Pat Speer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? Sandy presented no proof of anything, except that I was telling the truth. I've said all along that McClelland claimed he'd been confused and had said the wound was "of the left temple" because Jenkins had pointed to the left temple, or some such thing. Sandy disputed even that. Upon realizing I was correct, Sandy started this ridiculous thread, in which he cites McCelland's subsequent statements as proof he was telling the truth. Talk of your circular reasoning! The whole point is that McClelland made no mention of an entrance wound or exit wound in his original report. He said there was a wound of the left temple. As everyone else described one head wound, and as McClelland himself only saw one head wound, it is as close to a fact as anything in this case that he was saying the one wound he saw was of the left temple, after mistaking JFK's right for his left. He then moved the wound to fit what the others had said. But those wanting him to be a consistent truth-teller who suspected a conspiracy from day one need to understand his history, and that he told Dudman there was nothing about the wounds to suggest a shot from the front, told Weisberg Garrison was a psychopath, and admitted later in life he'd only changed his opinions about the direction of the shots after viewing the Zapruder film on TV. There is no way one can square this with some of what he said afterwards, when he, as Crenshaw, became a darling of the CT community, who applauded everything they wanted to hear and ignored everything they didn't want to hear. For example, McClelland said over and over that the throat wound depicted in the autopsy photos looked just as it did at Parkland. And yet that didn't stop Lifton and others from claiming this wound had been altered along with the head wound.

FWIW, I agree with those skeptical about naming the shooters. This has been done before, and almost always ends up making the research community look foolish. Naming the shooters is, at this point, a publicity stunt, which will almost certainly backfire.

"Carefully examined"? He testified to taking a glance at the rifle when it was on the floor and covered with boxes, and that he remained there when Fritz and Day came over and Fritz ejected a shell. This is precisely what is shown in the Alyea film, only it isn't a Mauser, is it?

A cousin gave me King's book, and I skipped all the fiction and went straight to a chapter where he discussed his interest in the case. In that chapter, he acknowledged that his wife was a CT. But he also made out that he'd acquired an extensive knowledge of the case after reading a massive amount of material. Fortunately, he listed his sources. As I recall it was the Warren Report and Bugliosi's book and Posner's book, and a few others. Yes, that's a lot of material. But no, heck no, that wasn't the balanced diet required before one could claim to have truly studied the case.

LOL. Nonsense. Read McClelland's initial report. The only wound described is "of the left temple." Now, people would like to believe he simply FORGOT to give a location for the wound he did see, and instead gave a location for a wound he did not see, and was not seen or reported by anyone else. That's far more damaging to his legacy than screwing up JFK's right with left. Think about it. The "defense" of McClelland holds that he made four major screw-ups, not one. He 1) failed to give a location for the "massive wound" he saw, 2) claimed there was another wound on the skull that no one saw, 3) failed to identify this wound unseen by everyone including himself as an entrance wound for the massive wound he did see and 4) placed this entrance wound in a location he never even looked at. The belief he simply mixed up right and left reflects more positively on his competence and makes a heckuva lot more sense.

This is second hand gibberish in a paper. Many other reporters were at the same press conference. Perry said the wound was in the neck. We also have the transcript. Perry said the wound was in the neck. Apparently, the reporter (or a person taking notes over the phone) got confused. As far as the priest, he only saw JFK's face and claimed he saw a blood clot over his eye that he thought might have been an entrance. He quickly backed away. Neither of these claims are remotely credible, and there is no evidence whatsoever that any medical personnel in Trauma Room One saw or thought they saw an entrance wound outside the large head wound, which Clark believed to be a wound of both entrance and exit. From Chapter 18d... Let's start with Father Oscar Huber, the priest who gave Kennedy his last rites. The November 24th, 1963, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin ran an article datelined Dallas, Nov. 23rd, 1963. Father Huber was interviewed for this article. It reported: “The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye." A "terrible" wound over his left eye! No such wound was noticed by the Parkland doctors. It seems possible then that Father Huber had confused Kennedy's left for his right, and that Huber had in fact noticed the wound depicted in the autopsy photos while at Parkland. Or not. A year later, on November 22, 1964, researcher Shirley Martin spoke to Huber. She then reported on this discussion in an 11-24-64 letter written to fellow researcher Vincent Salandria. This letter was then quoted in Praise From a Future Generation, by John Kelin (2007). She wrote: "Saw Father Huber on Sunday...He says when he entered Emergency Room #1, he pulled the sheet just to the edge of the President's nose and then he saw what he assumed to be a bullet entry hole above the President's left eye...The next day, Father Huber says he learned that the assassin had stood behind the President, therefore negating the possibility that what he saw had been an entry bullet wound. At once, Father Huber realized that what he had seen was only a 'blood clot.'" A year and a half later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane followed up on Martin's questions, and received a similar response. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) Huber told Lane "Well, his face was covered with blood and there was a blotch of blood on the left forehead, which I, at the time, thought possibly could be a bullet wound, but I learned later that it was not, that I was entirely mistaken, because he had been shot in the back of the head. I did not see really any wounds on him, because I only uncovered his face to the tip of his nose. I learned later that the bullet came out, perhaps at the jaw, I don't know." And that wasn't the last time Father Huber spoke on the matter. In late 1966, Lawrence Schiller followed up with many of those who'd been interviewed by Lane. In his book The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report, Schiller quoted Huber as follows: "I saw the President lying on an emergency room table...I noticed that his extremities were extremely white, and the thought came to me: 'There's no blood in this man...' I removed the sheet down to the tip of his nose and anointed him with holy oils...And [then I] put the sheet back over his face. I did not know where he had been shot, where the bullets had struck him and I had no thought of looking for anything like that. His face was covered in blood, but I saw no wounds." Huber was so worried about his actions being misrepresented, for that matter, that he wrote a response to William Manchester's 1967 book The Death of a President. This response insisted "I removed, to the tip of his nose, the sheet that covered the President's head and immediately began administering the last rites of Catholic Church..." When he sent this response to researcher Stephen Davenport on 8-18-70, moreover, he included a few more details, which Davenport subsequently shared with the HSCA. In this letter, Huber claimed that when he saw Kennedy: "I saw no sign of life in him. His forehead was covered with blood--his eyes were closed as if he were asleep--I did not see any bullet holes in his face or in his forehead--as far as I could see."

It wasn't a "proof." It was a confirmation of what I've been saying all along, and what has been on my website for 15 years or more.

Ridiculous. This is not a proof. It's a repeat of what I've been saying all along!!! McClelland wrote that the wound was of the left temple. Months later, when testifying before the WC, he began testifying in line with his co-workers, that the wound was on the back of the head. When his change was later pointed out to him--decades later--he pointed his finger at Jenkins, and claimed Jenkins had confused him by pointing to the left temple. But there's a problem with this. A big one. His report didn't say there was a small entrance wound AND a massive exit wound. McClelland was by Kennedy's head when Clark inspected the head. Clark found no other wound on Kennedy's head. For what's worse, NONE of the other doctors mentioned a separate entrance wound in their reports or press conferences. They saw but one head wound, a massive wound. And McClelland described but one wound, a massive wound. It follows then like night from day that McClelland thought the massive wound he saw was of the left temple. Who knows? Maybe he saw or heard about Bill Newman's appearance on TV in the interim, between Kennedy's death and the writing of his report. Newman famously pointed to his left temple when describing JFK's head wound, because he was holding his son with his right hand, and just wanted to point out where the temple was. It certainly makes more sense that McClelland was confused about left and right than that he had JUST PLUM FORGOT to mention the location of the massive wound he'd observed in his report, and had instead mentioned a wound he never saw in a location he never even looked at.

That's what he said, alright. But spend a few years reading autopsy protocols and wound descriptions and get back to me, will ya? Doctors DO NOT write reports describing the wound they SAW as a wound "of" a location they didn't even look at. Only adding to my conviction... The initial reports of the doctors were published in a Texas Medical Journal a few weeks after the assassination. They were all word for word, except McClelland's. For publication in the journal, his description of "left temple" was changed to "right side of the head." Now, some will say oh they were trying to hide blah blah blah. WRONG. The rest of the reports were published with their references to a wound on the back of the head intact. Well, it follows then that the writers of the article checked with McClelland and he told them he meant to write "right side of the head." I don't know it for a fact. I just know it's true. In the weeks between the assassination and the publication of the article, Richard Dudman interviewed McClelland for an article, in which McClelland said the throat wound looked like an entrance but that there was nothing about the head wound to suggest the shot came from the front. Think about that. Years later, McClelland refused to cooperate with Jim Garrison's investigation because he thought Jim Garrison a psychopath. Think about that as well. And finally, think about what McClelland said on Canadian radio in the 70's, presumably before he saw the Z-film on TV and came to believe shots were fired from in front of Kennedy. He didn't want to talk about the assassination, but he was more than willing to explain why he and his colleagues were so reluctant to speak publicly on what they saw. He offered: "Nobody's trying to hide anything. It's just a pain in the ass. To have people bugging you all the time when it's all been laid out and what's gonna be known as far as we're concerned is known." He was then asked if the investigation of Kennedy's death had been resolved to his satisfaction. He responded "Yes." And left it at that.

Wow. I thought you'd read my website. In chapter 18d I go through all the early reports written by the Parkland doctors. I present their full statements, and only then present my commentary. If Gary had been more thorough perhaps he could have avoided his embarrassing claim the left temple reference was a reference to a small entrance wound. In the report, McClelland mentions one wound--a massive wound--and the only location mentioned is the left temple. As stated, the only thing that makes sense is that he screwed up JFK's right with JFK's left. I've read hundreds of autopsy protocols and wound descriptions in forensics journals and no one but no one describes a wound as a wound "of" a location they never even looked at, while failing to mention the location of the wound they looked at. It's first day of medical school kind of stuff. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas

You got it. The bone on the back of the head was fractured but still present beneath the scalp.

That's my point. Many CTs cite McClelland as the best and most reliable witness to an occipital blow-out, when his initial report made NO mention of such a wound. Instead he 1) described the large wound he saw by the right temple as a large wound by the left temple, OR 2) failed to mention the location of the large wound he saw, and instead mentioned an entrance wound he did not see which was not observed by the doctors standing in front of Kennedy, who had studied his wounds before declaring him dead. Option 1 is by far more likely, IMO. Now, I know some view the loss of McClelland as a witness to an occipital blow-out as unthinkable. But it actually strengthens the case for conspiracy. His description of the wound is consistent with Clark and the autopsists' description of the wound, and this marks this wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. Which leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for. Which means two head shots.

The lateral x-ray does in fact show extensive damage to the back of the head. The autopsy doctors said the back of the head was shattered and that pieces of skull fell to the table when they reflected the scalp, and this was confirmed by others in attendance at the autopsy including James Jenkins and Jerrol Custer. The A-P x-ray is another story. After spending a couple of years reading everything I could about forensic radiology, it became apparent to me that the fractures seen on the A-P x-ray are not fractures on the back of the head, as claimed by some of the HSCA's experts, but fractures of the eye sockets, which had been noted by other experts and described in the autopsy report.