Pat Speer

It's a very complicated case, for a number of reasons. Among these is that most of the doctors initially claiming they saw cerebellar tissue backed away from their initial claims, with several admitting they were wrong, and another insisting he saw cerebellum but when looking down into the skull from the top, and not from behind. Another would be Hargis' claim he was hit by something. While some have taken this to mean he was hit by a gush of blood brain and skull from an explosion on the back of JFK's head, Hargis claimed from the first days that he saw the right side of JFK's head explode and a cloud of blood and brain go into the air, which he then drove through. In an effort to sell that this explosion of fluid shot out directly at Hargis, moreover, some researchers have insisted there was no explosion of matter elsewhere. Well, this would be news to Chaney, the the right of JFK, as well as the Connally's, in front of JFK, who all claimed they'd received a spritz of blood and brain as well.

This was something pushed by Lifton but it was almost certainly inaccurate. If a trach is performed to slip in a tube it is small, yes, but if the trach is performed over a pre-existing wound where the doctor is gonna look around and see the extent of the wound, it will be quite a bit larger. Millie Cranor and myself are about the only two researchers to pick up a medical textbook, and we came to this same conclusion. But you don't have to trust us. While making questionable statements about the head wound shown in the photos, Dr. McClelland was nevertheless consistent in his claim the photos showing the neck wound were of Kennedy, and depicted the incision he saw at Parkland.

Yes. The defenders of the SBT make out that its being in the right is consistent with a passage from the back wound to throat wound. But I'm fairly certain a passage from the middle of the throat along the right side of the trachea leads further from the spine than their presumed entrance location.

If he meant that the trachea wound was not the entrance or exit of something passing from front to back or back to front through the middle, he is in good company. Perry told the WC it was a "“small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side.”

I added a P.S. to my last comment but you responded before I could finish it. Here it is. P.S. If Landis was telling his story to support the single-assassin solution and SBT, he would have claimed he'd found the bullet on Connally's seat and placed it on the stretcher where it was found. That his story diverges from the official story makes it a CT story, and he knows it, as he now says he believes there was more to it than just Oswald.

Whether or not it was Landis who put the bullet, presumably CE 399, on a stretcher, it should be pointed out that it appears someone put a bullet on a stretcher. The so-called magic bullet, CE 399, is purported to have been found on a stretcher near the elevator. The WC claimed it had been Connally's stretcher, but Tink Thompson, back in 1967, effectively argued that it had been instead the stretcher of a little boy, Ronnie Fuller. In any event, it never made much sense that this bullet fell out of Connally's leg and then clothing and then ended up on his stretcher...after the sheets had been removed and folded up. It always made more sense that someone put the bullet there. The HSCA spoke to someone who recalled seeing an SS agent standing near the stretcher where the bullet was found. And ten years ago or so a man came forward claiming to have been a friend of agent Sam Kinney, who claimed Kinney had told him he'd placed the bullet on the stretcher. This actually makes some sense, as Kinney was the agent who, perhaps innocently, and in a state of shock, began cleaning up the rear seat of the limo outside Parkland, and who never admitted as much in his reports. IF he found a bullet in the back seat, he may very well have placed it on what he assumed was JFK's stretcher, as opposed to admitting he'd found it while improperly cleaning up the limo. FWIW, here is some news footage of Kinney taking the bucket he'd used for this clean-up back into the hospital. P.S. If Landis was telling his story to support the single-assassin solution and SBT, he would have claimed he'd found the bullet on Connally's seat and placed it on the stretcher where it was found. That his story diverges from the official story makes it a CT story, and he knows it, as he now says he believes there was more to it than just Oswald.

The Parkland doctors did not search for the bullet they presumed had created the throat wound. Kennedy was dead. Their role was over. The Bethesda doctors supposedly did not even know there was a bullet wound in the throat until after the body had been taken away. In an attempt to establish an unobstructed passage through which JFK could breathe, Perry had cut through and enlarged the throat wound. And no one told this to Humes et al until the next morning, when a confused Humes called Perry. Kennedy was x-rayed at Bethesda however, and no bullet was noted in the neck or chest. HIs heart and lungs and innards were removed, moreover, and no such bullet was found. So...this mystery has never been solved. Some have mused that maybe there was an ice bullet. Others, such a myself and Tink Thompson, have wondered if the throat wound wasn't an exit for a fragment or bullet coming down the neck from the head. The WC, of course, claimed a bullet entered Kennedy's back two inches higher than shown in the autopsy photos, and passed through JFK from back to front even though the doctors said they could find no such passage. The HSCA then proposed this bullet entered at the location shown in the photos, when JFK was leaning sharply forward, even though the moment they claimed he was hit revealed him to be sitting erect, and then pass through the body from back to front, on a trajectory that would take it right through bone.

I think Landis has said in some of his recent interviews that he saw some fragments in a pool of blood. Perhaps he was unclear in the interview as to where the bullet he picked up was found.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but if Landis says he picked it up from the pool of blood, that's a problem...for his credibility The version of the story he's been telling for months is that he picked it up from on top of the seat. This may not be entirely made up, moreover, as he's been claiming for 40 years that he saw a fragment in this location. (As such a fragment was not put in the record, that in itself is a problem...for the official story.) As far as the rest of it--picking up a pristine bullet and putting it on JFK's stretcher--that smells to high heaven and sounds like something a very senior person might start claiming late in life. I know, many of us on the forum are seniors. Well...

I think I pointed out in one of the other threads that if Reiner was gonna cite Plumlee, he would have to deal with Plumlee's claim the fatal shot was fired from the south knoll. It appears he is doing just that, and is swallowing it all up.

My conclusion as well. While those further away heard three shots, with the last two bang-bang, those close to JFK and the knoll heard two shots. This suggests that these last two shots (or sounds) came from different locations. But, it could be that these witnesses were so horrified by what they were witnessing that only one sound registered at this point. To wit, those close enough to discern which of the last two bang-bang shots hit Kennedy almost uniformly thought he was hit by the first of these shots. (When I set out to create a data base of witness statements, I was fairly certain it would indicate the witnesses thought the first shot struck Kennedy, but was totally surprised that the witnesses were also quite clear about the second shot being the fatal head shot, as opposed to the third shot (or sound).

The first shot heard by the witnesses didn't miss. From chapter 5: The First Shot Miss Myth For those reluctant to read through the plethora of statements and testimony recounted in the pages to follow, but who are nevertheless curious as to how I can feel so sure the first shot did not miss, I hereby offer a telling taste of the statements of every witness I could find who described the activities in the limousine during or just after the first shot. While some of these witnesses believed the first shot missed, they almost all believed Kennedy responded to the shot by leaning forward or jerking to his left, actions the Zapruder film reveals occurred only after he'd been hit. My conclusion that these witnesses were thereby describing Kennedy's actions between frames 190 and 224 of the Zapruder film is further confirmed by the fact that not one of these witnesses said the President continued waving and smiling to the crowd on his right after the first shot rang out. Common sense tells us that this should have been the impression of at least a few of these witnesses should they really have heard a shot at the time proposed by most "first shot miss" proponents, around frame 160 of the Zapruder film. But common sense, alas, is often ignored in favor of something more glamorous. Remote Viewers--those noting the impact of the shots from buildings looking down on Dealey Plaza (all listed witnesses heard three shots unless otherwise noted): James Jarman (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p334-335) “He said that he heard a shot and then saw President Kennedy move his right hand up to his head." Ruth Smith (12-21-63 FBI interview, CD206 p.9) “She looked back toward President Kennedy’s car after the first shot and thinks he raised his hands to his face.” Lillian Mooneyham (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H531) “Mrs. Mooneyham heard a gunshot and observed President Kennedy slump to the left of the seat of his car." Cecil Ault (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H534) “Mr. Ault heard three loud reports…Following the first shot Mr. Ault noted that President Kennedy appeared to raise up in his seat in the Presidential automobile and after the second shot the president slumped into his seat." Dr. Samuel Paternostro (1-20-64 FBI report, 24H536) “He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports. He said he observed President John F. Kennedy when he appeared to grab his head and thought at the time he is “well-trained;” then, when the other reports followed in quick succession, he realized that the President had been shot.” Harold Norman (3-24-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H186-198) "I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard a shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something." So, we're just beginning and the score is already 6-0. All these witnesses heard three shots and all of them believed Kennedy responded to the first shot. Eastsiders--those noting the impact of the shots from a location in the Plaza to the east of the limousine at the time of the first shot: Pierce Allman (11-22-63 eyewitness report on WFAA radio, between 1:45 and 2:00 PM CST) “Right after Mr. Kennedy passed in front of me I heard one big explosion and my immediate thought like most of the people standing around me was “this is firecrackers, but it’s in pretty poor taste”. I looked and saw the president, I thought, duck. Evidently, he was slumping at the time." Jean Newman (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H489, 24H218) "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too, just like it did me, because he flinched like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest." (Only heard two shots.) June Dishong (Letter written on 11-22-63, as read by her daughter on CNN, 11-21-2003, and featured on the Sixth Floor Museum website) “here come the president and his wife…His arm in the air waving…He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car." Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car...I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun." (Kennedy, of course, does not turn and look around after frame 160, but resumes waving. What Woodward called "turning" then is almost certainly a reaction to the first shot's impact.) Patricia Lawrence (11-24-63 FBI Report, 22H841): “When the motorcade passed she stated she was looking at Mrs. Kennedy who was looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the president was waving." (The president was not waving at frame 160 of the Zapruder film--the moment of the purported first shot miss--but was waving by frame 180, a second or so later. Still, as Lawrence does not specifically say the president stopped waving after the shot, it's difficult to say for sure that she is describing a first shot hit.) Mrs. Ruby Henderson (12-6-63 FBI report, 24H524) “at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing, she heard what she initially thought was a firecracker, and saw what she thought was paper fly out of the Presidential car. She said she now realized it was a shot she heard and what she thought was paper was probably flesh." (If so, she thought the first of the four shots she heard was the head shot. This seems highly unlikely, in light of all the other statements. It seems probable then that she was mistaken on this point.) TE Moore (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H534) “By the time President Kennedy had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a shot was fired and Mr. Moore observed the President slump forward in the Presidential car." Phil Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H492-497) "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and slumped forward.” Linda Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H498-499) (When asked if she heard shots) “Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward." Welcome Eugene Barnett (7-23-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H539-544) “I was looking at the President when the first shot was fired, and I thought I saw him slump down, but I am not sure, and I didn’t look any more then. I thought he was ducking down." Mary Sue Dickerson (Article by Beverly Shay in the 11-01-11 online edition of Now Magazine) “As she was making eye contact with the president of the United States, several things occurred at once. She heard what she thought were firecrackers, which initially seemed so celebratory, but then he slumped forward." Karen Westbrook (11-28-17 Living History interview with the Sixth Floor Museum) "When I heard the shot fired... I thought it was a car backfiring... Everything seemed to go into slow motion in my mind. After the first shot was fired I saw the President's hands gradually come up..." While we can't rightly count Mrs. Henderson, Ms. Lawrence or Ms. Newman as first shot hit witnesses, the statements of the other 9 witnesses definitely support that Kennedy was hit by the first shot. This makes the score 15-0. Unfortunately, things get a little more confusing when we move on to discuss the statements of those on the west end of the plaza. Westsiders--those noting the impact of the shots from a location in the plaza to the west of the limousine at the time of the last shot: Abraham Zapruder (2:10 PM 11-22-63 interview on WFAA) “as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.” (Only heard two definite shots, but felt certain Kennedy was hit by the first one.) Emmett Hudson (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H481) “At the same time the President’s car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat." (First shot head shot.) S.M. Holland (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H480, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over...After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up." (Once again...first shot, head shot.) Malcolm Summers (11-23-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H500) “The President’s car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, “Oh, no,” then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots." (Only recalled hearing two shots, with the first one most probably the head shot.) Jack Franzen (11-24-63 FBI report, 22H840) “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the car and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile." (Once again, the first shot he describes is the head shot.) Mrs. Jack Franzen (11-25-63 FBI report, 24H525) “She advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her to as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile." (Her statement mimics her husband's. Once again, the first shot is the head shot.) Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker (Undated 1963-1964 statement included with Decker Exhibit 5323, 19H458) “I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and saw what appeared to be a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President’s car." (Only heard two shots, the first of which can be presumed to be the head shot.) J.W. Foster (3-26-64 FBI report, CD897 p.20-21) “Just as the vehicle in which President Kennedy was riding reached a point on Elm Street just east of the underpass, Patrolman Foster heard a noise that sounded like a large firecracker…he realized something was wrong because of the movement of the President. Another report was heard by Patrolman Foster and about the same time the report was heard, he observed the President’s head appear to explode, and immediately thereafter, he heard a third report which he knew was a shot.” (As President Kennedy's movements between Zapruder frame 160 and 190 would not have convinced Foster that something was wrong, it follows that the first shot was heard after 190, and that this shot hit Kennedy.) Marilyn Sitzman (11-29-66 interview with Josiah Thompson) “There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left." (Only heard two shots.) Stavis Ellis (HSCA Vol. XII, p.23) “On August 5, 1978...Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy’s car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis also said that President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder." (Even though Ellis believed the first shot missed, his description of Kennedy's actions by no means matches the behavior of Kennedy observed between frames 160 and 190 of the Zapruder film, and instead suggests the first shot hit. The "fragment grenade" observed by Ellis was most logically a piece of Kennedy's skull, which would suggest the first shot heard by Ellis was the head shot. It also seems possible Ellis heard less than three shots.) Well, this is a surprise. Here, we have ten witnesses from the west end of the plaza--and all of them recalling at least two shots--and seven of them describing the events observed in the Zapruder film at the time of the head shot as the events they observed at the time of the FIRST shot. Now, this is curious, and suggests that (as Kennedy was obviously hit at least once before the head shot) not only did the first shot not miss, but that the second shot was the head shot. Huh. It follows then that it was the THIRD shot that missed. Now, as far as the other three witnesses--the ones who thought the first shot was other than the head shot--well, they all saw Kennedy react to the first shot. So, yeah, all ten indicated Kennedy was hit by the first shot. (Now we can call it 25-0 or count Foster and disregard the others, whereby it rests at 16-0. You decide.) Centrists--those standing to the west of Kennedy at the time of the first shot, and to the east of Kennedy at the time of the last shot. William Newman (11-22-63 interview on WFAA) “we were at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at the President when we heard the first shot and the President.....I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker, cause he looked....you know, fear." (Only heard two shots.) Frances Gayle Newman (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 24H218) “When President Kennedy’s car was about ten feet from us, I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker going off. President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and then covered his head with his hands and then raised up." Mary Moorman (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H487, 24H217) “As President Kennedy was opposite me, I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over." (Moorman's photo depicts the head shot. In other words, she thought the first shot was the head shot.) Jean Hill (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H479, 24H212) “Just as Mary Moorman started to take a picture we were looking at the President and Jackie in the back seat…Just as the President looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie’s lap." (Once again...first shot--or burst--head shot.) Charles Brehm (11-22-63 NBC television interview first broadcast around 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat." John Chism (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H471) "When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him “The President,” sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side." (Only heard two shots.) Marvin Faye Chism (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H472) “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left." (Only heard two shots.) Well, this is also interesting. Why did so few of those in the middle of the plaza hear three shots? The thought occurs that one of the shots was harder to hear than the others. The score, when one includes those hearing but two shots is now 32-0. Should one limit the count to those initially claiming to have heard three shots, moreover, the score is still 18-0.

The HSCA had limited resources, and only gained funding under the premise they were not re-investigating the case from scratch, but double-checking and adding to the scientific testimony, and pursuing new leads involving anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia and CIA. So only a few witnesses called before the WC were asked to testify before the HSCA (such as Connally, and Marina), and this was mostly for show. Most other WC witnesses were given a pass, or were interviewed along very narrow lines. Some, like Brennan, simply refused to cooperate. So it's not surprising that Ruth, considering she had testified more than anyone for the WC, was not pursued by the HSCA. It's doubtful, even, that anyone involved had read and taken notes on her WC testimony.

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."