Pat Speer

Oh my. There is NO front entrance alibi. Oswald NEVER said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He was asked if he was in the building and responded in a manner suggesting he was. As far as number 2, it's an open question as to how Oswald left the building. He may have left the building by the front. If this is so, I think he actually ran into Shelley, who was asked to guard the front after Baker and Truly ran into the building. Or he may have left the building by the back, as recently claimed by Frazier.

Hilarious!!! You defend Hosty's honor by claiming YOUR interpretation of something he wrote and did not submit MUST be accurate, even though YOUR interpretation makes him an accessory after the fact for the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (FWIW, Hosty was one of the few Kennedy supporters in the FBI.)

These were photographed in situ on the sixth floor. It is interesting, however, that Williams ate chicken with his drink and would undoubtedly have left greasy fingerprints on the bottle. And yet, huh, there is no DPD report noting these prints. Well, this suggests they threw out the report along with the items once they realized they contained someone besides Oswald's prints. (FWIW, these aren't the only prints that disappeared.)

Not at all. We have what Oswald said, what Hosty heard, what Hosty later remembered, what Hosty wrote down, and then your interpretation of what he wrote down. Oswald could very well have said he went outside after the shooting, and Fritz may very well have asked a follow-up like out the front or out the back. To which Oswald said I wanted to see what was going on in the parade, so I went out front. We just don't know. We will never know. But the assumption Oswald told Fritz and Hosty he was outside DURING the shooting, and then never told anyone else, is really out there. It's desperate, IMO. I mean, think about it. The man knows his life is in danger. He's announced he's innocent. And he has been given a venue to speak to the public. So it only makes sense that he'd take advantage of the press circus and announce, whether in the hallway, or at the press conference, that he was actually outside at the time the shots were fired. He might then ask that anyone who could confirm he was outside at that time come forward. That he did not is troublesome, yes?

Can you tell us when Oswald went outside to watch the parade? Because Hosty doesn't say... And can you tell us why you believe your interpretation of Hosty's draft of a report is accurate and all the finished reports and testimony of everyone involved, including Hosty, is inaccurate? Yes, I know. Because you think it PROVES Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting...something he never said. As Bill pointed out, moreover, Oswald was asked a question which should have elicited him saying he was outside at the time of the shooting, should he have actually been outside. But he said no such thing. Now, the big one. Is it a coincidence that 1) no photographs show Oswald to be outside at the time of the shooting, 2) no one recalled Oswald being outside at that time, and 3) he failed to say anything to anyone in his family, or even to the press, indicating he was outside at that time? The rational deduction is that he wasn't outside.

I believe there was a spectrography test that showed there was copper on the back of JFK's jacket, (which suggested a bullet entered there), but no such test was performed on the wounds themselves.

FWIW, I think many if not most people viewing a man in this condition would think "Oh my! They've blown the back of his head off!"

Where on the back of the head? You have claimed the witnesses are precise enough in their recollections that they amount to a proof the autopsy photos are fake, correct? So how is it that you refuse to acknowledge your claim of their precision also proves the McClelland drawing showing the wound to be located almost entirely BELOW the level of the ear...is also INACCURATE...and that the claims the cerebellum was blasted out through the defect are mistaken?

WHY are you dodging the question? WHERE was this wound you claim they all saw? P.S. I hope you realize experts are more prone to certain kinds of mistakes than non-experts. To be clear, someone who has only ever seen one (fill in the blank) will be less likely to confuse it with another one than someone who sees (fill in the blank)s every day. And that's almost beside the point. More to the point is that the witnesses you cite were influenced by one another and then later influenced by books and articles and pushy interviewers etc. There's a double-standard in effect. If a witness is shown the McClelland drawing and says "Yeah, that looks about right" they are then and forever put into the "back of the head" box. But if that same witness is then shown the autopsy photos and says "Y'know, that looks more like it. Yeah, it was a big bloody mess. That's it." that witness is called a coward or a xxxx. It's pathetic. And pointless.

He "lied" about both? Do you mean that he lied about the existence of a wound on the temple, or lied on at least one occasion about his saying or doing something that confused McClelland? Now, I hope you mean the latter because the former is bonkers. Here is his initial report. (There is no mention of a wound on the temple because he quite correctly chose to leave it out, seeing as he never actually saw such a wound.) THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, DALLAS November 22, 1963 1630 To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity. During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity. These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage . It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300. Sincerely, M. T. Jenkins, M.D .

From chapter 18c: By June of 1981, Livingstone had convinced Ben Bradlee, Jr. of the Boston Globe to pick up where he'd left off, and interview the Parkland witnesses for himself. Bradlee's summary of these interviews can be found in the Weisberg Archives. They reveal that Bradlee focused on the recollections of 16 witnesses, and that 8 of the 14 he interviewed for the story cast doubt on the authenticity of the photos, and 6 largely supported their authenticity. This was a journalist at work, and not a theorist. And he believed barely more than half the witnesses suggested the photos were at odds with the wounds. This was far from the ALL claimed by Livingstone. The witnesses Bradlee thought disagreed with the official description of the head wound were: Dr. Robert McClelland, who is reported to have claimed that the drawing he approved for book publication is still how he "vividly remembers" the wound appearing. Dr. Richard Dulany, who is reported to have "told the Globe that he recalled seeing a wound four to six inches in diameter squarely in the back of the head, in a location quite distinct from that depicted in the official autopsy report and photograph." Patricia Gustafson, who repeated what she'd earlier told Livingston, that the wound she'd observed was at the "back of the head." Doris M. Nelson, who "drew an illustration of the head wound that placed it high on the back, right side. The wound she drew was in the parietal area, but it extended well toward the rear of the head and appears to conflict with the autopsy photograph. Shown the tracing of that photo, Nelson immediately said: 'It isn't true.' Specifically, she objected to the photograph showing hair in the back of the head. 'There was no hair,' she said. 'There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" (Note: Bradlee was more specific than Livingstone regarding Nelson's recollections, and reveals that, while disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, she nevertheless felt the wound was at the top of Kennedy's head, and not on the far back of the head, where Livingstone and others placed the wound.) Margaret Hood, who "sketched a gaping hole in the occipital region which extended only slightly into the parietal area." Dr. Ronald Jones, who "refused to make a drawing of the wound on a plastic skull model, saying he never had an opportunity to define the wound's margins. With his finger, however, he outlined the wound as being in the very rear of the head. He said the official autopsy photograph of the back of the head did not square with his recollection, but that the McClelland drawing was 'close.'" (Well, this is interesting. Jones clearly saw where this was headed, and tried to make clear that his recollection wasn't worth all that much.) Dr. Paul Peters, who "made a drawing that appeared to place the head wound entirely in the parietal region, but he insisted that he meant for it to overlap into the occipital region as well. 'I think occipital–parietal describes it pretty well,' he remarked. He said he had a good opportunity to examine the head wound. Shown the official tracing of the autopsy photograph, Peters remarked: 'I don't think it's consistent with what I saw.' Of the McClelland drawing, Peters said: 'It's not too far off. It's a little bit (too far) down in the occipital area, is what I would say...But it's not too bad. It's a large wound, and that's what we saw at the time.'" (Well, this is also quite intriguing. Peters placed the wound in the parietal area, but, one can only presume, recalled Clark's description of it as occipito-parietal, and thought better of it. Note also that two of the witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos--Nelson and Peters--had disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing as well.) Diana H. Bowron: A British registered nurse. Bradlee couldn't find her but quoted her testimony before the Warren Commission. Dr. William Kemp Clark. Clark refused to be interviewed but Bradlee quoted his previous reports and testimony. Dr. Gene C. Akin, who "at first recalled that the head wound was 'more parietal than occipital'" but who equivocated after being shown the McClelland drawing, and said "Well, in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it's more occipital.'" (Holy smokes. This confirms that at least one back of the head witness deferred to the accuracy of McClelland's drawing, without realizing the drawing had not been made by McClelland, and without the foresight to realize McClelland himself would come to dispute its accuracy. There's also this. Of the 8 witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, three--Nelson, Peters, and Akin--also initially disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.) This, then brings us to the six witnesses Bradlee spoke to who "tended to agree with the official description of the head wound that emerged from the autopsy and Warren Report." Dr. Charles Baxter, who, despite his earlier statements and testimony, drew "a large wound in the parietal region" on a model skull, and "said the official autopsy photo of the back of the head did not conflict with his memory." Dr. Adolph Giesecke, who "placed the head wound in the right parietal region, saying it extended about three or four centimeters into the occiput. Though this would appear to make the wound visible in a rear-view photo, Giesecke said the official autopsy photograph was nonetheless 'very compatible' with what he remembered. He explained this by saying that in the photograph it appeared to him that a flap of scalp blown loose by a billet was being held in such a way as to cover the rear-most portion of the skull wound. Giesecke said the McClelland drawing did not reflect what he remembered of the wound." (So Giesecke was being reasonable; the photo didn't reflect exactly what he remembered but it was close enough for him to assume it was legitimate. Meanwhile, he totally dismissed the McClelland drawing.) Dr. Charles Carrico, who was not interviewed, but answered questions by letter, and said in his first letter "that the official autopsy photograph showed 'nothing incompatible' with what he remembered of the back of the head. But he conceded that 'we never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound.' In his second letter, Carrico said he agreed with the size of the wound shown in the McClelland drawing, but not its location, since '...we were able to see the majority. if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back in a hospital gurney.'" Dr. Malcolm Perry, who, like Carrico, declined to be interviewed, but responded by letter. "In the first letter. Perry said that while he gave only a 'cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions,' the autopsy photograph 'seems to be consistent with what I saw.' In his second letter, Perry simply-reiterated that he had not made a careful examination of the head wound. and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark." Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, whose earlier claims he'd observed cerebellum had been widely quoted "told The Globe he had been mistaken in his statements on this. 'I thought it was cerebellum, but I didn't examine it,' he said. Jenkins refused to draw a picture of the head wound on a plastic skull model, insisting instead that a reporter play the part of the supine Kennedy so he could demonstrate what he saw and did. Asked to locate the large head wound, Jenkins pointed to the parietal area above the right ear. He said he had never looked at the back of the head." Dr. Robert G. Grossman, who "said he took up a position next to Dr. Clark at the right of Kennedy's head. In contrast to Jenkins, Grossman said the president's head was picked up by Clark. 'It was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited,' Grossman said. Besides this large parietal wound, Grossman went on to say that he had noted another separate wound. measuring about one—and—a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman was the only doctor interviewed who made such a reference to two distinct wounds. Though no occipital wound such as he described is apparent in the official autopsy photograph, Grossman nevertheless said 'it seems consistent' with what he remembered. He said the large wound depicted in the McClelland drawing 'is in the wrong place.'" Let's reflect. Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of these 14, 8 strongly questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head, and 6 supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo. This is indeed interesting. But what's just as interesting, and just as telling in the long run, is that NINE of these 14 rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, which those focusing on this issue nevertheless propped up as a depiction of the one true wound. Feel free to scream. And let's reflect that when ultimately reporting on these interviews, in his 1989 best seller High Treason, Livingstone and his co-author Robert Groden claimed that the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate." So, I ask again, were we conned?

"The back of the head" is vague." Clint Hill continues to say the wound was on the back of the head when he points to a location above and slightly behind his ear. WHERE on the back of the head is the wound described by the witnesses, and WHERE on the back of the head do you think the wound was located? My point, since I first got sucked into this vortex 15 years ago, is that the majority of so-called back of the head witnesses have pointed out a location ABOVE the ear. This places it on the parietal bone, NOT occipital bone. And yet the majority of "prominent" researchers continue to claim these witnesses support an occipital blow-out wound. It's a total con. You can not have it both ways. IF you think the (mostly disavowed) statements of the Parkland doctors on 11-22 are correct, then you can not claim the numerous witnesses pointing to the crown or side of the head in the photos published by Groden, etc, SUPPORT their claims. The first group essentially describes a wound LOW on the back of the head on the occipital bone, oozing cerebellum. The second group when taken on average points to a location INCHES above that on the parietal bone, in a location well above the cerebellum. The locations are not only not identical, they are in total conflict. So who is correct? The original Parkland witnesses, who almost universally placed the wound on the occipital bone and then disavowed their placement of the wound? Or the witnesses who came forth later, who almost universally placed the wound on the parietal bone? P.S. If I'm not mistaken you have claimed that there were 20 witnesses who made statements shortly after the shooting in which they indicated the back of the head was missing. If you go back through the list above, you will see it was far less than that.

Unfortunately, Landis claims he didn't tell anyone about his find, and the FBI would probably be the last to know if he did. The early Shanklin and Belmont memos contain a lot of second-hand stuff that are essentially bad gossip. This appears to be one such memo. It should be noted, in that light, that Shanklin's claim Sorrels had possession of the rifle also appears to be nonsense. The official story, of course, has it in the DPD's possession until they transferred it to Vince Drain of the FBI. P.S. I initially wrote that Sorrels walked with Day to his car, but I was mistaken--that was FBI man Bardwell Odum.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 9: Silent, But Deadly While trying to figure out if the bullet fired in F-114 had indeed been subsonic, however, I discovered that there was an historical basis for my suspicion that a small caliber weapon firing subsonic ammunition had been used in the assassination. While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.” Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat. Subsequent investigation on my part revealed that, yes indeed, the Winchester 74 sniper rifle pre-dated the assassination and is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning it could be fired quite rapidly, causing separate hits on Kennedy and Connally, and creating the illusion they were hit by the same bullet. I found a photo of such a rifle, furthermore, in the 1991 book OSS Special Weapons and Equipment by H. Keith Melton, an expert on the CIA and its predecessor, the OSS. This is reproduced below: Note that the range is 100 yards, the same as that of the assassination weapons described in the CIA Manual on assassination. Elsewhere on the page, the advantages of such a rifle are further detailed. "A Weapon that eliminates muzzle flash and muzzle noise offers several advantages to special forces personnel. (1) The source of the fire is masked. (2) The location of the weapon is difficult for the enemy to pinpoint. (3) The enemy can not identify the numbers or type(s) of weapons firing, or their range. (4) The weapon has less recoil and is more accurate to fire. (5) The enemy is harassed and confused. (6) The sniper has a psychological advantage over the enemy." In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe such a weapon was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet--the type of bullet used in the Winchester 74 rifle--would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. And that was the most it would drop. I later realized that bullet drop, as everything is relative. If a gun firing such a bullet is sighted in at 100 yards, well, that means the bullet will start out below the point of aim, then rise above it, and then drop down to hit the target at 100 yards. But what if the rifle was sighted in at 50 yards, and the bullet wasn't fired until Kennedy was 90 yards away? How far would it drop over that extra 40 yards? Well, a chart found on gunsmoke.com provides us the answer. The chart tracking the bullet trajectory for a subsonic .22 long rifle round fired from a rifle sighted-in at 50 yards supports that such a bullet would drop down but 5 inches below the line of sight at 90 yards. This chart also supports Everyday Ballistics' assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would suffer less wind deflection than assumed. It reflects that a 15 mph crosswind would deflect such a bullet but 2.12 inches at 90 yards. Hmmm... From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a silenced Winchester 74 or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both. In sum, then, my study of the evidence suggests the use of such a weapon can not be ruled out. Upon further reading about the M-16, moreover, I realized that it fired three-round bursts in its semi-automatic setting. Since the wounds to Kennedy and Connally circa frame 224 were quite possibly caused by but two bullets, I now suspect the second rifle used in the assassination was a semi-automatic weapon quite similar to the one shown above.

Yeah, you're right. The yelling heard by Fritz was not someone yelling down to the street, but someone yelling within the building for him to come over. From Chapter 4e: Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think we went up probably to the top. Different people would call me when they would find something that looked like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window, they had found some empty cartridges. And here are some quotes from Mooney indicating he had to wait awhile before Fritz came over. From The Day Kennedy was Shot (a book for which Mooney had been interviewed): "Mooney kept the other policeman away from the area. In time, Fritz arrived. The Crime Laboratory, a mobile unit, had been summoned from headquarters on Main Street. The deputy sheriff was excited. Having made his find, he observed everything. The pile of boxes was high enough to serve as a private screen against prying eyes from anywhere on the sixth floor. The small boxes which had been placed inside, on the floor, were just high enough, with the window one third open, to serve as an assassin's roost. A man could sit on the one nearest the heating pipes, while resting the gun on the one near the window., and looking diagonally down Elm Street toward the overpass. He would have an open, commanding view everywhere except as the motorcade passed the broad tree below. The only open space in the tree was furnished by the "V" of two main branches. Mooney was still dwelling on the subject when ranking officers and their entourages descended on him." From notes by an HSCA Investigator on an 11-5-77 interview of Mooney): "He leaned out a window and yelled down to Sheriff Decker (Bill) and Capt. Fritz (Will) to send up the Crime Lab. A little later Capt. Fritz arrived and he turned the scene over to him for further investigation and processing."

Yes, unbelievably, cops get thirsty, too.

I read this as they came in when Mooney yelled out but that they didn't hear him, and that they only came over to the sn after stopping off on a number of other floors and hearing Hill yell out.

Mr. BALL. When you went in the front door, who was with you? Mr. SIMS. Captain Fritz, Boyd, and I. Mr. BALL. Where did you go? Mr. SIMS. We went directly to the elevator. Mr. BALL. Which elevator? Mr. SIMS. The main passenger elevator. Mr. BALL. It was a freight elevator, wasn't it? Mr. SIMS. No, sir; I think the passenger elevator goes to about the third floor and then the freight elevator takes over. Mr. BALL. You went up in the passenger elevator in the front of the building? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And you went as far as it could go, did you? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did you do then? Mr. SIMS. Then, we caught the freight elevator. Mr. BALL. That would be in another part of the building? Mr. SIMS. Yes; I think it's on the north end of the building. Mr. BALL. Did somebody direct you where to go to get the freight elevator? Mr. SIMS. I believe--I'm not positive whether they did or not. Mr. BALL. And where did you go from there? Mr. SIMS. Well, we got off on the third floor and there were officers there, so we went all the way up and we started to the seventh floor, actually, and there was officers on every floor as we went up. Mr. BALL. And where did you go first? Mr. SIMS. Well, we stopped at the second floor, first. Mr. BALL. Now, were you on the elevator at that time? Mr. SIMS. No, sir--it was full of officers. Mr. BALL. Do you know who some of the officers were? Mr. SIMS. Yes; I don't know which ones I can remember, but Lieutenant Revill was there, I believe. Mr. BALL. At 2:35, you mentioned two officers. Mr. SIMS. Lieutenant Revill and Detective Westphal was over there with us. Mr. BALL. Are they with homicide? Mr. SIMS. No, sir; they are with the special service bureau. Mr. BALL. What is the special service bureau? Mr. SIMS. Well, it's a combination of vice, narcotics, and undercover work. Mr. BALL. Now, you got, you said, up to the third floor? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And where did you go then? Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we got off--we stopped at the second floor and went to the third floor and some officer there had a key to a room and we made a hurried search of it and there was a bunch of officers on that floor and we went on to the fourth floor, and I don't know if we got off at the fourth or not, but anyway, we got off at the seventh floor each floor as we passed would have officers on it, and we hadn't been on the seventh floor very long--for just a while until someone hollered that they had found the hulls on the sixth floor, so we went back to the sixth floor. Mr. BALL. Someone on the seventh floor told you they had found the hulls? Mr. SIMS. No, sir; someone hollered from the sixth floor that the hulls had been found. Mr. BALL. And you could hear them? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; you could hear them. Mr. BALL. Did you go down the stairway? Mr. SIMS. No, sir; we went back down the elevator, as well as I remember. Mr. BALL. And where did you go when you got off of the elevator? Mr. SIMS. We may have had to climb the stairs from six to seven--I don't remember how high that elevator goes. I know we went back to the sixth floor. Mr. BALL. And where did you go when you got off at the sixth floor? 160 Mr. SIMS. We went over to the corner window there. Mr. BALL. Which corner? Mr. SIMS. It would be the one on Houston and Elm, that corner there--it would be the southeast corner. Mr. BALL. It was the southeast corner? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And what did you see? Mr. SIMS. We saw the boxes stacked up about--I don't know--three or four stacks high and found three empty hulls laying there next to the wall of the Elm Street side of the building, the front of the building. Mr. BALL. Who was there when you saw them? Mr. SIMS. Well, there was two or three officers was there when we got there, and I believe the officer that found them was still there. I have his name here someplace. Mr. BALL. Was he a deputy sheriff? Mr. SIMS. Yes, he was a deputy sheriff. Mr. BALL. And who else--Luke Mooney? Mr. SIMS. Yes--there was two or three officers there besides us--I don't know who all.

So maybe my thought that no one reacted to Mooney is correct. Mooney finds the sn, yells down, and thinks Fritz is coming up. But Fritz doesn't hear him. A few minutes later Hill comes over and yells again. This convinces someone Harkness? to call Day, the crime scene specialist, and he prepares to come over. In the meantime, Fritz wanders through the building. He finally arrives at the sn around 1:15., 5 minutes before Day. Does this sound about right?

I initially thought this was cropped from an Allen photo of the TSBD where the Hill window is closed. But after tracking it down on the UNT site, I realize that it was from a different Allen photo taken of just the one window. I also came across a power point slide on which I compared the shadows on the building in the Hill photo and McCurley photo, on which I concluded the photos were taken within a short time of each other, maybe a minute or two. I forget, do we have a confirmed time for the Hill photo? I think I placed it around 1:10.

Saturday Night Live did a number of skits in which they made fun of Kilmeade. He was played by Bowen Yang.

It's in the Allen Collection on the University of North Texas website. (I didn't crop it as much as I thought I had.) https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184840/m1/1/?q=William allen depository

In another segment of the film, taken within a few seconds of filming Edwards' being escorted over to the Sheriff's Department, he captured Brennan, Euins, and Brehm being escorted over to the Sheriff's Department.

I think I cropped that from a much large photo. It's the sniper's nest window. I'm assuming we can't see the window box because of the angle, but am open-minded if someone wants to try to re-create Allen's photo and prove the box should have been visible.

If an M/C bullet struck the skull at a sharp angle as proposed by Dr. Clark, it would meet much more resistance than striking it straight on, and have to break through an inch of so of skull. Well, this would not only mutilate the skull, and create a wound like the one observed on Kennedy, but mutilate the bullet in the manner of the fragments found in the limousine...and found in and on Kennedy's skull. All the evidence points in this direction. Dr. Davis, the HSCA's radiology consultant, said he couldn't explain it but that it appears the so-called "trail of fragments" on the x-rays (which can be found in an area where there was no brain) are actually in the scalp. Well, that explains why none of these fragments were recovered at autopsy. Similarly, the non-metal material on the crumpled nose of the bullet found in the front section of the limo, was studied at the request of the ARRB, and found to be human skin. So, yes, an M/C bullet struck JFK at the supposed exit location and erupted on his skull, and exploded his skull in the process. This leaves the small entrance on the back of his skull unaccounted for, and this means JFK received two head wounds, not one. This is what the evidence suggests, and has always suggested. And this is what has been covered up, starting with the autopsy report, which pretended the entrance low on the skull led to the wound on top of the skull, and continuing through the Clark Panel, which simply moved the entrance to a location that no one saw which made more sense, and on to the HSCA and its Pathology Panel, which confirmed the Clark Panel's deception and harassed Dr. Humes into pretending he agreed with them.