Pat Speer

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.

I don't. The CD case was for your benefit because it seems you have trouble with measurements. Note: I have chapters on my website on this stuff, and have made numerous presentations on this stuff, and was the lone presenter to speak on the SBT at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report at Bethesda. I know what I'm talking about. The SBT is a hoax. Read and digest chapters 10 through 12 and you will see this for yourself.

If you stopped relying on what you wanna see and actually did some measuring, you would quickly realize that the Clark Panel measurements are a joke. Get a 14 cm object, such as a CD case, and place one of the short edges along the bottom of your skull with the case stretching down along your neck. If you're of normal proportions the bottom edge will end up on your back, at a level below your Adams' Apple, at or near the vertical level of JFK's throat wound. The Clark Panel's claim it was inches above the throat wound is balderdash. And if you still can't see it, try this. Measure out 2 inches between your thumb and index finger. Now place the thumb at the approximate location of the bottom of the throat wound on your own body, while standing erect. Now note how your index finger is at the vertical level of the base of your neck, INCHES above where it is in the photos of JFK.

Holy smokes, David, I wrote a book on this, and proved the Clark Panel was full of beans.

I don't have a bias against fake evidence being entered into the record. I suspect at least some of the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle and sniper's nest was faked. I just have a hard time buying what everyone should have a hard time buying--that the medical evidence no one was supposed to see (because it suggested the likelihood of more than one shooter), was faked to hide evidence of a conspiracy. That makes no sense to me, and it shouldn't to you, either. I mean, how do you conceal a conspiracy by faking evidence to suggest a conspiracy? If you quit reciting gobbledygook in the conspiracy literature, and perform an independent review of the evidence, you will see this is true. The autopsy photos show a back wound too low to support the single-bullet theory. This wound was slid upwards on the drawings created for the Warren Commission to conceal this fact. After which Arleen Specter reviewed a back wound photo and confirmed this fact. No alteration of the photo was needed, or performed. There is your conspiracy. As far as the head wound, in the drawings created for the commission, the autopsy doctors placed this wound half-way between the back of the head and the forehead, in a location that could be either an exit from behind or from the front. When you add into this that the Parkland doctors were allowed to testify as they wished about the head wound and that McClelland was actually allowed to "correct" his initial statement and place the wound on the back of the head for his testimony, it seems clear no cover-up regarding the head wound was performed by Specter and the WC. This didn't last for long, of course. By 1968, our friend Tink had pointed out that the head wound trajectories made no sense. And this led to the creation of a secret panel, which just so happened to conclude the fatal bullet actually entered four inches higher on the skull, in a location where no one viewing the body saw a wound, and where no wound is apparent on the autopsy photos and x-rays. Now there's another conspiracy for you. So, in short, there was a cover-up of the medical evidence, both by the WC and after, and in both cases the cover-up was spurred after someone studied the medical evidence, and concluded the photos were at odds with the single-assassin theory. The photos suggested conspiracy. And yet the response was not to fake new photos, but to simply lie about what the photos showed. P.S. You keep saying 20 witnesses to JFK's wounds at Parkland gave statements or testimony shortly thereafter, and that their recollections were both consistent, and supportive of an occipital blow-out wound. I believe this to be incorrect. You can prove me wrong, however, if you list these 20 witnesses along with the date they first came forward to offer their recollections. Thanks in advance.

Here is an image from Warren Commission Exhibit 895, showing the view from the sniper's nest at Z-225. It's obvious Connally's armpit is to the right of JFK from this angle, even if Connally was a few inches to his left. Jenner, who was not involved in the re-enactment, and knew nothing of the trajectories, was thereby blowing smoke when he claimed the WC's re-enactments proved any bullet hitting Connally must have gone through JFK.

It's on my website in chapter 4c, here: I added it to my post but then removed it after being told I was over my allowance or some such thing. But now it shows up. Curious.

Was Stewart involved in JFK's care? Nope. He was repeating gossip years after the fact at odds with the initial reports and testimony of all those actually involved in JFK's care. From looking at Palamara's book, I see that Stewart told a radio audience in 67 that all the physicians in Trauma Room One believed there was a small wound on the left front of Kennedy and a massive wound of exit on the right backside of his head. Perhaps he had read McClelland's initial statement and had conflated that with the statements of everyone else. Because, if Stewart is telling the truth, well, ALL the Parkland doctors, including McClelland, were XXXXX, if not from 11-22-63, then a few days later. So, Paul, do you believe they all lied...for decades...or is it much more likely that Stewart--a man not even involved in JFK's care--simply got it wrong?

The photos taken from the SN on 5-24-64 prove Connally could be hit by a bullet fired from behind that did not hit JFK.

My recollection is that Fritz took his time before reaching the sixth. I think Mooney yelled down before 1:00, and that Harkness then made a call to the crime lab. I suspect some time passed before Hill went upstairs and yelled back down again, which alerted Todd and others to get witnesses claiming to see a man in the sniper's nest over to the Sheriff's office. Fritz and his assistants, who were at that time close to the sixth (I think Fritz said he was in the stairwell when he heard about the sniper's nest) then ambled over to the sniper's nest. When re-reading all this stuff a few years back, I couldn't understand why Sims (who was with Fritz) claimed the sniper's nest was discovered around 1:15. From reading all the statements I realized that Fritz and Sims were responding to Hill, and that they hadn't heard Mooney yelling down to them as they entered the building around 1:00.

FWIW, I reject the idea those involved in Oswald's hiring were a necessary part of a plot. I do so for a number of reasons. Among these is that I had many conversations over the years with a life-long friend who rose to the level of LT. Col of U.S. Special Forces (the Green Berets). He spent years training Green Berets, and, for awhile, while he was in the reserve, SWAT officers. He trained them in tactics--how to create a plan, and how to execute that plan. His expertise--at least the one he would talk about--was in hostage recovery. In any event, he stressed over and over to the extent that it became a recurring joke between us, that the key to the successful execution of a plan was PACE. PACE is an acronym for Primary, Alternative, Contingency, and Emergency. In other words, he shared that the secret to a successful military plan was to have 4 plans, not one. So...if the assassination of JFK was a military operation, or one performed by people who had military training, there may very well have been 4 plans in motion at the same time. There may have been 4 potential snipers in 4 different cities, or even 4 different buildings in Dallas along the parade route, with 4 different patsies in place to take the fall. We just don't know. It seems likely we will never know. But the important conclusion to be drawn from this is that it could very well be that Oswald was supposed to be the contingency or emergency plan, but was moved up to the primary plan once other plans fell through, OR he got a job on the motorcade route.

This makes a lot of sense in retrospect. Edwards and Fischer said they saw someone in a window, but the cops at least initially thought the shots came from the knoll. After finding the sniper's nest, however, the cops would have been like "Okay, let's get these guys over to the office and get a statement."

He is incorrect, as proved by the 5-24-64 re-enactment photos.

I suspect you are correct about Mooney being heard by most everyone but Fritz. I think we can suspect Allen heard Mooney as well, as he took a picture of the building from the street before Hill opened the second window from the east on the sixth floor and yelled down. One of my "discoveries" is that this photo showed McCurley, who is reported to have come right over after Mooney found the shells, standing in back of the window.

I think you are correct about the man in the brown suit being Hill. From re-reading all the TSBD-related statements and testimony a few years back, I came to realize that no one on the street heard or paid much attention to Mooney. He yelled down to Fritz, and saw Fritz come into the building, and thought Fritz was coming right up. But Fritz and his assistants stopped off at floor after floor as they went up. In any event, it appears there was a substantial delay between Mooney's finding the sniper's nest and Fritz and his assistants coming over.

Read McClelland's report. He mentions a massive wound. He mentions a wound of the left temple. But he doesn't give a location for the massive wound or say these were two separate wounds. Nor does he describe the wound of the left temple in a manner suggesting it was not the massive wound. As McClelland stood within a few feet of Dr. Clark as Clark inspected Kennedy's head, moreover, it seems clear McClelland would have been privy to the conclusion reached by everyone else present--that there was one massive wound on Kennedy's head. As several witnesses to the wound had placed the wound at JFK's temple while appearing on television prior to McClelland's writing his report, and as Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his temple when announcing JFK's death to the national press, in a room but yards from McClelland right there at Parkland Hospital, it seems possible McClelland had witnessed or heard about one or more of these references to the temple, and was thinking of them while writing his report. As a magazine article quoting the Parkland doctors' initial reports was published in a Texas medical journal within weeks of the assassination, and as this article corrects McClelland's approximation of the time of JFK's death, and further notes "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head" it seems clear Dr. McClelland was interviewed for this article, and that he and he alone was responsible for correcting his impression of THE wound's location from the left temple to the right side of the head. It is logical to conclude then that McClelland thought the wound was of the right temple, but inadvertently wrote left temple in his report, and then tried to correct his error by telling this journal it was on the right side of the head.

LOL. Why on Earth would you believe that? Because you read it in Bugliosi's book? That's pathetic. I have been urging the members of this forum to get off their butts and read some actual medical reports, and not just repeat the gibberish found in most books on the assassination. IF your father was shot in the stomach, and died, and the emergency room doctor charged with saving his life put in his report that your father was shot in the back, you would do well to contact a lawyer. If that doctor then told your lawyer that what he meant was that he saw someone point to your father's back, but never looked at it, and then assumed this person was telling him your father was shot in the back by a bullet that exited his stomach, and that he then forgot to mention the stomach wound in his report, well, your lawyer would suggest you sue. As a recitation of the doctor's explanation would convince even the most skeptical of juries that the doctor was grossly incompetent, and that his incompetence may have played a role in your father's death. moreover, it's near certain the hospital would then terminate the doctor and settle your lawsuit. For millions. The doctor would then be referred to the AMA and lose his medical license. It boggles my mind that so many find McClelland's story credible. I grew up in a family of nurses and have spent much of the past two years in hospitals. I have heard hundreds of stories about incompetent doctors, nurses, and bio-med technicians at the dinner table. And McClelland's describing a wound that didn't exist in a location he never even looked at, in a report in which he failed to mention the location of the wound he would later claim he did look at, is right up there with the worst of these stories. It's an admission of incredible incompetence, if true. But almost certainly false. While McClelland's latter-day claim he was confused by Jenkins answers but one question--why he wrote "left temple" in his report--it failed spectacularly at answering the other questions raised by his report. 1. Why did he, alone among his colleagues, come away from Trauma Room One with the impression there were two head wounds? 2, If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he say it was "of" the left temple" (an expression which suggests the wound was confined to the region), as opposed to "in the left temple" (which leaves open if the bullet exited elsewhere)? 3.. If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he not specify the location of the "massive" wound described elsewhere? 4. If the "left temple" was indeed a reference to a small entrance wound in that location, why did he not specify that it was smaller than the "massive" wound he saw elsewhere? The most logical answer is, and will presumably continue to be, that he confused right with left, and that his trying to blame it on Jenkins was a story--perhaps a story he told himself--but a story nonetheless.

The SBT is a hoax. The WC admitted they only wanted to show it was possible, and didn't care if it was unlikely. Since 1978, however, the powers that be have tried to claim that a bullet striking JFK in the location of his back wound would go through JFK, exit his throat at the location of his throat wound, and strike JBC in the location of his armpit wound. In reality, of course, they couldn't honestly have claimed this, as there are too many variables, even if the men were actually in alignment. But it's worse than that. They knew they weren't in alignment, and the presentations showing them to be in alignment are a refinement of the original hoax.

Here's a photo of Fischer and Edwards being questioned at the Sheriff's Dept., while Charles Brehm waits his turn.

When creating my database of witness statements, I realized that there was a jailer, I.C. Todd, who ran over from the jail to the knoll after the shooting, and then stayed outside the depository for awhile before returning to the jail. This led me to believe he is the man with Edwards, and that he is escorting him over to the jail to give a statement. Unfortunately, Todd makes no mention of corralling any witnesses as he returned to the jail. He does mention being outside the depository when someone yelled down from an upper floor about finding three bullets, however, and this suggests he was outside the TSBD around 12:50. So if I had to guess I'd place that footage around 12:50.

I saw them on a tour where they had Leif Garrett on vocals.

What the? You proved I was right!!! Jenkins only knew what McClelland told him--that Jenkins had misled him into thinking there was an entrance by the temple. But there's no evidence whatsoever he studied McCelland's report and realized McClelland had failed to mention the left temple wound being an entrance and the massive wound's being on the back the head. Those are red flags. You can not write a report describing two head wounds if you only mention the location for one, and fail to designate that wound as an entrance and/or exit for a bullet entering elsewhere. Let's switch this around. Say Dr. Humes wrote a report claiming the head wound was an occipital wound, and made no mention of any other wound or any other location. Say he was asked about this later and said "Well, Dr. Boswell pointed to the back of the head at one point and I thought he was telling me there was an entrance wound there..." You and every other CT would then pounce "Well, wait a second...how come he failed to mention anything about the large wound on the top of the head that he later claimed to see? How come he makes NO mention of a wound in this location in his report? Is it because he saw no such wound, and that the wound he saw was actually an occipital wound?" And you would then answer affirmatively: "Yes, of course he saw an occipital wound. He saw one, but then tried to lie about it. Duh."

More circular reasoning. I have never disputed that Jenkins pointed at the temple. I am disputing instead that McClelland wrote his report under the hypnotic sway of Jenkins. That's ludicrous. McClelland was standing right there when Clark inspected the head. IF there had been an entrance wound on the left temple, someone would have mentioned this to Clark or Clark would have discovered this himself and pointed it out to others. None of the other doctors mentioned an entrance in their reports, because ALL of them knew no other head wound outside the massive one had been found. How could McClelland, who was right there, standing by the head, have been unaware of this fact? Short answer: he wasn't. READ his report. Most wounds seen in hospitals are entrance wounds. One wound. A man gets shot in the stomach. The report on his treatment will say it was a gunshot wound of the stomach. As stated, I have read HUNDREDS pf autopsies and gunshot wound descriptions in professional journals. NO ONE says it was a gunshot wound "of the back" if they saw but one wound...on the chest or stomach. They report what they observed, not what someone else whispered at the beginning of the patient's treatment, and they most certainly don't forget to write what they observed and only report what that someone else whispered. Now, IF McClelland had said something about a presumed ENTRANCE wound on the left temple, and a massive wound on the back of the head, we would have to assume he was indeed confused by Jenkins. But he didn't say anything about there being two wounds, and he never once mentioned the location of the massive wound, outside its being "of the left temple". Heck, I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he, as others, mentioned cerebellum in his report, as that wound indicate yessiree a wound low on the back of the head. But, nope, he did not. Because, clearly, he thought the wound was by the temple.

Chapters 12b and 12c of my website discuss the various attempts at showing JFK and JBC were in the proper alignment for the SBT to be true, and how the various TV shows and simulations all reverse-engineered the locations of the men and their wounds to sell what is actually highly unlikely. Here's but one demonstration of the b.s.

I saw a lot of shows on the Sunset Strip in the 90's. A dozen times or so I went to the Rainbow before or after the show. At least half the time Lemmy was there, acting pretty much like a greeter. Someone told me he lived in the area, and would just walk over and hang out cause he liked the attention. Killed by death but still roaming the Earth in the hearts of millions.