Pat Speer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The color of texture of brain matter changes when it is badly disrupted/shredded. When this happens, cerebral matter can look much like cerebellar matter. Carrico said he thought what he saw was cerebellum, but later realized he never even looked at the low back of the head, and changed his interpretation accordingly. Others did the same. Clark, who never bothered to double-down or retract his statements, nevertheless made his feelings clear by denouncing conspiracy theorists in the press and buddying up with Lattimer. As far as Moore, it is not remotely surprising or shocking that the Secret Service, once made aware that doctors involved with a dead president's care are saying things that run askew of what the doctors involved in deciding his cause of death have determined, would have a talk with those doctors. As stated, the Parkland doctors viewed Moore's showing them the autopsy report as a courtesy, not a threat. I have been in bad health for the last 2 1/2 years, and have stayed in a hospital for roughly 82 days and nights and have visited a hospital for another 100 days or more. And it's incredibly obvious from dealing with doctors that they would much much much rather have some government employee show them a top secret autopsy report than blather on to the press for months and months about something that has been officially over-ruled. And yes, over-ruled. There is a system in place. Some doctors try to save lives; some doctors figure out what killed those who the other doctors could not save. The former is expected to defer to the latter. And it's not just a tradition within the medical community. The legal community, as well, defers to pathologists like Wecht and Baden and ignores as essentially gossip the rumblings of emergency room doctors. I mean, by the way people run on about the Parkland witnesses while ignoring most of what they've said you would think it's fairly commonplace for emergency room doctors to be brought into court to challenge the conclusions of pathologists. But it never happens. In part because studies have shown that the first impressions of people in general and doctors in particular are quite often wrong. As far as Specter... I have demonstrated and documented, far beyond what anyone else has demonstrated or documented, that he deliberately misrepresented the location of the back wound. But this same examination of the evidence proved he performed no similar cover-up of the head wound. Just look at McClelland. He wrote a report saying the fatal wound was of the left temple but then testified before Specter that it was really on the back of the head. Now, did Specter grill him on this? No. In fact, when talking to Weisberg, McClelland said wonderful things about Specter in the same breath he called Garrison a psycho.

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.