown off by the Warren Commission... June-64--September 1964. Chapter IV in the Commission's Final report is presented, approved, and sold to the public even though it includes an egregious lie, which, no surprise, helps sell Oswald's guilt. In support of the Commission's conclusion Vickie Adams was mistaken, and that Oswald did in fact race down the stairs within a minute of the shooting, the report claims: "Victoria Adams, who worked on the fourth floor of the Depository Building, claimed that within about 1 minute following the shots she ran from a window on the south side of the fourth floor, down the rear stairs to the first floor, where she encountered two Depository employees--William Shelley and Billy Lovelady. If her estimate of time is correct, she reached the bottom of the stairs before Truly and Baker started up, and she must have run down the stairs ahead of Oswald and would probably have seen or heard him..." It then strikes: "Shelley and Lovelady, however, have testified that they... reentered the building by the REAR door several minutes after Baker and Truly rushed through the front entrance". So where was the lie? I sure hope you caught it. It was the bit about Shelley and Lovelady re-entering the building through the REAR door several minutes after Baker and Truly rushed through the front door. While Shelley and Lovelady both struggled with their time estimates, and thereby helped the Commission in its effort to discredit Adams, they also were consistent in that they both testified--in the testimony the Commission cited by footnote to support they'd re-entered by the rear door, moreover-- to re-entering the building through the side door. By claiming they re-entered the building through the REAR door, instead of the side door, the commission had effectively doubled the distance the men were presumed to have covered in the "several minutes" of their estimate. And, oh yeah, "several minutes." Shelley and Lovelady both testified to spending but 60-90 seconds down by the railroad tracks, which translates to their re-entering the building 85-115 seconds after Baker and Truly entered the building. That's close, but it isn't "several minutes." In fact, while some use the word "several" to mean "more than one" the actual definition is "more than two." In such case, then, the commission's staff had flat-out lied, and had stretched a passage of time as short as 85 seconds into a passage of time no less than 180 seconds. A sneaky lawyer trick--by a sneaky lawyer xxxx. The commission's report, then, made two false claims in one sentence that served the same purpose--to stretch out the time sequence regarding Shelley and Lovelady's return to the building, which the commission could then use to discredit Adams. This would appear to be no coincidence.

I am confused as to why you think Adams came down after Baker and Truly came up. Lovelady and Shelley both made out that they spent more time in front of the building than they did by the railroad tracks. Well the films show them leaving the front on a trot within seconds. So they could have come in before Adams reached the first floor. That they did so before Baker and Truly went up is supported, moreover, by Baker's testimony, in which he claimed two white men were standing back by the elevators. Lovelady and Shelley are almost certainly these men. And Ball and Belin knew it. I am starting a thread on the suspicious omissions, which comes from Chapter 4.

Wow. He never said anything about going back to the steps. He said he went back in the building. He did not specify which entrance.

Ironically, I pointed out years ago that Angel's orientation of the Harper fragment put a wound of entrance (and exit) right by the temple, and this led to an onslaught of abuse by a certain someone claiming no one could conceive of a wound in that location. Then, a few years later, he started claiming there was a wound in that location. As far as Akin, to my recollection he failed to discuss an entrance wound in his testimony, and only mentioned it decades later, after he'd left the medical profession. Is that correct? Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw him? Dr. AKIN - There was a midline neck wound below the level of the cricoid cartilage, about 1 to 1.5 cm. in diameter, the lower part of this had been cut across when I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. If I am remembering things clearly, he also said the McClelland drawing was inaccurate. So he's not much help to the "small entrance on the front of the head/blow-out wound low on the back of the head" theory. No. not at all.

In my scenario the bullet erupted upon impact with the skull, with many of the fragments embedding into the scalp. if this is what happened, then some of them may have made contact with the face area when the skull flap blew forward. Alternatively, it could be that the divots noted by the morticians were made by the triangular fragment when it broke loose. In any event, no one viewing the face noted a bullet entrance on the face, including the morticians claiming they noticed some minor defects on the face. And yes, I know, the morticians weren't pathologists. But one would think they'd seen a few bullet wounds, and could tell the difference between a tiny defect and the entrance of a high-velocity bullet. I mean, no abrasion ring. No bullet wipe. No skin tears. Just a small defect. It doesn't add up as a bullet entrance.

I acknowledged that the CIA had it in for Garrison. My understanding is that Garrison was looking for a window into the anti-Castro Cuban world, and up popped DeTorres. Are you saying that DeTorres was involved in the murder, and the CIA ordered him to infiltrate Garrison's staff to protect the CIA, as opposed to protecting the country from anti-government propaganda? Because, if so, it seems you're claiming that whoever told DeTorres he should get a gig with Garrison knew who killed Kennedy, and knew it had to be covered up. Care to name names?

I would agree that certain events go way beyond someone's making a phone call and saying "You shouldn't publish that" or whatever. The Garrison case is a good example. It seems clear the CIA was not a fan, and wanted it shut down, and sought help in doing so. But we have reason to believe they did this for reasons other than covering their own butts. Helms and others made statements over the years suggesting that they thought Garrison had been manipulated by the Soviets or some such thing. If this is true, well, then, they thought shutting it all down and making him look foolish was the patriotic thing to do. There's also this. (From chapter 1) Now, should one have doubts so many men--not only those working for the commission, but those working for the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA--would agree to give Johnson a free pass (in the name of national security, etc) one should consider that some of these same men defended the conclusions of the Warren Commission for these very same reasons...and left a "smoking gun" document in the National Archives as proof of their activities. Here is a link to this document: The Smoking Gun Document. One might wish to take a quick look at it before returning to our discussion... This document, released in 1993 as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which was passed in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was written on January 4, 1967, at a time when questions surrounding the assassination were beginning to be taken seriously, and appear in mainstream publications like Life Magazine, the New York Times, and The Saturday Evening Post. It is a CIA document, created but six months after former journalist Richard Helms was appointed its director. In any event, the document no doubt approved by Helms in 1967 proposes that the CIA chiefs around the world to whom it was directed "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories." Now note that the document says "Destroy when no longer needed" across the bottom. We were never supposed to know about this. Note also that January 1967 marks the precise time the so-called mainstream media pulled back from its criticisms of the Warren Commission, and started focusing its criticism on the critics. CBS News, most pointedly, had started an investigation of the Warren Commission months before, but had changed its direction around this same time, after former Warren Commissioner John McCloy crawled onboard as a top secret adviser. But note, primarily, the stated purpose of this propaganda push. It says nothing about the danger Americans might think a foreign power killed Kennedy. It says nothing about preventing World War III. Instead, it says, in so many words, that all this talk of conspiracy is starting to circle in on President Johnson and the CIA, and that that would be bad for business. Here are the relevant paragraphs: 1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results. 2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments. Now note that, according to this last paragraph, this trend towards accusing Johnson was, in the eyes of the writer of this dispatch (undoubtedly one of the CIA's top officials), "a matter of concern to the U.S. government," including the CIA. Well, this more than suggests that this order to "employ" the CIA's propaganda assets to help clear Johnson's name did not originate within the CIA itself... but from elsewhere in the executive branch.

Ok. Robinson said he heard the doctors discussing an entrance wound on the back of the head during the autopsy. I suppose I should add that to my website, as this undoubtedly hurts the theory they were expanding a large exit wound or whatever. Heck, he also recognizes the flap by the temple in the photos, which is also shown in the Z-film. So Robinson is a heckuva witness for the authenticity of the Z-film and photos. Cool.

Yes, of course. Robinson did not see the large wound during the autopsy, only during its reconstruction. He then saw a large wound in the middle of the back of the head, which is as would be expected considering it was a cosmetic reconstruction designed to hide the wounds from public view. So what did the man performing the reconstruction say? How did he describe the wounds? From chapter 18c: The strangeness of Horne's embrace of Robinson as proof the bullet exploded from the back of Kennedy's head gets even stranger when one considers that Horne's interviews with Robinson and VanHoesen established that the reconstruction of Kennedy's skull was performed by a never-interviewed third man, Ed Stroble. Now, to be fair, Stroble was long-dead by the time of the ARRB. But that hadn't stopped Horne and the ARRB from interviewing the friends and relatives of other long-dead witnesses, such as George Burkley and Robert Knudsen, to see what they had to say. We can be grateful, then, that on 11-25-13, the (Illinois) Herald & Review published an article on Stroble. This article reprinted a 1964 letter from Stroble to a friend named Linda Gobengeiser. It read “I was simply astounded that you had ever heard about my being the one to embalm Pres. Kennedy, or rather to put him back together. I’m under orders from the White House, Secret Service and the FBI not to discuss any factors relating to points of entry of bullets, nor their effects. So I can’t tell you anything that would be interesting evolving from natural curiosity. I can, however, tell you that it took all my knowledge and acquired skills to make him presentable. That along with a lot of good luck. The good luck part, only an embalmer would understand." Beyond Gobengeiser, the article also quoted Lynn Kull, a friend of Stroble's and a fellow mortician. According to Kull, Stroble visited his family's funeral home in December 1963, to show them the check he'd received for working on the President. According to Kull, Stroble was indiscreet during this visit, and told them that the president had been "shot in the very top of the cranium" and was also "hit about the seventh vertebrae in his back." According to Kull, Stroble also stressed that "Kennedy’s face was not marred." The "very top of the cranium," not the back of the cranium. While Kull is a second-hand witness reporting what someone told him 50 years before, he nevertheless has more credibility than some of the "back of the head" witnesses propped up by the wilder conspiracy theorists.

Since you're cherry-picking snippets of my website to try to make me look like a meany, who just won't play footsie with the hoaxers, I thought I'd let the readers judge for themselves. From chapter 18c: Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing. Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed. PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. PURDY: On his right side? ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. PURDY: Approximately what size? ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it. When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting." So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round, nor a high-velocity bullet hole of any kind. Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it. P.S. If YOU are pushing that Robinson saw a tiny entrance wound by the temple that eluded others, to what end are you pushing this? Is that YOUR theory? And, if so, are you gonna take the next step and admit that Horne, Mantik, and Chesser's claim there was a tiny entrance wound high on the forehead is incorrect? Or are you anxious to accept that both wounds are real, and that the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda doctors and assistants ALL missed not one but TWO entrance wounds on the front of JFK's head? Oh wait, Jenkins. Jenkins initially said there was a gray mark on the bone by the temple that he thought denoted an entrance wound, and later made out that he saw a bullet hole there, and not just a gray mark on the bone. And Horne claimed in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that the bullet creating the wound observed by Jenkins REALLY entered high up on the forehead, inches away from the temple and where Jenkins had pointed to on his head. So who are you siding with? Jenkins or Horne? They can't both be right. Choose. Or not.

Wow. One bit caught my eye. You claimed you proved "that the WC got Shelley and Lovelady to lie in their testimony about walking around the railroad tracks and into the west door of the TSBD." This is silly. The WC's attorneys thought Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the building by the rear loading dock and were shocked when they claimed they'd come in from the side, which drastically cut down the time involved. If you look closely, moreover, you'll find that the WC's exhibits fail to show this side entrance. It seems probable, then, that they wished to conceal the existence of this entrance/exit, which remained unguarded for some time after the assassination. P.S. If you still believe Shelley and Lovelady lied about coming in the side, then how do you explain how they got there in time for Vickie Adams to see them when she came downstairs? I have to believe your delusion she never said that has imploded, as she repeated it in 1966 on the Mort Sahl show. I mean, you must know that by now. So how are you processing it? Is the tape of her on the show yet another fake?

I think there is some confusion as to what Mockingbird was and is. If one believes, as some, that a department at the CIA keeps an eye on all things media, and shuts down articles or investigations as they arise, and publishes non-stop propaganda, then one is incorrect, IMO. But if one believes corporations have interests beyond simply reporting, and that they frequently compromise with powerful entities to protect those interests, well, then, one has a better understanding of how Mockingbird worked, and works. The best example of Mockingbird in action, in my opinion, is not a movie about Mockingbird. It is The Insider, which tells the story of a news department backing down in fear when their corporate parents decide it's against their best interests to pursue a story...that could be damaging to a rich and powerful entity. Now, the rich and powerful entity in this story was the tobacco industry. Now imagine how much fear would be installed in these corporate parents should the rich and powerful entity have been a department of the U.S. Government, or the President himself. And now imagine that the CIA had at times decided to avail itself of this fear, and had used its reputation for dirty tricks to manipulate those tasked with protecting the interests of media corporations into spinning stories in this direction or that. No one has to order anything. A suggestion is enough.

Well, we agree that Ball/Belin saw her as a problem, and deliberately tried to minimize the damage by making her out to be a doofus. They did the same with Frazier, Piper, Dougherty, Rowland and so on, while treating Givens as if he were credible. It's an abomination.

What a load! I am hurting the "cause"??? Over the past 20 years I have added more pieces to the Dealey Plaza puzzle than just about anyone. Here are just a few. 1. I created a video series demonstrating that the mystery photo shows the back of the head, and the EOP entry. This demolishes the Clark panel's and HSCA panel's claim there was no such entry, and that the photo shows an exit at the coronal suture. 2. I located and shared the first detailed study of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, which proved that JFK's large head wound was many times larger than should have been expected, and that the WC and HSCA's explanation for this was nonsense. 3. I performed a detailed study of the report of the HSCA's trajectory analyst, and proved he claimed JFK was leaning forward before shot in the back, sat up, and was then shot in the head...which everyone knows to be b.s. I thereby debunked the report. 4. I performed a detailed study of the single-bullet theory, including all the writings of WC counsel Arlen Specter and HSCA NAA consultant Vincent Guinn on the subject, which proved they were both flat-out XXXXX who'd pushed a theory they knew was unsupported by the evidence. 5. I studied the section on the shooting itself in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and compared what he claimed in his book against the footnotes supposedly supporting what he claimed in his book, and proved him to have misrepresented the statements of many of the witnesses, and for being as deceptive, if not more, than the conspiracy theorists he despised. 6. I tracked the media's response to the 50th anniversary of the assassination in a blog, which ended up proving a clear bias within the media towards the single-assassin conclusion. This blog, moreover, has been cited in textbooks on media. 7. And, oh yeah, I spent years re-typing and transcribing all the Dealey Plaza witness statements I could find, and created what was far and away the largest database of witness statements on the shooting. Now, there's probably 20 or 30 more. But the point has been made. So... What have you done, Sandy?

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. The stuff you are regurgitating has been discussed ad nauseam. Some has been debunked. Some has not. The bottom line is this. If one is to "trust" the witnesses' then one has to acknowledge that what they said does not support that there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head. The majority of witnesses pointed to a location above the ear, above the occipital bone. The Harper fragment was thereby not occipital bone, and the doctors thereby did not see cerebellum, but only macerated brain. And that's a problem for "theorists" (as opposed to researchers). Theorists NEED the back of the head to be blown out so they can delight in the correctness of their theory, and PRETEND the witnesses are pointing to a location low on the back of the head when they are not, and gobble up crapola like this most recent documentary like it is manna from heaven, when it is essentially a scam. As I said...do the research. If you do you will realize that many of the Parkland doctors were not conspiracy theorists and did not believe the back of the head was blown out. Heck, in 1963, McClelland told a writer suspecting shots came from the front that there was nothing about the head wound to indicate a shot came from the front. P.S. I hope my eyes deceived me, but I think I saw you claim I was both a Warren Commission apologist, and afraid of or unaware of Gary's writings... This is so wrong it's almost funny. Almost, but not quite... P.P.S. I started to look back through your massive post to see if there was anything worth reading, and saw a description of my discussion of Charles Brehm as "a hit piece." This is one of the dumbest things ever written on this forum. If you knew anything about Brehm, you'd know he was not a conspiracy theorist. In the image you present he is pointing to the side of his head where he thought he saw an explosion on the skull. This supports the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and not the low back of the head blow-out conjured up in the conspiracy literature. If you knew anything about me, for that matter, you'd know I consider Brehm one of the most credible witnesses, as he stood by his belief the first shot struck Kennedy, and a third shot was fired after the head shot, long after the LN crowd had taken to claiming the first shot missed, and the third shot was the head shot. "Hit piece", my rump.