Pat Speer

Now, those defending Johnson, like Valenti, claim he needed to fly back with the widow and the body to project the continuity of government and strength. But I think the unstated part is that he wanted to project his innocence in the matter. "Like, look, if I was behind this, or had anything to do with this, would I have the balls to walk off Air Force One with my arms around the widow?" It's clear Bobby was on to this, moreover. He raced onto Air Force One, right past LBJ, and pulled Jackie off the back of the plane with the casket. LBJ was enraged by this. As discussed in Chapter 21, The Rorschach Test, LBJ and RFK were in a private war, of sorts, that had started in the 1960 campaign, when Bobby tried to get LBJ to leave the ticket. The full extent of this story, I believe, has yet to be told. Hopefully, Robert Caro will get into this in his final volume on LBJ. But I suspect even he will avoid it, as it's just too ugly. To be clear, it seems likely RFK was behind or at least supportive of the Life Magazine series on Bobby Baker that hit the stands the week the assassination. This series was on Texas corruption and was accompanied by a Senate investigation into payoffs received by LBJ. Well, golly. Intriguingly, Both the magazine series and the investigation got pushed to the back burner after the assassination. Another flare-up occurred after the assassination when articles popped up claiming RFK told LBJ he needed to be sworn in in Dallas. This wasn't true, and Bobby saw this, correctly, as LBJ's trying to justify his own power lust--he wanted to get sworn in asap before anyone could take it away from him. Similar articles popped up claiming Kenny O'Donnell or the Secret Service told LBJ he needed to fly back on JFK's plane, which were equally untrue. These were all designed to get LBJ off the hook for his naked power grab. This came to a head with Manchester's book, which the Kennedys prevented from release in its initial form due to its insinuation of Johnson's involvement in the assassination. LBJ, nonetheless, believed the whole thing was a conspiracy against him with Bobby at the wheel. He even told Fortas he believed ALL the conspiracy books and articles were somehow sponsored by Bobby. But, even if true, Bobby was not the only one pushing conspiracies. The day after Bobby broke ranks and came out against the Vietnam war, a Jack Anderson/Drew Pearson article was published claiming Bobby was behind the CIA's attempts on Castro, which back-fired and led to JFK's death. The article revealed who was behind this claim, moreover, as it nonsensically claimed LBJ was sitting on this information to protect Bobby. (And yes, the records reveal that Pearson did indeed meet with LBJ to discuss this matter.) There are tons of other ugly coincidences yet to be fully explored, IMO, such as the fact Ramsey Clark told LBJ Garrison thought LBJ was involved in the assassination, and was looking to build his case around David Ferrie, and that within the week POOF Ferrie was found dead. Now ain't that the coincidence? In any event, when working on his memoirs, LBJ performed some interviews in which he intimated that if Bobby had had his way, LBJ would have been arrested for JFK's. murder, and said further that he'd have met this fate if not for Earl Warren. The ramblings of a paranoid? Or a guilty conscience?

Heck, no one mentioned our very own Barb Junkkarinen. Barb was a long-time moderator of this forum, and wrote a number of excellent articles 20 years ago or so. She was into sharing her research and materials with others. A great role model. Miss ya, Barb.

The Hosty report was in fact a draft of a report that was never submitted to the FBI or Warren Commission. As Oswald had never claimed he was outside, of course, there was no alibi for the Warren Commission to suppress. I would agree, however, that the WC would have found a way to suppress such an alibi if one should have surfaced. By their own admission, Oswald told his interrogators that he saw Jarman and Norman when he was in the break room, and sure enough, Jarman and Norman confirmed that they entered the back of the building and walked right past the entrance to the break room shortly before the shooting. This was not proof of Oswald's innocence, but was clear evidence Oswald did in fact come down for lunch. And yet the WC pretended Oswald never came down for lunch and spent his lunch time on the sixth floor preparing to shoot the President.

What do you mean about the Katzenbach solution starting on the day of the shooting? I hope you realize Bart conflated two memos, one from the 22nd and one from the 24th, which made it appear Katzenbach was orchestrating a cover-up from day one. P.S. My original post made it sound like Bart's mistake was by design, so I corrected it to reflect my actual feelings--that I believe it was a mistake.

I believe the SS and the Kennedy entourage were anxious to just get out of there, but agree that LBJ may have had an ulterior motive when he decided to hold off his departure until he got Jackie and the body on HIS plane. From chapter 21 (about what happened on the plane): In his 1975 defense of Johnson, A Very Human President, former Johnson aide Jack Valenti offered up a fascinating insight into Johnson's actions on 11-22-63. Valenti sat with Johnson on the plane while waiting for Mrs. Kennedy, and was intimately aware of Johnson's thoughts during this period. He wrote of Johnson's decision to be sworn-into office as soon as possible--which, while unnecessary, was nevertheless politically desirable. He then added "before Air Force One departed for Washington, Johnson had also made his first command decision, on his own, to wait for the body of the dead president to be brought aboard before he gave an order to be airborne. This was an intuitive decision and a good one." So... Johnson, a man famous for seeking advice, had decided not to leave without the body, and had come to this decision entirely on his own, after reaching Air Force One. Hmmm...

While I have my own suspicions about LBJ, the reasons you list are not among them. 1. The partial scrubbing of the limo was performed by Sam Kinney, whose statements to the WC and Palamara indicate was not exactly a supporter of the Oswald did it conclusion. He was responsible for putting the roof back on the limo outside Parkland, and can be seen carrying a bucket back into the building in the films. Now, was this part of a plot, or the actions of an emotionally upset bodyguard, who was trying to hide the blood from looky-loos and the press, and may even have been thinking the limo was gonna be used to transport Jackie (or even JFK?) when they left the building? I lean towards this being just a screw-up. 2. The confiscation of JFK's corpse was also probably innocent. The thinking of most everyone in JFK's entourage, including the SS, was that Texas had something to do with the killing. So they were anxious to get out of there. Well, since Jackie (and LBJ, for that matter) refused to leave without the body, it became clear they needed to take the body from the hospital. For national security purposes. But also a bit of "Screw Texas!" 3. I am fairly certain no "faux secret service agent" confiscated any cameras. I think this started with Hill, or was it Oliver? In any event, Hill claimed all sorts of stuff towards the end that was nonsense. If I recall, a newspaperman, Jim Featherstone, bullied Moorman and Hill around a bit in an attempt to get access to Moorman's photo. Hill later claimed he'd said he was with the Secret Service, but Moorman denied this. In any event, no one swiped her camera, and she retained ownership of the photo for decades. Heck, she may even still own it. (I know she tried to auction it off but I think no one would pay the starting bid.) 4. I agree that Hoover was probably not involved in the assassination, beyond helping to cover it up at the bidding of his buddy, and supporter, LBJ. Hoover, famously, refused to go along with the single-bullet theory until LBJ pressured him to do so. From chapter 10 at patspeer.com Making Hoover Suck it Up and "Clear the Air" An October 6, 1966 phone call between President Johnson and his most trusted adviser Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas has Johnson instructing Fortas to have a talk with FBI Assistant Director Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, whom Fortas claims is a "very close friend" to Johnson, and enlist him in their campaign to prop up the Warren Commission's conclusions. It seems Johnson wanted Hoover to write a book on the subject. And no, I'm not kidding. Here's an internal FBI memo freed from the archives by researcher Harold Weisberg, which eventually became the subject of a 4-1-85 column by Jack Anderson. (Images shown on website) Now, that's quite a brain-bomb, yes? A Supreme Court Justice, acting on behalf of the President of the United States, has pressured the Director of the FBI to write a book or issue a statement to help clear the President's name, and the Director of the FBI has responded by telling him he should instead ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! One line in the memo is of particular interest--(Fortas) "had argued with the president that it was not logical for the director to prepare this book inasmuch as the director in doing so would necessarily have to substantiate the investigative efforts of many other agencies." An internal FBI memo dated 11-22-66 (Rosen to DeLoach, 11/22/1966, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-4267), for that matter, specified just what it was that Hoover was so reluctant to "substantiate." At the bottom of this memo Director Hoover added “We don’t agree with the Commission as it says one shot missed entirely & we contend all three shots hit.” And that wasn't the last time Hoover showed his true feelings on the matter. Within the FBI's files is a copy of the New York Times' 11-23-63 article on Governor Connally's press conference in which he backed away from his appearance in the current issue of Life Magazine. Well, in the margin of this article, next to its reporting "In the (Life Magazine) article, the Governor repeated that he disagreed with the Warren Commission's finding that he and President Kennedy were both hit by one of three shots fired down on the open limousine..." and that, conversely, "The Governor said today that his sole disagreement with the Warren Commission's findings centered on which bullet struck him," Hoover added:"Connally certainly shifts positions faster than the Dallas Cowboys football team can." Now, that can hardly be considered a testimonial to Connally's character. And yet, Hoover was about to make this same shift. An 11-25-66 memo from Assistant FBI Director DeLoach to Assistant FBI Director Tolson recounts that DeLoach had called Chief Justice Earl Warren on 11-23-66 on an apparently unrelated matter, but that Warren had brought up some of the recent problems surrounding the commission during the phone call. According to DeLoach, Warren complained about former commission counsel Wesley Liebeler, and noted that Liebeler was a '"beatnik' type of individual who had proved to be very unethical." According to DeLoach, Warren was displeased that Liebeler had kept detailed notes on his disagreements with the commission, and that Liebeler's notes had formed the "basis" of Epstein's book. In closing, however, DeLoach revealed more about himself than about Warren and his obvious dislike of Liebeler. He wrote: "I informed the Chief Justice... that the Director, in the near future, planned to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. The Chief Justice said he was glad to hear this and that the Director's name and prestige would be a great help in clearing the air." Now, let's connect the dots. DeLoach told Warren on the 23rd--the day after Hoover claimed the FBI did not agree with the commission, and the very day that Hoover mocked Connally for changing his public position regarding the single-bullet theory--that Hoover was about to issue a statement defending the FBI's phase of the assassination investigation. And Warren was pleased with this and felt this statement would help "clear the air." Well, seeing as a statement from Hoover defending the FBI in which he voiced his disagreement with the single-bullet theory would not be good news to Warren, it seems fairly obvious DeLoach knew Hoover was about to offer his support for the single-bullet theory... And then it happened. On 11-26-66, Hoover issued a statement claiming "There is no conflict" between the FBI's position and that of the commission. He then explained the confusion, attributing it to the fact that the FBI agents at the autopsy had been told no exit wound could be associated with the entrance wound on the back, but that, unknown to these agents, "the physicians eventually were able to trace the path of the bullet through the body." (This, of course, never happened.) He then related "Meanwhile, the clothing worn by the President when he was shot was examined in the FBI Laboratory. This examination revealed a small hole in the back of his coat and shirt and a slit characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile in the front of the shirt one inch below the collar button. A nick on the left side of the tie knot, possibly caused by the same projectile which passed through the shirt, also was noted. These findings clearly indicated the examining physician's early observation that the bullet penetrated only a short distance into the president's back probably was in error." (Except this wasn't true! While the FBI lab did make note of the wound on Kennedy's throat in its 1-13-64 report, and describe this wound as an exit, it suggested this wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound. It did not connect the throat wound to the back wound at that time, nor for months after. To wit, the FBI continued to tell newsmen that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back fell out onto his gurney for months and months after the shooting.) Hoover's statement then sunk knee-deep in some bullshit. It offered an explanation for the FBI's months-long delay in accurately reporting the medical evidence, that couldn't pass even the most forgiving of smell tests. Here it comes: "Since this observation" (that the bullet creating the back wound had only penetrated a short distance) "had been included in the FBI Report of December 9, 1963, another reference was made to it in the report of January 13, 1964, in conjunction with the laboratory findings to point up this probability." Well, what the heck does that mean? Was it routine for the FBI to repeat inaccurate information? And, if so, how would accurate information ever come to replace it? More to the point, was the recitation of conclusions at odds with the autopsy report three weeks after the FBI received a copy of the autopsy report a mistake, or not? And, if so, why wouldn't they admit as much? But, wait, it gets worse. Hoover's statement continued: "The FBI and the Warren Commission each received a copy of the official autopsy report on December 23, 1963, from Secret Service following a specific request for this document. Since the FBI knew the Commission had a copy of the official autopsy, its contents were not repeated in an FBI report." Wait... WHAT? This suggests that the FBI KNEW their 1-13-64 report was in error when they wrote it, but didn't want to bring it in line with the official autopsy report because...because...they were respecting the Kennedy family's privacy, and not wanting to have the contents of an official autopsy report (a public document) reported in an FBI report (a secret document). I mean, really. Are we to assume that within the FBI's files on murder after murder after murder there are FBI reports on what their agents were told about autopsy after autopsy after autopsy--that deliberately exclude information gathered from the official autopsy reports on the victims because, y'know, there might be something in these reports that might prove embarrassing to someone? OF COURSE NOT!!! That would be stupid beyond belief. Well, this is mighty suspicious, wouldn't you say? On 11-22-66, Hoover noted that the FBI and Warren Commission were in disagreement on the single-bullet theory. Four days later, a press release was issued in which it was claimed Hoover had received a letter from an unnamed newsman asking about this disagreement on the 21st, and that he had responded to this letter on the 23rd, and that his letter had explained that there was NO disagreement between the FBI and Warren Commission on the single-bullet theory. Well, heck, why couldn't Hoover have told this to the press in a press conference? Why issue a written statement? And why hide the identity of the newsman? And, oh yeah, while we're asking, does it make any sense whatsoever that Hoover would change his mind about this extremely important issue...overnight? I think not. It's just speculation, but it seems likely DeLoach and his men prepared "Hoover's" statement at Johnson's urging, and arranged for one of the FBI's contacts in the media to ask Hoover for a statement, so that Hoover could make a public statement supporting the Warren Commission without acknowledging he was doing so at Johnson's urging, or having to say the words himself. No, scratch that. It's not just speculation. In his book Post Mortem (published 1975), Harold Weisberg recounts how he asked the FBI for a copy of the 11-26-66 statement Hoover provided the press, and how it took them nine years, and a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, to comply. He also presents the full statement sent the press. But the story doesn't end there. Through his efforts, Weisberg was able to round up numerous FBI internal documents regarding Hoover's 11-26 press release, (including the 10-10-66 document shown above, which he provided Jack Anderson). These documents prove that the FBI worked on "Hoover's" statement for weeks before approaching Washington Star editor Sid Epstein and asking him to sign off on an FBI-penned request for information... to which Hoover then "responded." Here are two of the FBI's memos on this transaction. (Images shown on website) Well, this is another brain-bomb, right? Not only did the FBI compose the supposedly journalist-written letter to which Hoover responded, the letter and response had been "cleared" by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, acting as the eyes and ears of President Johnson. I mean, this was such a total crock...they even lied about the date! On 11-23-66, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover responded to a letter from Washington Star editor Sid Epstein dated 11-21-66, which was not actually transposed onto Washington Star stationery and signed by Epstein until that afternoon, AFTER Epstein had received Hoover's response. And that's not even to mention that, oh yeah, the documents received by Weisberg prove Hoover's "11-23" response to Epstein's "11-21" letter was originally drafted on 10-20. Now... Note also that the author of the 11-23 memo to DeLoach, R.E. Wick, (one of DeLoach's underlings), used the same words as DeLoach's 11-25 memo to Tolson--that is, that a statement from Hoover supporting the Warren Commission would be of great help in "clearing the air." Let's think about this... President Johnson has pressured the FBI into creating a fake news story with a fake paper trail in order to hide his involvement in a public statement issued by the Director of the FBI, and those involved or benefiting from this action have justified it under the belief it will help "clear the air." Of what, exactly? Certainly not the stench of cover-up! Now, it should be noted that Weisberg wasn't the only one to blow the whistle on this dirty smelly affair. Here's Jack Anderson, in his 4-1-85 column, on DeLoach's 10-10-66 memo on Johnson and Fortas: "Johnson had a fallback positlion, which Fortas then presented. He asked that Hoover at least issue a statement on one point the critics had raised: the discrepancies between FBI reports and the Warren Commission concerning the Kennedy autopsy. DeLoach told Fortas he "felt certain" Hoover would agree to this modest proposal and immediately set to work drafting such a statement...DeLoach, now retired, told my associate Les Whitten that the matter was resolved by issuing a Hoover-approved statement in response to an inquiry from the Washington Star..." (Note: one can take from this that Whitten had spoken to DeLoach about the memo, and that this had led him to believe it was Johnson's preference that Hoover write a book defending the Warren Commission. As Hoover had written, or at least put his name on, several best-selling books on communism while serving as FBI Director--and as these books had actually been written by FBI employees--and as Hoover had pocketed the profits from these books, this was, in effect, an attempt at a bribe... er, not so much a bribe as an "I know you don't want to do this, but if you do it, and feel you need to make some money off it, at the expense of the American taxpayer even, don't worry, I won't mind." Oh, for crying out loud, let's call a spade a spade...a bribe...) So, yeah, by 1985, DeLoach was willing to acknowledge the 1966 pressure campaign on Hoover. And that wasn't the first time he talked about it. When testifying before the Church Committee, on 11-25-75, DeLoach was asked if he could recall any conversations he may have had with President Johnson regarding the Kennedy assassination, beyond one in which President Johnson asked him to investigate the critics of the Warren Commission. Here is his response: "To the best of my recollection, Mr. Seidel, and I previously testified to this just a minute ago, the only other conversations I recall was when President Johnson called either Mr. Hoover or me, or it was Mr. Watson (Johnson's assistant) who called Mr. Hoover or me, and indicated that he wanted the FBI to issue a statement reflecting the findings of the FBI and the Warren Commission that it was Oswald and Oswald alone that committed the assassination. I think the Bureau files would reflect not only the call from the White House to either Mr. Hoover or me and will also reflect that a press release was written under Mr. Hoover's instruction and issued shortly thereafter in this connection." While DeLoach insisted he couldn't recall the date of his or Hoover's conversation with Johnson or Watson, the 11-26-66 press release on Hoover's 11-23 letter to Epstein is the only press release in which FBI Director Hoover defended the findings of the Warren Commission. DeLoach had thereby revealed that this press release was written at President Johnson's request...er, command. And that Hoover was displeased by this... As questioning continued, DeLoach revealed further that "I distinctly recall that Mr. Hoover, as he often did, was unhappy about the fact that the President of the United States was calling on the FBI to issue such a release. And while he had disagreements with the request, he buckled under and issued such a release." When then asked how he knew this, DeLoach replied "either Mr. Hoover told me this or Mr. Clyde Tolson, the Associate Director, who was my superior, told me this." He then continued "as I seem to recall, Mr. Hoover or Mr. Tolson or someone felt that we were being used and we had already submitted our findings and the FBI should not be used as a public sounding board in issuing such a release." He then clarified "The FBI had no dissatisfaction ...with the findings that Oswald and Oswald alone committed the assassination. But at the same time, our findings had been submitted some years previously and we felt that it was wrong for us to be used as a public relations sounding board at that time." So...there it is. The Johnson Administration pressured J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI into publicly supporting the Warren Commission.

A number of people were missing. And Truly saw Oswald in the building acting oblivious to the shooting. As a result, Oswald did not become a prime suspect in the assassination until he was arrested for shooting Tippit. In fact, they didn't decide to even look for him until Fritz returned to the station, at which time he was told "Oswald, yeah, we got him, that's the guy we just brought in on the Tippit shooting." So, that's roughly 2:00. Around that same time, back at the TSBD, they were letting employees leave, Frazier among them. There's no evidence, moreover, that anyone at the TSBD or elsewhere told the DPD that Frazier sometimes gave Oswald a ride, until Linnie volunteered that info to the cops out in Irving in the hour after that. So Frazier was below the radar until around 3:00. They then went out hunting. Now, there is some confusion as to when they picked him up. He has told myself and others it was in the afternoon--I think he said around 3:00. But the police claimed they picked him up around 5:00, if I recall. Well, I noticed a long time ago that the DPD reports, which were actually written by Fritz's assistants, and for which no signed originals were retained (if in fact they ever existed) are unreliable as to their timing. While it's not something I've looked into it wouldn't surprise me if they lied about the time they picked Frazier up to cover up that they'd arrested him outside their jurisdiction or some such thing. P.S. In retrospect, I think there is a method to the madness. I realized years ago that the DPD's claim they waited for an hour outside the Paine house before going in was to conceal that they knew about the bag before it was "discovered." Well, seeing as they only searched for Frazier after speaking to Randle outside the Paine house, after their search had begun, they would need to delay the time that they picked him up as well. So that might explain why they made out they'd picked him up hours after he says he was picked up.

Fritz was asked about it. Elsewhere in the chapter... On 12-1-63 we read yet another report about the paper bag roadblock. The FBI still can't figure out how Oswald, or anyone, got the rifle used to kill Kennedy into the building. On 11-29, agent Vincent Drain followed up on agent Anderton's interview of Buell Frazier, in which Frazier mentioned that, oh yeah, he'd taken a lie detector test regarding his refusal to ID the bag. Drain talked to Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who confirmed that Frazier had told him on the day of the shooting that the bag he saw was "about two feet in length, and of brown paper." (CD7, p290). Drain then talked to Dallas Detective R.D. Lewis, who confirmed that Frazier, while being given a polygraph test, "was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case." Lewis stated further that "Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning was about two feet long." Detective Lewis also told Drain "that if this was not identical to the sack that was turned over to the Bureau, it is possible that Oswald may have thrown it away." (CD7, p291). Apparently, Lewis believed Frazier.

Your doubt about this is unwarranted. They were told Frazier drove Oswald to work and that he had a rifle. It's only natural he would then become a suspect. As far as the polygraph, if you'd read what I posted you'd realize it wasn't just the polygraph that disappeared, but the FBI report on the polygraph in which it was noted that Frazier didn't just say he wasn't sure about the bag shown to him, but outright rejected it. By making these things disappear, this gave the FBI the opportunity to apply further pressure, in hopes Frazier would say "yeah, I guess it could be" or "I think it was". This technique, after all, worked on Brennan. "Yeah, we know he said no, but if we keep trying and pushing maybe we can get him to say yes."

What?? Frazier remained in the building for some time after the shooting. He was not listed as missing when they did the "roll call". It's astonishing to think you believe he drove Oswald away from Dealey Plaza. He was a 19 year-old kid, for crying out loud. Not some secret agent or militia type.

Sure...but even that isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. From what we know of the behavior of the police, the district attorney, the mayor, etc, we have no reason to believe an autopsy performed in Dallas would have been any better than the one performed at Bethesda. It's sad, but true. While many top CT's have claimed Earl Rose was above reproach and would have done a bang-up job, moreover, I think the evidence is against this. The Secret Service hijacked the body for two reasons: 1) Johnson wouldn't leave without the body and 2) everyone in the Kennedy entourage wanted to get the heck out of Dallas, as they felt, understandably, that the powers that be in Texas were yahoos, corrupt, or both. Earl Rose had a chance, of course, to prove himself, and show the world that he would stand up to bs and tell the public the truth about what happened. Instead, he signed off on the HSCA's Pathology Panel Report, and declared till the end that a lone gunman killed JFK.

First of all, none of the doctors took notes. Their statements were written an hour or more after they last saw the body. Second of all, we know how Clark would testify because he testified for the Warren Commission. And he essentially said he was fine and dandy with whatever the autopsists concluded. The recollections of emergency room doctors are rarely if ever introduced in court to contradict the conclusions of an autopsy. And they most certainly wouldn't be introduced if the doctor was alive and had disavowed his initial report. I know people have trouble grasping this after reading so much of the same old stuff, but Clark was on Team Lattimer, not Team Lifton.

Ok, all is well. I was beginning to wonder if Frazier had pulled a massive switcheroo and no one noticed.

I believe that he said he saw Oswald to his left. Frazier claims that while he was standing on the front steps after the shooting he saw Oswald walk by on Houston Street, which was to Frazier's left. He says that Oswald then crossed the street. But I thought you were saying he said he saw Oswald to his left...during the shooting...when he has said no such thing. I have spent time with Frazier at conferences, and he is regularly badgered by "Prayer Man" enthusiasts who demand to know why he won't admit Lee was on the steps, etc. And I have talked with him afterwards. He believes there was a conspiracy. He believes Oswald was innocent. But he maintains that he did not see Oswald on the steps during the shooting.

Lifton's interview of Stringer was a mess, and it was unclear as to what Stringer was agreeing to. When later asked if he still believed what he told Lifton, he would have said yes. Stringer was not a "back of the head witness." And never was. All claims otherwise are a con, in my opinion. From patspeer.com, chapter 18c: Autopsy photographer John Stringer's statements and testimony have been similarly mislabeled. Stringer, we should recall, signed the November 1, 1966 inventory of the autopsy materials--along with Dr.s Boswell, Ebersole, and Humes. This inventory was purported to list "all the x-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy." Now this is important. Although Stringer and the others would later admit that they actually believed some x-rays and photos were missing, they would never once waiver from their claim the x-rays and photos of Kennedy's body they'd observed at the archives were authentic, and were ones they'd had created. Now, to be clear, Stringer contributed to the confusion surrounding his statements. In 1996, while testifying before the ARRB, Stringer failed to recognize the photos of Kennedy's brain as photos he'd taken at the supplementary examination. He thought he would have done a better job identifying the photos themselves when taken; he thought he'd have used a different kind of film; and he didn't remember taking one of the views. Well, this, of course, is interesting. But conspiracy theorists of all stripes have taken from this that the photos were switched out to hide a hole on the back of the brain, a hole proving once and for all that the shot killing Kennedy came from the front and blew out the back of his head. Many assert that this makes Stringer--yep, you guessed it--a "back of the head" witness... And that's just nonsense. I mean, if in 1996 the 78 year-old Stringer could tell just by looking at the photos that they were not his creation, wouldn't he have been much better able to tell this in 1966, just a few years after they were taken, when he was but 48? Well, then why didn't he say so, or remember his thinking so? The thought occurs that by 1996 Stringer's memory had slipped a bit. (Note: this is more than a passing thought. Stringer's obituary, found online, notes that he died on 8-17-11, at the age of 93, and that his wife of 51 years had died in 1993. Well, sadly, men widowed at such an age often start to slip. Only making this possibility more likely, moreover, is that Stringer's obituary further stated that memorial contributions could be made to the Alzheimer's Association of Vero Beach, Florida. So, yeah, the accuracy of the man's memories in 1996 are open to question.) Now, to be clear, it's hard to say just when Stringer's memories started fading. In 1977, the HSCA asked the then 59 year-old Stringer to go to the archives and look at the autopsy photos. The report on his doing so reflects that, while he was uncertain he'd taken the black and white photos of the brain, the brain itself gave the appearance of the brain he'd photographed, and that the brain, as Kennedy's brain, was not sectioned (cut into quarters). So, hmmm, Stringer was uncertain about the photos...but felt the brain in the photos was quite possibly Kennedy's brain. It's hard to see, then, how one can stretch his statements to include that the back of the head was blown out. While some, including Doug Horne and writer Jim DiEugenio, are fond of pointing out that Stringer told the ARRB that autopsy photographers who objected to things, such as rushing through the autopsy, didn't "last long," this by no means suggests that, in 1966, he would have readily gone along with someone switching out his photos to hide the true nature of Kennedy's wounds. That just goes too far. By 1996, when Stringer was first contacted by the ARRB, his memory had faded so badly that he couldn't even remember being contacted by the HSCA in 1977, let alone visiting the archives on their behalf. It follows then that the confusing aspects of his ARRB testimony may simply have been a reflection of his age, and the passing of time. It makes little sense, after all, to assume Stringer would readily admit what all too many now perceive as as an important truth--that he did not take the brain photographs--but then lie about the nature of Kennedy's head wounds in order to "get along." What, are we to believe Stringer was so stupid he didn't realize his disowning the brain photos was bound to raise some questions? And yes, you read that right. Those holding that Stringer was a bold and fearless truth-teller when discussing the brain photos inevitably hold he was a cowardly xxxx when discussing Kennedy's head wounds. Consider... When first contacted by Doug Horne on behalf the ARRB, and asked to describe the large head wound, Stringer told Horne "there was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear...It was the size of your fist and it was entirely within the hair area. There was a sort of flap of skin there, and some of the underlying bone was gone." When under oath in his ARRB testimony, moreover, Stringer further confirmed that, no matter who took the brain photos, there was NO large blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head. When asked to describe Kennedy's head wounds, he at first described a small wound on the occipital bone near the EOP, "about the size of a bullet, from what you could see."He then described the large head wound: "Well, the side of the head, the bone was gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it back. But the back - I mean, if you held it in, there was no vision. It was a complete head of hair. And on the front, there was nothing - the scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could have - Well, when they did the body, you wouldn't have known there was anything wrong." He was thereby describing the wound depicted in the autopsy photos and not the wound on the far back of the head proposed in books such as Horne's. Which only makes sense... Stringer had, after all, signed the aforementioned inventory in 1966 in which it was claimed the autopsy photos were those he'd taken, and had, upon studying these photos a second time in 1977, confirmed this by explaining to the HSCA's investigators what he was trying to portray as he took each shot. He had, moreover, told an interviewer from the Vero Beach Press-Journal in 1974 that the fatal bullet "had entered the right lower rear" of Kennedy's head and had come "out in the hair in the upper right side, taking with it a large chunk of his skull." While Mr. Stringer had also intimated (in a 1972 phone call with David Lifton) that the "main damage" was on the "back part" of Kennedy's skull, it's not entirely clear that Stringer was describing the damage to the skull apparent before the reflection of the scalp, or after. It's fortunate then that Stringer got a chance to clarify this issue in his ARRB testimony. He explained that when he first saw the skull, the scalp at the back of the head "was all intact. But then they peeled it back, and then you could see this part of the bone gone." Now, should one believe I'm cherry-picking here, and wrongly accepting Stringer's latter-day recollections over his much earlier statements to Lifton, one should go back and read the transcript of Stringer's conversation with Lifton, as released by the ARRB. It's confusing to say the least. After Stringer told Lifton the wound was on the "back part" of the skull, Lifton sought further clarification. He asked "In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of his head?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, it was...ahh some of it was blown off--yeah. I mean, ahh...towards out of the top, in the back, yeah." Apparently unsatisfied with that answer, Lifton later returned to this question, and re-framed it in one of the most confusing series of questions I've ever read. He asked "If you lie back in a bath tub, just in a totally prone position and your head rests against the bath tub, is that the part of the head, you know, is that the part of the head that was damaged?" To which Stringer replied "Yeah." (Now, I'm already lost. If you're laying back in a bath tub, you're not really prone, are you? Does Stringer's response then indicate that the top of the head was damaged? Or the back of the head?) Lifton then sought further clarification--with an equally confusing question. He asked "the part that would be against the tile of the bathtub?" To which Stringer replied "Mm-hmmm." (I'm still lost. Isn't the "tile of the bathtub" normally the tile on the back wall of a bathtub? And, if so, doesn't Stringer's response suggest the crown of the head was damaged, and not the back?) Lifton then tried again: "Whereas the part that would be straight up ahead, vertically in that position--was undamaged?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, I wouldn't say--undamaged--no. There was---some of it was gone--I mean--out of some of the bone." (Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means. But it seems clear, nevertheless, that Stringer thought he'd observed a hole on the top of Kennedy's head, where so many assume no hole was found. And that's not all that seems clear. In his book Best Evidence, Lifton re-writes this last question, and changes the context of Stringer's reply. He claims he asked Stringer "about the part of the head which in that position would be straight up and down, the vertical part, the 'top.' Was that undamaged?" His actual words, of course, were not so clear. According to his transcript, he not only failed to specify that he was talking about the top of the head, but said "straight up ahead"instead of "straight up and down." And that's confusing as heck. There is reason to believe then, that Stringer was confused by Lifton's questions, and just played along to get him off his back, not realizing his answers would be quoted in a best-selling book some 9 years later, and cited as evidence for a massive conspiracy.) And should one still have doubts Stringer failed to see a large hole on the back of Kennedy's head where conspiracy theorists believe it to have been, Stringer explained under further questioning by the ARRB that the occipital bone was "intact" but fractured, and that he could not recall any of it missing upon reflection of the scalp. So, yes, it's clear. Those believing Stringer to be honest and credible when telling the ARRB he didn't take the brain photos, and then using this to suggest there was a blow-out wound to the back of Kennedy's head, are behaving like the Warren Commission in reverse: taking snippets of someone's testimony, propping these snippets up as proof of something, and then finding ways to hide or ignore that the bulk of the witness' statements suggest something other than what they are trying to prove. Now, this is fairly common behavior, on all sides of the discussion. But what is unusual in this circumstance is the strength with which those pushing this view hold onto two mutually exclusive ideas: 1) Stringer is a brave truth teller, and PROOF the brain photos are not of Kennedy's brain, and 2) Stringer is a gutless xxxx, out to protect the status quo by pretending there was no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. I trust I'm not alone in finding this a problem. As far as Doug Horne, not only does he push in his book that Stringer lied about Kennedy's head wounds to the ARRB, he asserts that Stringer first publicly reversed himself from the descriptions he'd provided Lifton (in the 1972 phone call) in 1993. This avoids that in the 1993 article cited by Horne, Stringer's 1974 comments, in which he'd accurately described the wounds depicted in the autopsy photos, were discussed, as well as the fact that a TV crew inspired by Lifton's book interviewed Stringer in 1988, only to shelve the footage when Stringer told them the autopsy photos were accurate depictions of Kennedy's wounds. This, then, raises as many questions about Horne's integrity as Stringer's. That Stringer was describing the wounds shown in the autopsy photos as early as 1974, after all, cuts into Horne's position that Stringer reversed himself on the nature of these wounds as a response to Lifton's book, published seven years later, in 1981. Of course, Stringer's not the only witness to be abused in such a manner.

Well then you believe all the witnesses placing the wound entirely above the ear must be wrong, and that the Parkland doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were lying or having a brain fart when they later said they were mistaken. FWIW, I present the original statements of the Parkland doctors on my website, along with some context. Here, from Chapter 18d, is my discussion of Clark. Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, a number of his colleagues would subsequently come to claim that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic, moreover, for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that 1) the Dallas doctors did not see the large wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the scalp back in place, and 2) the autopsists' closed the flaps on the back of the head before the photos could be taken. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole between some bone flaps. This suggests then that the large head wound was either on top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or on the back of the head, and the films and photos have been faked. I select the first alternative. Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection. He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing the first press conference, and a newsman's noting that a bullet traveling from the neck wound up to the head wound would have been traveling upwards, he said: "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times on 11-27 that the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report. While some might take from this that Clark had sold out, and had testified in opposition to his original report, they would be wrong to do so. Before writing his report, we should remember, Clark had spoken to the press...twice. In the official press conference, he had claimed the wound was "principally on the right side." While speaking to Connie Kritzberg, about an hour later, moreover, he reiterated that it was on the "right rear side." He had never claimed, nor would ever claim, the wound was on the far back of the head, below the top of the ear, in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. This was something many had assumed based upon his mention of cerebellum. But it was never supported by the sum total of his statements. The cerebellum he thought he saw could easily have come from below the hole on the back of the head along with the bullet he thought exploded from below the hole on the back of the head. While some have taken Clark's post 1964 silence as confirmation he believed the fatal shot exited from the far back of Kennedy's head, furthermore, a more complete look at the record suggests Clark believed theories holding as much to be foolish and ill-informed. In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. Lattimer eventually discussed his relationship with Clark. In a 10-23-75 letter to researcher Emory Brown, he bragged "The brain surgeon who examined the President at Parkland is a good friend of mine and I have discussed the head wound with him at some length, and he sees no discrepancy between what he found at Parkland Hospital and what the autopsy photographs reveal." Now, Clark was very much alive at the time of Lattimer's letter, and it's pretty silly to believe Lattimer would lie about such a thing if it could come back and bite him. Particularly when subsequent statements by Clark suggest he wasn't lying... A November 22, 1983 UPI article, (found in the Ellensburg Daily Record), boasts an interview with Clark, in which he claims "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." This was, strikingly, less than a year after Clark at first expressed interest in looking at the autopsy photos in David Lifton's possession, and then refused to even open the envelope containing these photos when Lifton arrived at his office. In 1997, moreover, Clark once again broke his silence, and granted an interview with former Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. It follows, then, that Clark was no friend of conspiracy theorists, and that he'd picked his side on the matter--the side inhabited by John Lattimer and Arlen Specter. Well, for me, it's hard to believe he'd have done this if he'd actually felt certain Kennedy's head wound was an occipital wound oozing cerebellum. But the reader may wish to think otherwise.

Frazier has never said he saw Oswald outside before or during the shooting. What he has said for the past ten years or so is that he saw Oswald walk down Houston from behind the building a short time after the shooting. Heck, while I am skeptical about most late-arriving stories, this one might actually be true. If true, it would explain why no one remembered Oswald's walking out the front of the building.

FWIW, the final "chapter" on my website is an examination of LBJ's behavior after the shooting. I am fairly certain I get into more detail than anyone else. In any event, it becomes clear when you study what was said in the months and years after the shooting that LBJ behaved badly both before and after the flight from Dallas. He essentially lied his ass off to hide 1) that he decided to fly back on Kennedy's plane for no good reason beyond ego, 2) that he took over the Kennedys' bedroom as well, and 3) that he, not Bobby, decided he should be sworn in in Texas. His lies about these and other matters fueled a feud with Bobby that didn't really end till Bobby was murdered, just after it became clear Bobby was likely to replace him on the throne. Coincidence? Well, that's the question, ain't it?

I seem to remember that the opposite happened, that Lifton told KRON they needed to talk to Stringer, and that when they did, he told them it was on the top or whatever and they decided to cut it out of their news piece on the back of the head witnesses.

No, he didn't mention it years later. The FBI found out about it when they followed up a week later. From chapter 2 at patspeer.com: On 11-29-63 we see a Secret Service report on an 11-28 interview of Linnie Mae Randle. Although the FBI's 11-23 report on an 11-22 interview with Randle reflects that she initially believed the bag Oswald took to work on the 22nd was approximately 3 feet long (long enough to have carried the rifle), this new report quotes her directly, and suggests either that the first report was inaccurate or that she'd had a talk with her brother Buell Frazier about the length of the bag he said was about two feet long, and had decided to agree with him. The report quotes her as saying "At about 7:10 A.M., Friday, November 22, 1963, Oswald came by my house. I glanced through the window of the kitchen-dining area and saw him walking across the street, and coming up the driveway. He was carrying a package. It was wrapped in brown paper. The package seemed to be about 2 feet or over in length. It seemed to have some weight to it from the manner in which he, Oswald, was carrying it." (CD 87, p. 186). We wonder as to why Randle was re-interviewed but not her brother. We then see an FBI memo to file from Dallas SAIC Shanklin regarding a phone call he had with Inspector James Handley this morning. (This memo can be found in the Weisberg Archives.) Shanklin writes "Bureau is going to fly the brown paper sack back to Dallas. Have one of the agents take it out and have him (Note: he must mean Frazier) identify it as the same paper that he (Note: he must mean Oswald) carried out that morning." We then find out that Frazier has just today been re-interviewed by FBI agent James Anderton, and that his memorandum has just been placed in the files of the FBI's Dallas office. (Strangely, this memorandum was never sent to headquarters, and was never added to the bureau's assassination file. So how do we know about it, then? Well, it was uncovered in a lawsuit by Harold Weisberg, and can be found in his online archives.) The memo details that Frazier "recalls that on the morning of November 22, when Oswald rode to work in his car, he had something in a brown paper sack, the kind you would obtain in a dime store, specifically that the paper in the sack was of a flimsy, thin consistency. Frazier stated that he could not observe the sack very well since Oswald threw it in the back seat of his car, and upon arriving ... at work Oswald carried the package in a vertical position under his right arm, appearing to be holding the end of whatever was in the sack, which he recalled was about two feet in length. Mr. Frazier was questioned as to the ends of the sack and if two sacks had been placed together, but he could recall only seeing one sack described above." Anderton's memo then enters virgin territory: "Mr. Frazier stated that between 11:00 PM and midnight, November 22, 1963, he was in the polygraph room of the Dallas Police Department and before taking the polygraph examination a police officer, name unknown to him, brought in a large paper sack, approximately three to four feet in length and the type a grocery store receives their five-pound bags of sugar in, specifically that the paper in the sack was very thick and stiff. He stated that this sack shown to him appeared to actually have been made by someone cutting down a larger sack. He said he told the police officer that this sack had never been seen by him before. He also said that this sack was definitely not the one he had observed in possession of Oswald the morning of November 22, 1963." Uh-oh. That sounds pretty definitive. Frazier has drawn a line---the bag shown Frazier was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. Period. Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. One is that it leaves us at a loss as to how Oswald got the rifle into the building. Second is that the FBI has already determined that Oswald's prints were on the bag sent the FBI. Well, if he didn't carry the bag into the building, how did his prints get on the bag? Was the paper comprising the bag sent the FBI taken from some other source--perhaps some paper Oswald had touched at work, or while in police custody? Or were the prints simply misidentified? The Dallas Police have come up with their own explanation. Another 11-29-63 memo from Anderton (similarly not sent to Washington, and similarly found in the Weisberg Archives) reveals: ""Lt. Carl Day, Dallas PD Crime Lab, advised that on 11/22/63, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on evening of 11/22/63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Captain Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day said that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." Anderton then adds: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet." Curiously, considering Anderton's memo on Frazier was not relayed to headquarters, we discover that the content of Anderton's memo on Day has been immediately relayed to headquarters. Yes, an 11-29 memo from Inspector J.L. Handley in Dallas to Assistant Director Alex Rosen in Washington relates: "Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas, Texas, Police Department Crime Laboratory, advised that on November 22, 1963, he recovered a heavy brown sack appearing to be homemade and appearing to have been folded together at one time. This sack when laid out was about four feet long but when doubled was about two feet long. Lt. Day recalls that on the evening of 11-22-63, about 11:30 p.m., one of Capt. Fritz's officers requested that he show this thick, brown sack to a man named Frazier. Lt. Day stated that Frazier was unable to identify this sack and told him that a sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin flimsy sack like one purchased in a dime store. Lt. Day stated that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald by dismantling the rifle could have placed it in the thick, brown sack folded over and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack." This memo then notes: "however, the entire package would have been longer than two feet since the stock of the rifle alone was over two feet." (FBI assassination file 62-109060 section.14 page 123-125) Hmmm. This shows us that the Dallas police are, at least at this point, ready to accept that the bag found in the sniper's nest was not the bag seen by Frazier or Randle. This in itself is intriguing. Maybe they know something we don't. Such as that the bag--which they did not photograph on the 22nd--was not found in the building at all, but taped together by detectives after they found out Oswald had carried a bag to work that morning... Something very strange is going on. The next day, we see an 11-30-63 report by Vincent Drain on an interview purportedly conducted with Lt. Day, purportedly the day before, the very day Anderton spoke to Day. "Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory. Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129). To our surprise, this report on Drain's interview with Lt. Day from 11-29-63 directly contradicts the previous day's memo on Anderton's 11-29-63 phone call with Lt. Day. It appears that Drain is lying. But why? The thought occurs that a decision has been made to claim the paper bag was used by Oswald to smuggle the rifle into the building, no matter what Frazier says, and that Drain (and/or Drain's superiors) are attempting to hide that Frazier viewed the bag on the night of the shooting, and insisted it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. (The FBI would later recognize a mistake in this report and submit a re-written version of this report to both their files and the Warren Commission's files. This mistake was not that the bag was not shown to anyone else, however, but that the "similar brown paper" taken from the depository didn't match the "paper gun case." In 1980, after this switcheroo was discovered by researcher J. Gary Shaw, and discussed in an article by Jack White, for that matter, Dallas newsman Earl Golz contacted Vincent Drain and asked for his response. Author Henry Hurt did so as well. Although Drain acknowledged approving and initialing the second "corrected" version of this report, he told both Golz and Hurt that he was shocked and surprised by the mistake in the original report, and that this report was a "fake" that he had not approved or initialed. Although, unsurprisingly, the FBI maintained that Drain was responsible for the mistake, his claim the original report was a "fake" has some unexpected support. From J. Edgar Hoover, of all people. Although more than a dozen FBI agents, including Drain, received reprimands from the FBI for supposed mistakes regarding Oswald and the assassination, Drain was not reprimanded for writing an incorrect report that, much to the embarrassment of the Bureau, had to be withdrawn and replaced in the files of the Warren Commission. This is hard to fathom, should Drain have truly been responsible.)

Precisely. IF Stringer was unafraid to claim he signed an inventory saying no photos were missing because he was under pressure, he would also have been unafraid to say he was under a similar pressure not to say the brain photos were phonies. And yet he never made that claim. He was 78 when speaking to the ARRB, and had no recollection of even speaking to the HSCA, let alone being shown the photos at that time. More to the point, moreover, he told the ARRB the back of the head photo was legit. So why are those claiming he supports a conspiracy PRETENDING his claims about the photos support a back of the head blow-out, when he specifically said the opposite? It's just more fun, isn't it?

Huh? Frazier was shown the bag and said it was not the bag Oswald had been carrying that morning. And passed a polygraph when saying so. Much as Brennan's refusing to ID Oswald as the shooter, this was a big problem. So no reports were written on Brennan's refusal to ID Oswald and Frazier's refusal to ID the bag. Can't have those ending up in the hands of a defense attorney, now can we?

The pictures of the brain would only have been thrown out if NONE of the autopsy doctors vouched for their authenticity. If Humes said they were legit and Stringer said they were not, the lawyer asking for their admission into evidence (which I would hope would be the defense seeing as the photos absolutely positively prove two shots to the head) would be allowed to introduce into evidence Stringer's HSCA interview, in which he discussed the photos without mentioning any disagreement, and the inventory he prepared for the archives in 1966, in which he similarly failed to note any disagreements with the photos. It would then be up to the judge, who normally prefer to err in allowing evidence as opposed to suppressing evidence. As far as the other photos, they would have no problem whatsoever getting entered into evidence. All you need is someone who was there in a position to know to say they reflect his recollections. Well, in this case we have all the doctors and Stringer, himself. So no problem. As far as macerated cerebral tissue resembling cerebellar tissue, that comes from CT darling Dr. Robert Livingston. He said they did resembler each other but thought the Parkland doctors would not make such a mistake. Well, that's funny. A doctor with lots of experience working with brain tissue declares people could make such a mistake, but offers his opinion the Parkland doctors wouldn't make such a mistake, but he never checks with them to see if they have anything to say about it. And people like Fetzer gobble it up. OF COURSE, they could make such a mistake. After all this time, it still amazes me that not one researcher beyond myself, of which I am aware, has ever spent a day or two or three (or three months in my case) reading about human cognition--and learned anything about why mistakes happen. In one of his many books Malcolm Gladwell discussed the decision by Korean Air Lines to have their pilots speak English while in the air, and how this greatly reduced the number of accidents and near-accidents. The reason? There is a deference to authority inherent when speaking Korean that makes it hard for co-pilots to point out errors to their superiors, including the pilot sitting beside them. But they feel less restricted when speaking English. In any event, it's clear some of the early Parkland reports were written while under the sway of other doctors--Clark, in particular. Heck, those citing McClelland agree with this, seeing as they claim to believe his claim that the only wound location mentioned in his report wasn't something he actually saw, but something he thought someone else saw. In any event the influence of others affected the earliest reports, and spread thereafter, to the point where a number of people working at Parkland that day have popped up with a story about seeing the wounds and they were blah blah blah. It's just not reliable. Not as science, and not as history. (It's kinda like Woodstock where twice as many people claimed to have been there than were actually there.) In closing, Autopsies exist for a reason and the JFK assassination is exhibit 1A as to why they exist. Of course the performance of the autopsy left much to be desired but it is nevertheless far more substantive, scientifically and historically, than the ramblings of some senior 30 years after the assassination.

Yet another dodge. What are you so scared of? Look at all the witnesses and re-read all the statements, and then tell us where the wound was located, within an inch or so. Pretty pretty please.

If you look at the image below you will see that 4 of the 18 witnesses Groden claimed supported the McClelland drawing are pointing to the top of their head. If you follow-up and watch video-taped interviews, you will find that another 3 were not pointing out the back of the head as the location of a blow-out wound, and that Groden was misrepresenting them. If you actually start reading you well then find that another 5 or so swore the wound they saw was an exit for a bullet from behind, or that they believe the autopsy photos are legitimate. So you have at best 7 out of 18 you can truly call "back of the head witnesses" supporting that the back of the head was blown out from a frontal shot. And that includes Beverly Oliver--who many doubt was actually a witness, Phil Willis--who did not see the wound and was only reporting what he'd been told by his family, McClelland--who initially claimed the wound was of the left temple, Crenshaw--who was only in the room for seconds and who failed to give any description of the wound prior to his writing a book decades later, Bell--who we should doubt actually got a look at the wound, Ward--who many believe never saw the wound, and Rike--who admittedly never saw the wound and was describing the damaged part of the skull. There's no there there. It's weak sauce. So I ask again... Where do you place the wound? IF you claim the bulk of these witnesses are correct, you are simultaneously admitting the witnesses actually REJECTED the McClelland drawing as an accurate depiction of the President's wound, and that Livingstone and Groden deceived their readers when they claimed (and continue to claim) these witnesses all support the accuracy of the drawing.