Pat Speer

I suspect Connally may have been involved. Look at the pictures of him in the motorcade; I don't think there's one of him where he's smiling. Furthermore, while Posner et al make the argument that Connally turned to his right shortly after the car turned onto Elm, and that his rapid movement indicates he'd heard a shot, Connally's actual testimony indicates he was 150 feet or so down Elm before he heard the first shot. Still, he was looking back and forth in a rapid fashion as soon as the car turned onto Elm. As a result I believe he knew what was coming. His words when he got hit,"My God, they're going to klll us all!", are still another indication. It's important to note that while Connally stood by a timeline of the wounds that conflicted with the Warren Report, he ALWAYS insisted he supported the Warren Report's conclusions, even though his timeline made them impossible. It's equally important to note that he ALWAYS deferred to his wife's recollections as the reason for his timeline. In other words, he was keeping the peace with Nelly, even if it made LBJ's commission look a little wrong-headed. When one compares Connally's memoirs with the biography Lone Star, one can see how Connally misrepresents his corruption trial, presenting his accuser Jake Johansen, LBJ's long-time crony, who'd known Connally for over 20 years, as "some lobbyist" or some such thing. One can only conclude from this that Connally was covering up and was guilty as sin. When one takes into account the Watergate Tapes of Connally and Nixon conspiring to get more money out of the Milk producers, as well as the Teamsters, one can only conclude that Connally was a dirty politician. Sorry, Big John. In light of this, it's intriguing to me that Connally acknowledged that while he was Secretary of the Treasury he looked through all the Secret Service files on the JFK Assassination and saw nothing unusual. One wonders if anything was removed. In his autobiography, he mentions that one of the reasons he blames Oswald is that Oswald was shown to be practicing with his rifle before the assassination. This is utter nonsense--according to both the Warren Commission and the HSCA there were no credible reports of Oswald shooting his rifle for months before the assassination. They both insisted that Oswald smuggled his gun into work on the morning of the assassination after not having fired it for months. As a result it's clear that Connally was grossly over-stating the case against the man accused of shooting him. One would have to ask why. Furthermore, in her book about the assassination, From Love Field, Nellie Connally reproduces her original notes written in 1963 along with a typed version purported to reproduce it word for word. It's strange, though, how neither she, or her co-writer (the same man who co-wrote her husband's memoirs) noticed that her description of Kennedy's wounds was changed for the typed-up version from "I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see him clutch his throat" to "I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see his hands fly up to his throat." The difference in his "clutching" and his "hands flying up"of course is the difference between a conscious action and a neuro-muscular response. Clearly, the lone-nutters have gotten to her (or her co-writer) and convinced her (or her co-writer) to go along with the ridiculous "Thorburn" theory of Lattimer and Posner. One has to wonder why. What would be so awful if we were allowed to judge for ourselves what she meant by "clutch?"

The day after I downloaded the autopsy photos for the first time my computer crashed. I've been a little paranoid ever since. I don't believe there's any doubt that there are those who wish the "research community" would go away. Just look at what LBJ's cronies were able to do to "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Look at what Peter Jennings did to Oliver Stone. We live in strange times, where pursuing an agonizing truth is a worse crime to many than murdering a president.

Al, do you know the history behind this shot? Did the bullet fragment? As someone who's spent many hours combing through Forensic Journals, I have to admit I'm still curious.

Maybe I should point out here that I believe the silenced weapon was not a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle nor was it fired from the TSBD. I believe it was an automatic weapon of some sort--quite possibly an AR-15, and that it was fired from the roof of the Dal-Tex. Furthermore, it missed its target and hit Kennedy in the hairline and Connally in the armpit. John's mention of a fatal nose yaw could quite possibly explain the slightly elongated wound on Connally.

I believe the argument over whether the CIA or the mob was behind the hit is sort of like a Rorschach test of the human psyche. Those who believe power is held by anonymous individuals in organizations working for a cause blame the military or the CIA and those who believe power resides in ruthless and dynamic individuals working for self-interest blame the mob and/or their right-wing buddies. I believe an honest appraisal of history reveals that criminals are more likely to control those in government than those in government control the criminals. I mean, how many political "bosses" have ruled their roost from an executive position? Very few. One can only conclude therefore that that's not where the real power lies. It makes sense to me that a few well-placed "rogue" CIA agents, working with the Cubans under the control of the mob, could have pulled this off without it going much higher. The only false sponsor was Castro, who was used to insure the participation of the Cubans. It's also possible the Castro flag was waved to give LBJ an excuse to cover-up. To me. LBJ, and his buddy Connally, for that matter, were dirty as dishwater and beholden to organized crime, Marcello, in particular. That the mob was incapable of keeping quiet is refuted by the strange quiet surrounding the deaths of Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli, not to mention another couple of hundred or so. It's unfortunate that the goofy charm of shows such as the Sopranos have marginalized the historical impact of organized crime and corruption on American history. It still exists today, in everything from the Savings and Loan scams to Enron. And the American public is still paying for it, through the nose. While the concentration of power in a secret government is insidious and is no doubt responsible for many of the great wrongs done in the last century, the every day manipulations of power by cruel and powerful individuals should not be under-estimated. I've seen some of it up close, and it's not pretty. It's completely logical to me that Johnson would have sent the word out to Black, or Baker, or one of his cronies, that he needed "help," and that they would in turn have sent the word out to Marcello and Trafficante. Along with the Cubans, they were able to drag in a few of the CIA's disgruntled Bay of Pigs veterans, who may or may not have convinced themselves they were doing the country a favor. LBJ got the DOJ off the mob's back in payment, and the mob funded the Cubans for awhile as a subcontractor fee. Afterwards, LBJ pulled a few strings with Hoover and the crime was successfully covered-up. Almost.

Is the consensus that a front to back shot that killed john kennedy captured in these films? I believe these films are authentic but that they fail to demonstrate that the shot came from in front of the President. I must acknowledge, however, that I am in the minority on this one.

If this is from the Couch film, it's of a second Couch film taken some time after the motorcade passed through. The Couch film as depicted on the Groden DVD is taken from a convertible in the motorcade.

This has been tossed around on Lancer in the past. I totally agree with you that rifles were the weapons used in the assassination. The problem with Suppressors on rifles is that while they do quiet the intial detonation, they cannot quiet the bullet bow shockwave of a rifle caliber projectile in flight. This shockwave will still be a giveaway of shot origin if the wits are perceptive of what is going on around them. Al Antti, Dawn, I've been reading up on silencers off and on for some time and have read explanations similar to Al's on many of the articles and websites. But what they fail to acknowledge is that a professional assassin might very well reduce the charge of the bullet in order to make it slower than the speed of sound, thereby removing the give-away shockwave, and that a slower than sound bullet fired from a silenced rifle inside a room would be virtually undetectable over motorcycle noise, etc. After analysis of the trajectories, the earwitnesses, etc, I believe it's highly likely a fourth shot was fired from the upper floors or roof of the Da-Tex.

Pat: I went back to your seminar to find your source for such an assertion about what you say Bob Groden "acknowledged just last month" about the entrance wound "in the location described by Humes, Finck, and Boswell." I see that you cite a personal conversation with Groden on November 20, the day after I had dinner with him. First, I don't consider a casual conversation under questionable conditions a valid seminar citation. Is there a tape recording or signed transcript? Second, as to whichever location you allude, the doctors themselves have been extremely unclear. Here is a rear head photo with circles around the two allegedly potential entry wounds: At the HSCA hearings, Humes almost walked out when he became so befuddled over which of the two circled spots was the wound. I find that you have been no clearer on the subject. Please humor me and tell me which is the entry wound and then explain what the other one is. If you can do that, you have accomplished something the doctors themselves could not. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, on my contribution to the seminar, there are many different looks at the autopsy photos. To the side of many of them, I placed arrows pointing to where I see a bullet entrance. I've found that for most the bullet hole is readily visible once they get past the HSCA's smokescreen. I suggest you take another look. As for my discussion with Groden, it was not adversarial in the least. I showed him the bullet hole on the photo often referred to as #44, which he includes in his book, the Killing of the President, and he readily agreed. I don't mean to make a Federal case out of it...I have no intention of trying to prove he said what he said. I'm just sharing my impression of the man, that's all. If you think I'm lying, so be it. Merry Christmas to all.

I finally sat down and googled away to see if I could figure out if the Stovalls were actually related. And from what I was able to uncover (without paying a geneology website), I'm fairly convinced they were in fact brothers. Consider: In his Warren commission testimony, Richard S. Stovall said he was born in Dallas in 1928. The Texas birth records for 1928 are online but they display no trace of a Richard Stovall. They do, however, reveal that a "Stovall, Robert Inf of" was born on 4-22 1928, and that his mother was the former Mattie Mcqueen. The father is listed as Robert Stovall, no middle initial. The "Inf of" presumably means "infant of" and indicates that the baby was not yet named when the certificate was created. (I hope it doesn't indicate the baby died.) When one looks up Mattie Stovall, she shows up in the Texas Death Index as having died on 9-19-85. She also shows up as being buried at Kleberg Cemetery along with her husband, Robert L. Stovall, who died on 3-13-78. They are listed as having been married on 9-3-1919. The Robert L. Stovall who owned Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall was 43 when he testified on March 30, 1964, and so must have been born in either 1920 or 1921. From this one can see that the Robert L Stovall who owned Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, was quite likely Richard Stovall's older brother. First born males are most usually named after their father, and the time elapsed between Robert and Mattie's marriage and the presumed arrival of the baby Robert is right as one would expect for that era. While I was momentarily confused by the existence of a Robert Lee Stovall, who died in 1954, and a Robert Lee Stovall, Jr, who died in 1993, I finally came across the birth of a Richard Mikal Stovall in 1944, and Susan Diane Stovall in 1947, whose father was listed as a Robert Littleton Stovall. When I looked up Robert Littleton Stovall a family tree came up. This tree revealed that the Robert Littleton Stovall who was the father of Richard (named after his uncle?) and Susan, was also the father of Deborah (1954) and that he was still alive as of the creation of the online tree. Furthermore, he was born in 1920!!! If anyone with access to the Dallas papers can check the obits for Robert L's death in 1978 and Mattie's death in 1985, maybe it will list the names of their children and we can put this thing to rest. Of course, even if they were brothers, it doesn't PROVE anything. It just reveals another weird coinky-dink that went largely ignored by the Warren Commission on down. Most importantly, it's not a judgment call. No disinformation expert can be brought in to argue that they weren't brothers once we demonstrate that they were.

Thanks, Antti, for your input. One of the reasons I haven't been able to let this drop is that, beyond his possible connection to a photo lab (which just happened o be Oswald's former employer), Richard Stovall was also one of J.D. Tippit's best friends, according to Tippit's widow in a 1977 HSCA interview. According to the HSCA report entitled "Oswald-Tippit Associates," the HSCA requested data on all of Tippit's associates from the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. This would indicate the HSCA had a file on Stovall. Was this released through the ARRB? Having been an analyst of available info more so than an acquirer of not readily-available info, I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas as to how to get this file. It just smells a little fishy to me that one of the best friends of a murdered cop was sent out to find evidence on his friends' accused murderer, and helped find incriminating photographs whose negatives subsequently disappeared, and then ended up with copies of the photos, including one never given to the Warren Commission, in his personal possession. When one takes into account that the accused murderer worked at a photo lab run by someone with the same last name as this policeman, the smell gets even worse. When one considers that the Oswald-Tippit Associates" investigation makes no mention of contacting Stovall, despite the fact he was named as one of Tippit's best friends, and that Stovall turned over his backyard photos after a separate investigation not described in the HSCA report, and that here he was once again allowed to stay behind the scenes and not be interviewed, one has to accept the possibility that the HSCA knew there was something smelly regarding Stovall and the photos, and opted to let sleeping dogs lie. After all, the HSCA investigators were all led to believe there was gonna be an "Oswald did it all by his lonesome" reprise, and dredging up info that the DPD helped frame him was counter-productive. Any ideas on where we can go from here? Does anyone know how to get access to the HSCA file on Stovall? Any help appreciated. Pat

I've been away on vacation, but I'd hoped when I returned someone would have answered the nagging question of whether or not Richard Stovall, who helped find the photographs, and Robert Stovall, Oswald's former employer, who ran a photo lab doing business with the Government, were related. Doesn't anyone know? Are their any Mormon researchers who can dig this up? What about Gary Mack and Dave Perry, who seem to think they've dug up as much as can be dug on this issue? Do they know? Will someone in touch with them please ask?

While Robert Groden has undoubtedly been a leader within the research community, he has also been prone to offer theories without much thought. He testified before the HSCA, for instance, that he believed the autopsy photos indicated there was an entrance wound on the LEFT side of Kennedy's head, an allegation he failed to repeat in any of his books. As recounted in my online seminar, The Autopsy Photos: A New Perspective, Robert Groden acknowledged just last month that the autopsy photos show an entrance wound in the location described by Humes, Finck, and Boswell. He went even further, however, and insisted that he's always said so. A quick review of The Killing of the President, however, reveals that he offers up ten possible shots, NONE of which entered low on the back of Kennedy's skull from behind. In short, his memory of his own theory is erratic. I met many in Dallas who might say far worse things about Groden. To me, he seemed extremely passionate and sincere. While his appearance on this Forum would be a plus, by no means should anyone here accept Groden's word as definitive. But perhaps I've judged him prematurely.

Does anyone know what the DPD's explanation was to why they failed to turn over the negatives? Or whether there was an investigation? or whether the Stovalls were related? Or what Studebaker said in his testimony? I'm still hoping someone knows. All help appreciated. I wouldn't want to have to give in and ask Dave Perry.

I'm back at home now, and have re-read the sections of Oswald Talked about the matte prints found in the Dallas PD files. The excuse offered up by Detective Bobby Brown was that he was trying to superimpose Oswald's silhouette into a photo of the Neely backyard taken on November 29, 1963, to make sure it was the same backyard. This doesn't make a lot of sense. He also says that the photo of him recreating the pose of the photo eventually handed over by Roscoe White's widow, 133-c, was taken under the direction of the Secret Service, and that therefore the Secret Sevice knew of the third pose's existence in 1963. Interesting. Why both the Secret Service and the DPD failed to tell the WC about this photo is a mystery. I also re-read the HSCA report on the backyard photographs. While it insists the photographs are legit, it raises a heck of a lot of questions about the behavior of the DPD. 1. It claims that 2 photographs and 1 negative were given to the Warren Commission, and acknowledges that 2 photographs and 2 negatives had been in the possession of the DPD, which jives with the Warren Commission testimony of Gus Rose. On HSCA V.6 p.139 it says "Only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other one has never been accounted for." On p. 143 it re-iterates that "CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department." The tone of this comment seems to indicate a level of distrust. 2. Even more startling, however, is the HSCA's claim on p. 142-143 that 133-C (Dees) (the photo given over to the HSCA by the former Geneva White) and 133-C (Stovall), a photo of the same pose given over by Detective Stovall, one of the detectives present when the photos were found in the Paine's garage, are first generation prints. This means that, unless one is to believe that there were two photos of the third pose which both happened to be stolen by Dallas PD officers, the DPD had the negative to this photo. Still, since 133-A (Stovall) and 134, an enlargement made from 133-A and shown to Oswald, were also determined to be first generation prints, this means Dallas PD had the negative to 133-A as well. Which means they had all three negatives, only testified to two, and turned over only one to the Warren Commission. On p. 153 it alludes to the fact that in the executive session testimony of R.L. Studebaker on October 5, 1978 (someone please find this for me) he confessed to making a number of copies of these photographs for a number of police officers. Souvenirs. But Dave Perry disputes my assertion that these police were at the very least incompetent. He must have some friends on the DPD. 3. The HSCA report also reveals that the former Geneva White turned over her copy of 133-c on 12-30-1976, while Richard Stovall did not turn over his copy until April 14, 1978. This implies an ivestigation took place in-between. Has anyone seen any documents pertaining to this investigation? Perhaps it's hidden in the HSCA somewhere, but I haven't seen it. If I'm asking stupid questions, please humor me. 4. Yet another interesting tidbit in the HSCA report is its analysis on p. 172 of shadows on the Neely backyard, which led to the determination that 133-c was the first photo taken, then B, then A. Some time back, after reading the story that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the day of the assassination, I became intrigued by the possibility it was planted after the fact by police. The early photos of Oswald after his arrest all reflect, however, that he was wearing his Marine ring and bracelet on that fateful day, which is intriguing in its own right. When one looks at the backyard photos in order, something even more intriguing is apparent. On the first photo, 133 c, Oswald's right hand is blurred and his left reveals he's wearing what is almost undoubtedly his Marine ring. He is also wearing what looks to be a large wrist-watch on this hand. (Is there any other picture of him wearing a wristwatch?) On the second photo, 133-B, moments later, the Marine ring appears to be on his right hand, while the left hand is facing away from the camera. On the third photo, 133-A, both hands are visible, and neither hand appears to bear the ring, certainly not the right, and probably not the left. (If someone has a good copy of this and can tell otherwise, please pipe up.) Why this is important is that Oswald supposedly always wore his wedding ring, and here he is on a Sunday clowning around and it's nowhere to be seen. Still, the resolution may not be sufficient to say for sure. But what's even more intriguing to me is the possibility of someone else's wedding ring being in the photos. For why else was Oswald's hand blurred out on the copies of 133-C? What else could be so damaging about a hand that someone would need to blur it out and make the negative disappear? Or was it just a coincidence? The fact that this photo was taken first and then disappeared, and then re-appeared with a blurry spot on the right hand makes me suspicious that Oswald's face was super-imposed on someone else's body, and that the photography forgers decided not to use it due to the fact their model left his wedding ring on. 5. While reading Stovall's testimony before the Warren Commission, I noticed that Richard S. Stovall was born in 1928, and was approximately 35 years old when he helped find the backyard photos. The testimony of Robert L. Stovall, Oswald's former boss at the photography lab of Jagger-Chiles Stovall, reflects that he was 43. Are these men brothers???? I looked through a number of JFK books and was unable to find any reference to their being related. I did a quick white pages check of Dallas and found there are 61 Stovalls listed in Dallas today. Since Dallas was approximately one third its current size in 1963, I propose there were maybe 20 listed in 1963. And since families were bigger back then and more centralized, I propose that those 20 represent maybe 3 families. Consequently, there's at least a 33 % chance these two Stovalls were brother or cousin to one another. Has anyone looked into this? Once again, if this is elementary, please humor me. Needless to say, it would be a staggering coincidence if one of the Detectives finding these mis-handled photos was related to a former employer of Oswald's, let alone the employer whose photography labs were believed to have been used by Oswald to fake his Hidell ID. That Jack Bowen reportedly worked for Stovall, and that Oswald used him as a reference on his library card, and that a John Bowen just so happened to be the fake name given by Oswald's Mexico bus companion Albert Osborne, makes this even more intriguing. Still, the testimony of Marina and Marguerite indicate Marina took and Marguerite helped destroy a single photograph of Oswald in the backyard with his guns, albeit one taken of him in a different pose than the three remaining photographs. And the recent words of Michael Paine indicate he saw this photo as well. This makes me wonder if the Dallas PD, clued into the existence of the photograph by Michael Paine but frustrated by their inability to find the photograph, didn't decide to create a few of their own, in order to nail their man. Stovall says "you know my brother can help us out with this" or some such thing, and away they go. They come back the next day and "find" the pictures they made themselves that morning. PURE CONJECTURE, of course, but an honest attempt to address the available evidence. I'm still wondering if the Dallas PD ever offered an explanation as to why at least two negatives were never given over to the Warren Commission. Does anyone know??

I'm not at home right now, but I believe it was in Oswald Talked that a lot of that material was exposed. As I remember, the Dallas PD claimed they were merely using these mock-ups to test the shadows, and that they never made any fakes. While I still have my doubts, I'm not even disputing their claim. Right now, I'm just curious as to when the third pose was first made available to the Federal Government. If it was after 1963, why?

It has come to my attention that Dave Perry is trying to "school" me on his website. I made an offhand comment about the Ricky and Geneva White story that somehow offended him, and for some reason he decided the best way to handle my incorrect statements was to make an example out of me. One of the reasons I joined this forum was to learn more about the JFK assassination. I was under the impression that only two different backyard poses were known to exist in 1963, and that a third pose came to light in the seventies, and that Geneva White (Dees) was responsible for this third pose coming to light. While Mr. Perry does his best to make me look stupid, I'm not sure he ever counters my basic argument, that the Dallas PD failed to give all the photographic evidence over to the FBI and the Warren Commission. He makes it sound like First Day Evidence, one of the few JFK books I fail to own, explains everything. I'd appreciate it if someone a bit less hostile than Mr. Perry would explain to me what I'm missing. Evidently, the HSCA executive session testimony of R.L. Studebaker on October 5, 1978 helps explain where the third pose came from and why it was never brought to light during the era of the Warren Report. If anyone has read this testimony, I would appreciate hearing his explanation, and also any known reason this testimony was given in executive session. Mr. Perry also uses the fact that both the Texas Attorney General and Oliver Stone rejected Ricky White's story, which I agree is opportunistic b.s., to try and imply that everything was on the up and up regarding the photograph. I don't see the connection. Why did Dallas police officers have copies of a photograph that was never shown to the Warren Commission? Was it just a mistake? If anyone can help shed some light on this I'd appreciate it. Here's the Perry article: ................................................................................ ........................................................................ A Conspiracy of Incompetence? In late September 2004 a Pat Speer posted the following to a the JFK Lancer Research Forum: "What I find amazing is that while Ricky and Geneva White's stories have been called into question, and the Roscoe White diary debunked as a hoax, the photo Geneva White received from Roscoe White of Oswald was declared authentic by the HSCA. That's something that the Posners and Jennings of the world overlook. At the very least, it points to a conspiracy of incompetence among the DPD. After all, there were only two photographs of Oswald with the rifle found in the Paine's garage and entered into evidence, and here the wife of a former officer surfaces with a third one." I guess forums such as Lancer's claiming to bask in "the free exchange of ideas" and the "need to educate the public" consider this unsubstantiated comment acceptable. And those with a legitimate interest who are new to the case end up scratching their heads. In my view, Speer, has not only jumped to conclusions but also altered history without checking the facts. "What I find amazing is that . . . the Roscoe White diary [has been] debunked as a hoax" OK, so which one of the three - that's right three - diaries is Speer talking about? Was it the one created by Geneva White using a felt tip pen? The one where she later broke down and admitted to the fakery because she needed money? Was it another that may be in the possession of J. Gary Shaw? That is the one described by The JFK Assassination Information Center as a "Witness Elimination Book." By Labor Day 1990, John Stockwell made a valiant effort to get Mr. Shaw to produce the "book" but Mr. Shaw declined to do so. And the third was never "debunked as a hoax" as Ricky claimed the FBI took it. "there were only two photographs of Oswald with the rifle found in the Paine's garage and entered into evidence, and here the wife of a former officer surfaces with a third one." Where does this claim come from? Certainly not from the historical record. And wouldn't it be better to at least identify the photograph in question? Not all readers are as cognizant of the details as others and may be prone to believe the statement. Speer is talking about what is known as the third backyard photograph identified by the House Select Committee on Assassinations as CE-133c. And contrary to Speer's assertion, the surfacing of that photograph was not quite as claimed. Speer should have taken the time to check House Select Committee on Assassinations - Volume VI, page 180. One finds the following three photographs discussed: CE-133a, CE-133b, and CE-133c. Furthermore, the numbers CE-133a and c are attributed to Richard Stovall with another copy of CE-133c attributed to Dees (White). Therefore Geneva (White) Dees was NOT the sole person to provide the photograph in question. Furthermore, other police officers including Rusty Livingston had copies of that same photograph. Speer should review JFK First Day Evidence by Gary Savage (pp. 123 - 142) for all the details. "That's something that the Posners and Jennings of the world overlook." Wrong - Since the details don't lead to the self-serving conclusion Speer needs, the decision is made to overlook the true facts. The whole Roscoe White story was investigated by the Texas Attorney General's office as well as Oliver Stone! The Texas Attorney General's conclusion: "So far everything we have looked at has not given any credibility to anything these people have been trying to say about the documents and that whole affair." Ron Dusek / State Attorney General Aide / February 1, 1991 Oliver Stone's conclusion: From Oliver Stone's book JFK: The Book of the Film, page 20: [Note: In what appears to be nothing more than a publicity- seeking hoax, a Texas group that included White's son and widow presented "evidence" in 1990 that White was the real assassin behind the picket fence. Many of their claims have been debunked. (See David B. Perry "Who Speaks for Roscoe White?," The Third Decade, November, 1991.)] So it appears Speer is one of the minority thinking this tired fable has merit. I find it amusing that even Oliver Stone didn't buy onto this one. It would have made a more entertaining piece of fiction than JFK. As to a "conspiracy of incompetence" in my opinion, it is often the researchers who are proven incompetent. Dave Perry 09/30/04

More on Anderson. Some of this is good. The Murchisons by Jane Wolfe reveals on p. 274 that in June 1961, John Murchison was victorious in a proxy fight for the control of Allegheny Corporation. He made himself president temporarily, but was rumored to have offered the position to Robert Anderson and John McCloy, both of whom turned it down. In Stephen Ambrose's Eisenhower the President on p. 607 it says that when Kennedy visited Eisenhower a week before assuming power he asked Ike about Symington's report, which was shocking in its assertions of Anderson's wrongdoing. Ike told him the report was so useless as to be ridiculous, and urged Kennedy not to act "until he himself could become well acquainted with the problem." "Eisenhower himself stressed to Kennedy the seriousness of the balance-of-payments problem (and later subjected Kennedy to a forty-five minute lecture from Robert Anderson on the subject). "I pray the he understands it," Eisenhower wrote in his diary." On p. 609, Ambrose describes a meeting of Ike, his cabinet, and the CIA, where Ike proposed creating a reason for the U.S. to attack Cuba before he left office, to which Secretary of State Christian Herter proposed that the U.S. fake an attack on Guantanamo. This story is repeated in Bissell's Reflections of a Cold Warrior, but in Ambrose's account Anderson is there and he said that "rather than break relations, he favored vigorous action, now, to "get rid of Castro." He wanted the CIA to get going." So here we have a Texan with ties to the Murchisons, who is also a former Secretary of the Navy, and is additionally a strong advocate of the CIA and its removal of Castro, as one of Ike's and LBJ's top advisers. I see why John is so interested in him.

Pamela, thanks for the encouragement. At one point in my analysis I was stumped as to where the extra bullet went. After visiting your website, however, and seeing the Stoughton photo, I became convinced that there was a quick clean-up of the car, and that this is when CE399 was found... As to which SS agent found the bullet and placed it on the gurney, and as to whether he knowingly removed or wiped up the fragments of a second bullet, I'm still in the dark. I'm curious if you've been able to figure out if a clean-up occurred and who was involved.

More on Anderson In Johnson's memoirs, The Vantage Point, he records that on the day after the assassination, Eisenhower drove down to Washington and made out a list describing what he'd do if he was in Johnson's shoes. Number one on the list was that Johnson should send for Anderson to confer on general subjects. Later on, LBJ sent Anderson to Panama and Egypt as a special ambassador. The Making of the President 1964 by T. White p.74 reflects that Eisenhower wanted Anderson to run for President instead of Goldwater, but that Anderson actually supported Johnson. On p. 369 it says that Anderson was a member of the National Independent Committe for Johnson and Humphrey. A number of other books reflect that Anderson had once owned the TV station Lady Bird ended up with and that Anderson advised Johnson throughout his Presidency. The Beschloss books of LBJ transcripts include a number of calls to Anderson. One rare book that mentions Anderson is Robert Keith Gray's Eighteen Acres Under Glass. In this book, Gray, Eisenhower's Secretary of the Cabinet, says that he'd vote Bob Anderson for King. He says that Anderson had been Ike's dream choice for Vp in 56, and that, with Dulles and Herter travelling so much, Anderson was usually third in line behind Ike and Nixon at the cabinet meetings. Evidentally, Anderson knew his numbers and was low-key and impressive as hell. The only thing I found on Anderson which might lead somewhere would be that in Ben Bradlee's memoirs, A Good Life, he mentions a scandal involving Anderson. On page 237, he says that Kennedy cancelled all 24 White House subscriptions to the New York Herald-Tribune after it failed to print a word on Senator Stuart Symington's investigation of stock piling policies. Evidently, this investigation revealed that, while the government lost nearly a billion dollars, some producers dealing with the government had made 700-1000 percent, and that 3 members of Eisenhower's cabinet, George Humphrey, Arthur Fleming, and Robert Anderson had made windfall profits. Sure would be curious as to what the investigation revealed and whether or not any of the companies involved were from Texas... It might also be interesting to know if any criminal charges were ever pondered and if and when they went away.

The "deep throat" angle is quite interesting, in that if any of the three leading suspects were exposed by Woodward, it would send major ripples through the Republican Party, which has conveniently forgotten that Nixon WAS a crook. Bennett is currently a right-wing Senator from Utah, of all places. Haig was Nixon's chief of staff and Secretary of State under Reagan. Fred Fielding was Reagan's attorney, adviser to the current President, and member of one of the 9/11 Panels. I suspect it was Haig.

Thanks, Richard. I feel that so many people have been impressed by the works of David Lifton, Robert Groden, and Jim Fetzer, that they fail to realize that all the medical evidence, taken at face value, still points to a conspiracy. A classic example of this is in Dr. Mantik's paper, where he observes that lead is apparent on the outside of the Harper fragment and that therefore the Harper fragment must have come from the occipital region, as (HSCA skull reconstructionist Dr.)Angel's site implies a parietal entry...an option that virtually no one would support." Well, I guess I'm virtually no one. I simply find it easier to support a tangential wound near the President's temple than the x-rays and autopsy photos of the back of the President's head all being fake. Here, Mantik has an opportunity to accept the autopsy information and conclude there was a conspiracy, as a shot striking Kennedy in the area in question woluld either come from the front, (not likely due to there being no rear exit on the autopsy photos) or represent a second head shot from the rear, and yet he chooses instead to embrace a theory whereby all the autopsy photos are fake. This is a big reason why the mainstream media refuses to take the research community seriously. As I tried to show on my website, it simply makes no sense for the Warren Commission and the HSCA to create a series of blatantly false exhibits if the original sources, i.e. the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, and the x-rays, are fake. Why create fake representations of fakes? Maybe it's easier for Dr. Mantik and Dr. Fetzer et al to believe in a vast government conspiracy than to believe that their colleagues, such as Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, don't know how to interpret autopsy photos or x-rays. Or were co-erced into lying. My apologies to anyone offended by my outburst.

While I think Meir is probably a xxxx (hey, that rhymes), I too suspect Hughes may have been involved. The logic behind it is somewhat circular. 1. The CIA used Maheu as a cut-out for all kinds of jobs, including the assassination of Castro. 2. The mob used Maheu for jobs of their own, including the bugging of Dan Rowan's hotel room. 3. Maheu told Hughes about the attempts on Castro, thereby revealing his real (at least at that time) loyalty. 4. Hughes was a shrewd s.o.b., and would probably realize that this gave him license to kill...all he needed was for Maheu to kill JFK and make it look like the CIA and the mob did it as a joint venture and sit back as EVERYONE in Washington covered their ass. Maheu and his pal Edward Bennett Williams were the ultimate insiders and could have figured out how to pull this off over a couple of drinks. After all, Maheu knew Rosselli and Bannister and just about every suspect out there...outside of Oswald. (On a personal note, Maheu was good friends with an oilman named Johnny Mitchell, presented in Maheu's autobiography as a Texas oilman. What isn't stated is that Mitchell had ties to the Maceo mafia family of Galveston, Houston and Dallas going way back. I looked into a bit myself--Mitchell was my dad's boss when I was a kid.) In conclusion, Maheu COULD have done it, but there is little evidence he did--it's silly to think Maheu would put any of the assassins on Hughes' payroll, as that would defeat the purpose of using him as a cut-out and creating the illusion it was the CIA or the mob...

For what it's worth, I've had discussions on this topic with a friend who happens to be a Captain in Special Forces. I submitted a few questions to him, which he ran by some of his buddies in a sniper unit. They all agreed that one of the keys in sniping is not having to re-aim, and that this is much more important than being close to the target. They described the ideal location for shooting someone in the back of an open car as being high and behind the target...high so as to cut down the possibility of someone blocking their aim, and behind so that they get more than one shot without having to re-aim. All the shots fired in Dealey came when the limousine was heading in an almost straight line away from the corner of Houston and Elm. Weisberg's argument aside, the sixth floor window was the ideal location within the TSBD. An even better location, however, was the top floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building.