Pat Speer

So...does the most-recent version of the animation depict the back wound trajectory passing through the throat wound?

What? This has been known for years. Weisberg befriended Russell and told him what had happened. Russell claimed there was a court reporter at the session, and came to believe that Warren and Rankin had arranged for a reporter to pretend to write everything down to make him feel like his dissent was being recorded. He was very upset by this and had a falling-out with LBJ shortly afterwards. So the working theory of Russell and Weisberg was not that the transcript was expunged, but that there was never actually a transcript. By design. (Note: this event is discussed in chapter 3c of my website, where it has been publicly available for 10 years or so.) Here is that discussion: On 9-18-64, the Warren Commission has its final session. Its purpose is to resolve one outstanding issue--a big one. Did one of the three bullets fired hit both Kennedy and Connally? And, assuming one did, did one bullet miss both Kennedy and Connally? Because, if all three shots hit, the Zapruder film suggests they were fired too close together to have been fired by Oswald using his bolt-action rifle. And that means the rest of the commission's conclusions are suspect... Now, Sen. Richard Russell is the main one to argue against the single-bullet theory. He’s prepared a dissent on this issue which he wishes to add to the commission’s report. It reads: “I do not share the finding of the Commission as to the probability that both President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet. The expert testimony based on measurements and surveys, including re-enactment of the motortrip of the Presidential party on that fateful November 22nd presents a persuasive case. However, the movement of one of the victims by either leaning forward or to either side or rising a few inches from his seat would have made a considerable difference in the mathematical computations. I join my colleagues in the belief that three shots were fired but, to me, the testimony of Governor Connally that he heard the first shot fired and strike the President and turned before he himself was wounded makes more logical a finding that the first and third shots struck the President and the second shot wounded Governor Connally. Reviewing the Zapruder film several times adds to my conviction that the bullet that passed through Governor Connally’s body was not the same bullet as that which passed through the President’s back and neck. In addition, from carefully examining the site where the tragedy occurred, I am convinced that any marksman firing from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building who could shoot with the deadly accuracy which caused the wounds suffered by President Kennedy would have been highly unlikely to have fired a shot that completely missed the other occupants of the President’s automobile or automobile itself. The fact that no trace of a third bullet was found either on the automobile or several feet of paved street on each side of the Presidential car is to me convincing evidence that all three shots fired by the assassin found their targets in the bodies of the President and the Governor of Texas.” Of course, Warren wants a unanimous report, and refuses to accept this dissent. So, by golly, hijinks ensue. In the end, Russell and Warren compromise. Russell's dissent is not published but a paragraph is added into the report acknowledging his doubts. It reads: 3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. After this session, President Johnson and Sen. Russell have an intriguing conversation. This conversation further illuminates Johnson's desire that the murder of his predecessor just disappear. The conversation reflects the dissent within the Commission over Arlen Specter’s single-bullet theory, as well as Russell and Johnson’s inability to understand the importance of the single-bullet theory to the single-assassin conclusion. Senator Richard Russell: “No, no. They’re trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, and into his leg…I couldn’t hear all the evidence and cross-examine all of ‘em. But I did read the record…I was the only fellow there that…suggested any change whatever in what the staff got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.” President Lyndon Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally? Senator Richard Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that…the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it. President Lyndon Johnson: I don’t either. Senator Richard Russell: And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary and I’m not gonna approve of that. So I finally made ‘em say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of ‘em believed that that wasn’t so. And, course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one—and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head—and not even wound her—why he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole auto mobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile.” This Russell/Johnson conversation (and no, I don't mean the professor on Gilligan's Island) becomes even more intriguing once one takes into account that the minutes of the 9-18-64 executive session of the Warren Commission fail to note Russell’s dissent, or even that the single-bullet theory was discussed. (When researcher Harold Weisberg pointed this out to Russell in 1968, Russell cut-off contact with his one-time protege Johnson. While this was probably not the only reason for his cutting Johnson off--he was also upset about Johnson dragging his feet on the appointment of a judge--it is symptomatic of most historians' refusal to understand the dark legacy of the assassination and subsequent investigation that they fail to mention it as even one of many reasons.) (The Russell/Warren compromise, moreover, would later be criticized by a number of the commission's staff. In History Will Prove Us Right (2013), Howard Willens writes: "Governor Connally had been adamant in testifying, based on his memory of the gunfire he heard, that he was not hit by the same bullet that struck the president. He was a man of considerable self-confidence and was obviously not persuaded by the expert testimony that his wounds would have been different and more serious if he had been struck by a pristine bullet...(Note: there was no such testimony.) The commission members held him in high regard...The commission members...were also concerned that Connally would criticize their report if it rejected his testimony, which might in turn adversely affect the report's acceptance by the public... Out of deference to Connally and in pursuit of unanimity, the commission produced a compromise statement on the single-bullet question...The problems with the commission's equivocation are obvious. If the members were certain that all three shots came from the depository's sixth floor but also rejected the single-bullet theory, it left critical questions unanswered. If the first bullet to hit the president did not also cause Connally's wounds, and we knew an additional bullet that hit Kennedy did not hit Connally, then there must have been a further bullet (either second or third) that did hit Connally. Considering his wound and the trajectory of the bullet that hit him, the bullet necessarily came from behind. However, the assumption of a separate bullet hitting Connally raised a different question not considered by the members. Could Oswald have fired such a second shot within the assumed time interval between Kennedy showing a reaction to being hit and the point at which Connally could not have suffered the wounds he did incur?... I was disappointed and angry--and most of us were--by this clumsy effort at compromise that endangered the credibility of the whole report. Rankin made an effort to explain it to Redlich and me, but we would not accept the excuses that he offered on behalf of the commission. It was incredible to us then--and to me some fifty years later--that the members would reject persuasive scientific and other evidence in order to avoid suggesting that a single prestigious witness may have been incorrect in assessing, from memories of a traumatic event, which bullet hit him. In retrospect, Warren (and to a lesser extent Rankin) failed to exercise the leadership necessary to avoid this outcome. They--or perhaps Dulles or McCloy--should have ascertained long before September 18 that Russell was going to insist on not contradicting Connally. If they had done that, we could have urged our most knowledgeable lawyers to again present the evidence supporting the single-bullet conclusion and the problems inherent in any compromise like the one they adopted. It is unlikely that these discussions would have dissuaded Russell. But a powerful staff explanation to the commission might have persuaded Warren and other commission members that the single-bullet conclusion was the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence and...saying so might have led to a more defensible compromise.) It's clear, then, that the fix is in. The commission's report and records are to indicate that Oswald did it alone, no matter what the evidence suggests, and no matter what the commissioners believe about this evidence. No dissent is acceptable, as it might reflect negatively on President Johnson, and the country as a whole.

I'm surprised, Ben, that you missed an opportunity to attack the deep state, and instead went after Life. As discussed on my website, several articles published BEFORE Life's article theorizing the head turn was published, had made a similar claim, with some of them citing government sources... So, someone in the government, presumably the FBI, which was feeding the papers a lot of garbage, told some in the press the entrance wound to the throat could be explained by JFK's turning his head in the film. And Paul Mandel repeated this tripe. So shame on him. But he didn't invent it.

The alteration of the film is extremely problematic. For one, the extant film, as I think you acknowledge, suggests an impact from the front. This makes little sense if this film was in fact altered by secret spook scientists at a secret spook lab to hide a shot from the front. As far as the rest of it... CD Jackson was yes indeed a man with government ties. It's near certain his purchase of the film was inspired by yes indeed his (and perhaps others') desire to keep the film out of the public domain, and off television. Many Americans (and not just government sycophants) thought the showing of such a film on television or in theaters extremely disrespectful. And yet, even so, Life published large color images of the President's murder, and used the film as an advertisement for the superiority of Life Magazine for decades, to the extent even that Life was still publishing expensive books featuring the images up through the 50th. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new book or magazine of this nature on the stands today. Life made an investment, and the investment undoubtedly paid off. As far as allowing people to study the frames... Zapruder provided copies to the SS, who then shared it with the FBI, before selling his personal copy to Life. These copies were viewed by dozens if not hundreds of SS, FBI, and WC personnel. Small black and white photos of the frames were then published by the WC. It is my understanding that the earliest films shown to the public were made from photos of these frames. In any event, within a few years men like Thompson, Groden, and Lifton had gained access to early copies and slides, which they then used to create their own color films. And Garrison got a copy provided from Life, which was shown at trial before an audience numerous times, and was considered the single-most effective piece of evidence shown the jury and audience. And in another few years, Groden began showing his film at colleges. This was years before he showed it on Geraldo. So, the film was available to those with an interest. All the early researchers viewed it long before it was ever shown on TV. and none of them were arrested by the thought police or the Life copyright police. And it wasn't because Life didn't care. I believe Life sued Thompson over his use of the film in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. But they just didn't have the clout and government backing to round men up for viewing and showing a film. Because the fact is there was no widespread government conspiracy to conceal the film. Now, that's not to say the original film wasn't tampered with. We know someone at Life cut out some frames before providing it to the Warren Commission. This was supposedly just sloppy handling. But it seems a bit of a coincidence that frames showing Jackie turn to look at her husband BEFORE the Warren Commission would conclude he'd been hit would just so happen to disappear. But they weren't disappeared by the government as a whole. We know this because Groden would later get access to an unedited SS copy showing those frames.

Greg, I too think she has been unfairly abused at times. But I have long had doubts about her as a result of the Oswald letter. Perhaps you can help me with this. Why did she fail to tell the DPD about it on the 22nd, and wait to the 23rd to tell Hosty? It seems obvious to me that this was not an over-sight, and that she was wittingly or unwittingly attempting to impress Hosty and/or the FBI. Has she ever addressed this, to your knowledge? I mean it could very well be she was impressed with Hosty, or even attracted to him, and that she wanted to give the letter to him to help him in his career, as opposed to giving it to some Texan in a cowboy hat. Do you have any idea why she did this?

You are correct, Tom. It's more bullcrap. While they are correct in claiming Connally doesn't align, they are 100% full of it for suggesting JFK's back wound aligns with his throat wound. When showing the back wound trajectory, they show that it impacted inches below the bottom of the collar, and passed well below the throat wound. On the front view, however, they have the back wound trajectory match up with the throat trajectory above the bottom of the collar and descend to pass out by the tie. It's a scam. I had heard that the CTs who'd originally hired these guys had gone their separate ways, and had disowned their final product. I think we now know why. Presumably, someone involved with Knott thought it too controversial to say BOTH the vertical and horizontal trajectories didn't align. So they focused on the problem with Connally's position. And blew smoke about JFK.

Nothing new. A cartoon that shows what myself and others proved years ago.

That's a shorthand version. Life was a business. They sold millions of magazines featuring frames from the film. They also published an issue detailing how the film was at odds with the single-bullet theory, in which they called for a new investigation. As the Z-film frames were published by the Warren Commission, moreover, and as Life allowed people to study the frames, it's not quite accurate to say they locked it up out of view. In America, for better or worse, often-times worse, corporations and individuals can own stuff in which the public has an interest. They can then use that "asset" as they see fit. (I worked in the record industry, as a buyer, and it was not remotely uncommon for an individual to realize a long out-of-print record was unavailable on compact disc, record it digitally from an LP, and then put it out under his own label. Well, this would frequently lead to a cease and desist from a label or individual who owned the rights to that recording, but had NO interest in making it available in the foreseeable future. To their mind, they owned the rights and wanted no one else to have access to what they owned. Now, here's the kicker...sometimes the individual putting out the record when someone else owned the rights was the recording artist. They wanted to sell it at oldies shows, or from a fan website. But they were forbidden to do so by their former label...because because because....)

Oh c'mon, guys. Nobody threatened Perry on the day of the shooting. Perry and Clark and others continued to describe the throat wound as an entrance for days afterward. What McClelland is no doubt conflating are two incidents--very real. The first is that SS Agent Elmer Moore visited the Parkland doctors in December and showed them the autopsy protocol stating the throat wound was an exit. While Perry, McClelland and others were supposedly grateful to be kept in the loop, this might come across as threatening in hindsight. The other incident is Perry's testimony in D.C., where Specter twisted him into saying he never described the throat wound as an entrance during the first press conference, when the transcripts prove he did. So how did Specter get away with this? Well, supposedly, no one could find a transcript at the time. Well, it turned out the Secret Service had one, which it would later provide the LBJ Library. So that mystery was solved. He initially said it appeared to be an entrance, but then slipped into flat-out calling it an entrance. Not that it matters that much. Emergency Room doctors are allowed to be wrong. But the pressure put on Perry during his testimony to pretend he never said it was an entrance is intriguing, and suggestive someone (perhaps Specter) had had a "talk" with him.

My understanding is that the company performing the reconstruction parted ways with Orr and are doing this on their own.

Ruth's testimony in D.C. continued. Mr. JENNER - There were two packages, Mrs. Paine, one with the rods and one with the venetian blinds? Mrs. PAINE - I can't recall. The rods were so thin they hardly warranted a package of their own, but that is rationalization, as you call it. (Note that the photograph just shown Mrs. Paine is presumed to have been taken by FBI photographer Arthur Carter, under the direction of FBI exhibits chief Leo Gauthier, on 3-10-64. (CD897) Note also that this photograph fails to show the light brown package of curtain rods Mrs. Paine recalls creating--that is, the package precisely matching Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle's description of the package they saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22nd. Now note that Mrs. Paine has suddenly reversed course--that she no longer feels sure she wrapped these curtain rods in a separate package, and now thinks she may have wrapped them up with some Venetian blinds. And, finally, note that she admits this is a rationalization--an explanation she is offering to explain why the package she thought was there, appears to no longer be there, and why she can make out but one package in the photo. Well, this was precisely the kind of testimony Mr. Jenner had asked her to avoid.) Mr. JENNER - You do have a recollection that those rods were a very lightweight metal? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Do you? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. They were not round. Mr. JENNER - They were flat and slender? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - They were not at all heavy? Mrs. PAINE - That is right. Mr. JENNER - They were curved? Were they curved in any respect? Mrs. PAINE - They curved at the ends to attach to the bracket that held them up on the wall. Mr. JENNER - May I use the chalk on the board, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it might be better for you, Mrs. Paine, so I don't influence you. Would you draw a picture of the rods? Mrs. PAINE - You are looking down from the top. It attaches here, well, over a loop thing on the wall. Looking from the inside, it curves over a slight bit, and then this is recessed. Mr. JENNER - I am going to have to have you do that over on a sheet of paper. Will you remain standing for the moment. We will give it an exhibit number. But I would like to have you proceed there. What did you say this was, in the lower diagram? Mrs. PAINE - You are looking down. Mr. JENNER - Now, where was the break? Mrs. PAINE - The break? Mr. JENNER - You said they were extension. Mrs. PAINE - That is right. When they are up on the window, it would be like that. Mr. JENNER - You have drawn a double line to indicate what would be seen if you were looking down into the U-shape of the rod? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - The double line indicates what on either side? Mrs. PAINE - That the lightweight metal, white, turned over, bent around, something less than a quarter of an inch on each side. Mr. JENNER - Now, would you be good enough to make the same drawing. We will mark that sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 449 upon which the witness is now drawing the curtain rod. (Commission Exhibit No. 449 was marked for identification.) Mr. JENNER - While you are doing that, Mrs. Paine, would you be good enough when you return to Irving, Tex., to see if those rods are at hand, and some of our men are going to be in Irving next week. We might come out and take a look at them, and perhaps you might surrender them to us. Mrs. PAINE - You are perfectly welcome to them. Mr. JENNER - Would you in that connection, Mrs. Paine do not open the package until we arrive? Mrs. PAINE - I won't even look, then. Well, what's that they say about a good attorney's never asking a witness a question he doesn't know the answer to? Jenner really screwed up. In the DC testimony of Michael and Ruth he built up that Oswald did not take any curtain rods because THE PACKAGE containing these rods had been spotted in the Paine's garage. Only...when they went to Dallas and actually looked in the garage? No such package. Loose rods. But no such package. As a consequence there is nothing to suggest that 1) the loose rods had been there the whole time, and 2) that Oswald had not taken a package containing curtain rods from the garage. As noted in my chapter on the curtain rod story, this is but one problem with the government's investigation of the story. With two other problems being that 1) the curtain rods in Oswald's rooming house WERE damaged and needed replacing as of their first being photographed after the assassination and 2) Alan Ford's discovery that the DPD form supposedly showing that the rods recovered by Jenner were tested was altered to hide that they were actually tested before their purported discovery.

You are correct in that it's smelly as heck. Michael does not remember looking to see if the curtain rods are still there, but Ruth kinda sorta remembers him looking and in any event they both think they were in a package, and guess what? The package on the shelf did not contain curtain rods and the only curtain rods found in the garage were loose curtain rods. Smells, don't it? Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods? Mrs. PAINE - I believe so. Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which? Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage. Mr. JENNER - Did you have a conversation with Michael as to whether he did or didn't look? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Why was he looking to see if the curtain rod package was there? Mrs. PAINE - He was particularly interested in the wrapping, was the wrapping still there, the brown paper. Mr. JENNER - When did this take place? Mrs. PAINE - After the assassination, perhaps a week or so later, perhaps when one of the FBI people were out; I don't really recall. Mr. JENNER - And was the package with the curtain rods found on that occasion? Mrs. PAINE - It is my recollection it was. Mr. JENNER - What about the venetian blind package? Mrs. PAINE - Still there, still wrapped. Mr. JENNER - You are fully conscious of the fact that that package is still there? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - And to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief the other package, likewise, is there? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Senator COOPER - Let me ask a question there. After the assassination, at anytime did you go into the garage and look to see if both of these packages were there? Mrs. PAINE - A week and a half, or a week later. Senator COOPER - At any time? Mrs. PAINE - Did I, personally? Senator COOPER - Have you seen these packages since the assassination? Mrs. PAINE - It seems to me I recall seeing a package. Senator COOPER - What? Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall opening it up and looking in carefully. I seem to recall seeing the package. Senator COOPER - Both of them? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Senator COOPER - Or just one? Mrs. PAINE - Both. Senator COOPER - Did you feel them to see if the rods were in there? Mrs. PAINE - No. I think Michael did, but I am not certain. Senator COOPER - But you never did, yourself? Mrs. PAINE - It was not my most pressing-- Senator COOPER - What? Mrs. PAINE - It was not the most pressing thing I had to do at that time. Senator COOPER - I know that. But you must have read after the assassination the story about Lee Oswald saying, he told Mr. Frazier, I think, that he was carrying some curtain rods in the car? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Senator COOPER - Do you remember reading that? Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I remember reading that. Senator COOPER - Didn't that lead you-Did it lead you then to go in and see if the curtain rods were there? Mrs. PAINE - It was all I could do at that point to answer my door, answer my telephone, and take care of my children. Senator COOPER - I understand you had many things to do. Mrs. PAINE - So I did not. Senator COOPER - You never did do it? Mrs. PAINE - I am not certain whether I specifically went in and checked on that. I recall a conversation with Michael about it and, to the best of my recollection, things looked as I expected to find them looking out there. This package with brown paper was still there. Mr. JENNER - By any chance, does that package appear in the photograph that you have identified of the interior of your garage? Mrs. PAINE - I think it is this that is on a shelf almost to the ceiling. Mr. JENNER - May I get over here, Mr. Chairman? Mrs. PAINE - Along the west edge of the garage, up here. Mr. JENNER - In view of this, I think it is of some importance that you mark on Commission Exhibit 429 what appears to you to be the package in which the curtain rods were. Mrs. PAINE - To the best of my recollection. Mr. JENNER - Now the witness has by an arrow indicated a shelf very close to the ceiling in the rear of the garage, and an arrow pointing to what appears to be a long package on that shelf, underneath which she has written "Wrapping paper around venetian blinds"-- Mrs. PAINE - "And thin." Mr. JENNER - What is the next word? Mrs. PAINE - "Curtain rods."

The whole thing sounds a bit wacky. Oswald with his girls at the TSBD? Never happened. As far as seeing a man in the elevator with a box heading up to the third floor? Well. Warren Caster brought two rifles into the building on the 20th, and admitted taking them up to his office on the second floor.

That's the substance.

The same reason the CIA suggested the use of such ammo in its Manual on Assassination--to mute the sound of the rifle and disguise the location of the sniper.

Alan will probably correct me, but my recollection is that Michael Paine told them he looked and the curtain rods were still there. Only it turned out he had in mind a different package entirely, one holding some blinds. Oops.

People like myself and Alan should be careful about asserting as fact the things we think are likely. I agree with Alan that it seems likely Howlett was given the rods by someone either during or after his sixth floor re-enactments in December, but it is not a fact. At least not yet.

This isn't remotely new. The Parkland doctors, including those who changed their minds or clarified their positions about the head wound location, have always said the throat wound LOOKED like an entrance wound. That doesn't mean much in itself. Emergency room doctors are not forensic pathologists and are frequently wrong in their initial impressions. What is important though is WHY they thought it looked like an entrance--because it was so small. This is incompatible with its being an exit for a high velocity bullet. While some have taken Dr. Lattimer's cue and have insisted it was small as a result of its being a shored wound (cause it was restricted by the tie) they ignore that the HSCA's DR. Petty made clear that such an exit would nevertheless be larger than the entrance associated with it, when this wound was not. Well, this suggests McClelland, ironically, was correct in his assessment, when he said the wound appeared to be either an entrance or an exit for a LOW-VELOCITY projectile. That's it. That's the key, IMO. Whatever exited the throat was not traveling at a high-velocity. When one adds up the results from the tests performed by Olivier, etc, it's clear the bullet impacting Connally was similarly not traveling at a high-velocity. IOW, the evidence exists and has been clear from the beginning that these men were struck by subsonic ammunition--which is much more suggestive of a planned hit by men with military experience than a near-spontaneous attack by the likes of Oswald. From chapter 11 at Patspeer.com:

We must live on different planets. You think Batchelor's weeks-later memory of what he heard second-hand is more reliable than the contemporaneous reports and statements of those actually involved? Brennan was the only construction worker Euins saw talking to Sawyer. If you don't believe that, then find us something where he said there were two. Brennan said he saw a man and could identify him, and gave a description of this man. Euins thought this man had a bald spot. Euins thought the man had been firing an automatic rifle, such as a Winchester. These facts were combined in Sawyer's broadcast, and apparently in Euins' memory, where he came to believe Brennan had said he saw such a man running away. When you read all the statements and testimony, moreover, you will find that Brennan DID see someone, actually three someones, on the upper floors, who then left the building. And had them stopped and returned to the building. Perhaps Euins witnessed this and came to believe Brennan had previously seen the man he saw on the sixth floor leave the building. In any event, to create my website, I had to read and/or transcribe hundreds of interviews, and hundreds of articles for which witnesses were interviewed. And the witnesses are not consistent with each other or even with themselves, and are in fact, incredibly erratic. Not because the evil guv'ment made them erratic, but because human memory is erratic, and incredibly prone to suggestion. So, no, piecing together what one cop said he heard weeks or months after the shooting, with what one kid said he recalled months later, is not reliable at all. It could be true. It could not. But in this case we have dozens of witnesses who were in the vicinity of the building who spoke up right after the shooting, and there is no record of any of them saying THEY saw a man run from the building with a rifle. It did not happen. And, as stated, it doesn't even pass a simple smell test. "Yes, I killed the President, and now I'm gonna get away...by running straight out into a crowd while carrying a rifle!" Ludicrous.

What problem? You have invented an invisible man that nobody saw or recalled seeing and have him saying he saw a man running with a rifle, which nobody else recalled seeing. And to what end? To have someone running from the building with a rifle? Which makes no sense to begin with... The construction worker Euins saw was Brennan. The odds are far greater that Euins misremembered what Brennan told Sawyer than that some unidentified (and apparently unphotographed) construction worker appeared and told Sawyer something no one else witnessed, and then vanished without a trace. Is that really what you are pushing? And, if so, where does that get us? To me. it's 100% clear that a number of researchers have moved on from the majority of the photographic evidence being fake, to the majority of the initial reports and testimony being faked. And I think that's ludicrous. The evidence brought before the Warren Commission provided clear and concrete reasons to believe there was more than one shooter, and that Oswald was not among them. To assume the evidence was all sculpted to bring them to a false conclusion is ridiculous, IMO, and lets them off the hook.

But they were Brennan's words. Howard Brennan was, as shown above, sitting on the Houston side of the wall encircling the fountain at Houston and Elm. He can be seen in the Zapruder and Bell films wearing a hard hat. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H470) “ I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." (Note that on the evening of the 22nd, around 7:00, Brennan was asked by Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels to look at Oswald in a line-up. Although he said that, of the men in the line-up, Oswald looked most like the man he'd seen fire a rifle earlier that day, he nevertheless refused to identify him.) (11-23-63 FBI report based upon an 11-22-63 interview with agents Gaston C. Thompson and Robert C. Lish, CD5 p12-14) “He said the automobile had passed down Elm Street (going in a westerly direction) 30 yards from where he (Brennan) was seated, when he heard a loud report which he first thought to be the 'backfire' of an automobile. He said he does not distinctly remember a second shot but he remembers “more than one noise” as if someone was shooting fire crackers, and consequently he believes there must have been a second shot before he looked in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Upon hearing the report, or reports, he looked across the street to the Texas School Book Depository, where he saw a man in a window on the sixth floor near the southeast corner of the building. The man he observed in the window had what appeared to be a 'heavy' rifle in his hands. He could not tell whether or not this rifle had a telescopic sight, as the rifle was protruding only about half its length outside the window. He was positive that after he had observed this man in the window, he saw this person take 'deliberate aim' and fire a shot. He then observed this person take the rifle from his shoulder and hold it by the barrel of the rifle, as if he were resting the butt of the rifle on the floor. He said this individual observed the scene on the street below, and then stepped back from the window...Brennan described the man with the rifle as a white male, who appeared to be in his early 30's, about 5'10" tall, and around 165 pounds in weight. He said this individual was not wearing a hat and was dressed in 'light color clothes in the khaki line.' He added this individual may have been wearing a light-weight jacket or sweater; however, he could not be positive about the jacket or sweater. He advised he attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963, on which occasion he picked Lee Harvey Oswald as the person most closely resembling the man he had observed with a rifle in the window of the Texas School Book Depository. He stated, however, he could not positively identify Oswald as the person he saw fire the rifle.” From reviewing this stuff, I now believe Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that he was then brought over to Sawyer, where he witnessed Brennan tell Sawyer it was a white man. In deference to the white man who seemed sure of himself, he then changed his story. .

The Campbell article is nonsense, IMO, as are most of the early articles. It seems clear it was his mis-understanding of what he'd heard from others, perhaps even Truly, or even a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter. It should not be taken seriously, IMO, as Campbell swore he had no recollection of ever seeing Oswald in the building. (11-26-63 FBI report, CD5 p336) "Mr. Campbell advised he had viewed the Presidential Motorcade and subsequently heard the shots being fired from a point which he thought was near the railroad tracks located over the viaduct on Elm Street." (2-17-64 statement to the Dallas Police Department, box 3 folder 19 file 4 of the Dallas JFK Archive) "We then walked across Elm Street and stood on the curb near the parade as it turned from Houston Street down under the underpass. I heard the shots, it sounded like they came from the knoll near the railroad tracks. I thought it was fire crackers." (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H638) “Mr. Truly and I decided to view the motorcade and took up a position next to the curb on Elm Street adjacent to the street signal light...I recall that shortly after the car in which the President was riding passed the Texas School Book Depository I heard shots being fired from a point which I thought was near the railroad tracks located over the viaduct on Elm Street…I have had occasion to view photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald and to the best of my recollection never saw him while he was employed at the Texas School Book Depository.”

I believe Euins wrote and signed a statement saying it was a white man before Oswald had even been arrested, but it would be interesting to nail this all down. It could be that he originally believed and said it was a black man, and was coerced into saying it was a white man after Oswald had been arrested. And that the DPD then covered their tracks. If so, well, then it appears he tried to wiggle out of it by saying he'd never said it was a black man or a white man. This might explain then why he was so scared in the years after the shooting, and why he kept such a low profile over the decades to follow.

It appears from the timeline that Euins initially told Harkness the man was black, or was at least believed to have said as much. He was a young excitable boy, speaking in a strong accent. It could have been a miscommunication. In any event, he stopped saying as much within minutes, and eventually started claiming he never said the man was white, either. Was he scared of something or someone? Or just a young kid?

Amos Euins. Beyond the confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he thought he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm. He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205 p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building) "I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter) "All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When asked if he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he could tell if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race) "I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white) "No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head." (4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building. By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." (4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness, 6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window) "No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.) "He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes, 2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, 7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying "Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos' mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls." (12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin. This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a negro."