Pat Speer

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."

That's not true at all. A few are pointing to the top of the head. Most are pointing to a no-man's land between where the wound is shown on the autopsy photos and where it is depicted in the McClelland drawing. The point is and always has been that some very prominent CTs have engaged in a deliberate con. They have taken that many witnesses pointed to a location rearward of the wound in the autopsy photos to mean the wound was REALLY low on the back of the head, even though very few witnesses pointed there, and many of these same witnesses have publicly stated that the so-called McClelland drawing showing such a wound was inaccurate.

I've gone through them one by one on this forum, and on my website. First, look where they are pointing. Many have claimed they are all pointing to the same place. This is not true. Even worse, it has been claimed they are all pointing to the location depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, at the level of ear and below on the far back of the head. This is total bs. Now, one by one. Bev Oliver. Many doubt she was even there, and if she was she wouldn't have received a good look at the location depicted. (She was standing to the left of the motorcade, not right.) Still, even so, she is pointing to the right side of the head above and behind the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. Phil Willis. His testimony is clear. He did not see JFK at the time of the head shot. It follows then that he is depicting what he'd been told by his wife and daughters. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Marilyn Willis. She is depicting a wound above the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. Ed Hoffman. Many doubt he was where he said he was. If we believe him, he was far away from the shooting itself, and only got a look at the wound as the limo passed. He is pointing out a wound above and behind the ear. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Robert McClelland. He is the first of these witnesses to have had a good look at the wound. And yet he said the wound was of the left temple in his first day report, and told reporter Richard Dudman, who was looking for evidence the shot came from the front, that there was NOTHING about this wound to suggest the bullet had come from the front. Now, months later, after he no doubt had come to realize he was out of step with his fellow physicians, he started saying the wound was on the back of head, etc. And yet, look where's he's pointing in the photo. Even with his "corrected" impression, he is not an occipital blow-out witness. Next row. Crenshaw. He stepped up 30 years after the shooting, after viewing drawings in books depicting an occipital blow-out, to say yessiree that's what I saw in the few seconds I saw Kennedy. 30 years ago. Ronald Jones: Another Parkland doctor. Jones has long stated that the head was a mess and that he couldn't really tell the extent of the wound. He has deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Carrico. The first doctor to begin work on Kennedy. He disavowed his earliest statements suggesting an occipital blow-out, in part because he realized he never lifted the head to even look at that area. He insisted from thereon that the wound was at the top of the head, where he points in the photo. He was an occipital blow-out witness, who abandoned that position decades later, and deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's half-way. I can finish if you like but it doesn't get any better. As it stands there are 8 witnesses, only one who credibly says the occipital area was blasted, and he didn't step up for 30 years after being exposed to depictions of such a wound in books and articles.

Yep. They are both of Kennedy at Bethesda. In standard autopsy fashion the first shows the head as it first appeared, and the second shows the head later in the autopsy, when they were trying to ascertain the number and extent of the wounds. Intriguingly, I've seen it argued by a prominent forensic pathologist that the first of these should not have been taken, as it was disrespectful to show the brain in the hair, and needlessly gory. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the taking of such photos was SOP, and forensic journals are filled with such photos.

Yes, it seems clear to me that, as seen at Parkland, and on the back of the head with brain-soaked hair photo above, the temple flap was pretty much closed, and the top flap was spilled backward, which created the illusion the hole of missing scalp and bone was further back on the skull than later shown in the back of the head photo taken with the hair pulled to JFK's left. But that photo is also deceiving. Due to the red spot in the BOH photo with the hair draped to the left, which people incorrectly believe is at the crown of the head, some have claimed the photo shows the hole of missing scalp and bone to have been on the front of the head, when it is not. It is above the ear, on the posterior (or occipital) aspect of the head when viewed from above.

Nonsense, Sandy. I thought you'd read my website. In it, go through dozens of witnesses, and show how the claim they all said the same thing--that there was a gaping hole in the occipital region--is a con job. As the assassination literature correctly focuses on the doctors who spent the most time with Kennedy, and made the earliest statements, I present both their early statements and their subsequent statements so the reader can decide for themselves. Essentially, those most involved in Kennedy's care refused to say the autopsy report was incorrect and that the autopsy photos were fake. This left writers like Lifton, Fetzer and even Aguilar in a bind. So they decided to attack these men and claim they were gutless cowards or worse. I have a problem with that. Unlike Lifton (with whom I was friendly), Fetzer (with whom I was not friendly), and Aguilar (a friend), I consulted with cognitive psychologists and read dozens of books and articles on human cognition and memory, and it became incredibly clear to me that the frequent claim doctors couldn't be mistaken--and couldn't honestly disavow their mistakes--was nonsense. The world of medicine is a world of specialization. Doctors routinely defer to the expertise of others, and to the official record. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the photos were legit. Now, could they have been correct in their earliest reports? I concluded "probably not". The Plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses and evidence all suggest a wound centered above the ear. It makes no sense that the wound was moved backwards before reaching Parkland and then back again after leaving Parkland. As I continued reading, and digested dozens of books and articles about the wound ballistics of the Carcano and similar rifles, it became clear to me (and now others, as I'm told some of my findings will be mentioned at Duquesne) that the exact location of the large gaping hole on Kennedy's head is of little importance, and that it is the NATURE of this wound that is all important. Large gaping holes like the one on Kennedy's head are not symptomatic of Carcano ammunition fired at that range, UNLESS the bullet strikes at an angle, and leaves a wound of both entrance and exit. Now, amazingly, Clark said this was his initial impression of the wound. The top forensic pathologists, moreover, concur that a large gaping hole of scalp and bone represents an entrance, not exit. (Apparently, I was the first to read and fully comprehend the footnotes in the report of the HSCA Pathology Panel, in which they tried to skate around the implications of this forensic fact by saying they thought the autopsy doctors were mistaken about the missing scalp, and in which they concealed that Clark had previously and separately shared the doctors' conclusion.) In any event, the "smoking gun" is not that some doctors tasked with saving Kennedy's life originally claimed the wound was on the far back of his head (but then changed their minds), it is that the descriptions, photos, and x-rays of the wound, as observed and recorded at both Parkland and Bethesda, is 100% crystal clear evidence for a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And this, in turn, when taken with the EOP entrance observed and recorded at Bethesda, means there were TWO headshots. Now, that's my contribution to the case, not tracking down some old man or woman and trying to get them to point to a location on their skull at odds with the autopsy photos, nor searching blurry images for Rorschach assassins on the knoll. And I won't apologize for reading and learning, and presenting those with an interest with something more concrete than the paper-thin nonsense in the assassination literature.

Euins was almost certainly the source of both the Winchester 30-30 and the bald spot. Winchester 30-30's were probably the most famous automatic rifle in America, as a result of the TV show The Rifle Man, and most every teenage boy in America would associate a rapid volley of shots with that rifle. (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.” (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.

I discuss this on my website, in my Pinning the Tale on the Oswald chapter. They were both five flights up, above the noise of the street, and they both heard a loud sound well after others heard a loud sound. I conclude this sound was Baker and Truly slamming the hatch door to the roof, as they came back down. The key bit of testimony is actually Truly's. He said he saw Dougherty working on the fifth floor as they came down. So Dougherty comes out of the break room (or bathroom, let's be realistic) AFTER the shots were fired, and AFTER Baker and Truly have run upstairs, and goes back to work on the sixth, then down to the fifth (now vacant as Norman, Jarman, and Williams have already ran down to the fourth) and hears a loud sound from above--essentially the elevator shaft as opposed to the open window in the corner. He continues working as Baker and Truly descend in the east elevator, but then realizes from the noises outside that something is going on. Whereupon he descends in the west elevator and runs into Eddie Piper, who tells him Kennedy has been shot. This scenario answers numerous questions but was dismissed, if even pondered, by the WC lawyers because...it has Dougherty taking the west elevator up a few minutes after the shooting, when Baker and Truly said it was on a high floor just minutes before. IOW, if one puts together the pieces (Dougherty claiming he went upstairs after 12:30, his failure to see or hear N, W, and J on the fifth floor, their simultaneous failure to see him, his hearing a sound from above and not from the SE window, and Truly's seeing him on the fifth floor as he came down) in a manner that makes sense, it becomes obvious that some unidentified person took the west elevator down as Baker and Truly ran up. And that Oswald (as a result of his being seen on the second floor by Baker and Truly) wasn't that person.

Mr. BELIN. Then at 12:40, there is a bunch of calls at 12:40, with the next call number at 12:43, so you assume sometime 12:40 and 12:43 you, as No. 9, called in, is that correct? Mr. SAWYER. That's correct. Mr. BELIN. Would you read what it says that you said there? Mr. SAWYER. "We need more manpower down here at the Texas Book Depository; there should be a bunch on Main if somebody can pick them up and bring them down here." Mr. BELIN. Was that said before or after you came down from the elevator? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time? Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45. Mr. BELIN. What did you say then? Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?" Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle." Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?" Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that." The apparent solution is that the description sent out was a combo of what Brennan and Euins had told Sawyer. Brennan described the shooter and Euins--the current witness who couldn't ID the clothing--described it as a Winchester. Sawyer never said anything about anyone seeing someone run out of the building with the rifle. Batchelor, however, took Sawyer's broadcast to mean a witness had seen someone run out with the rifle. And an excited Euins somehow mis-remembered Brennan--the construction worker--as saying as much. My guess would be that Brennan told Sawyer he saw the man and Sawyer asked if he'd seen him leave the building, and Brennan said no. But Euins mis-heard him. But it's also possible that by the time he testified he'd heard about Richard Randolph Carr--a construction worker who said he saw someone on the sixth floor who he later saw walking down the street--and conflated his story with Brennan's. In any event, no one ran out of the building while carrying a rifle. Nobody said such a thing at the time or after. There were hundreds of people in the area. No one saw such a thing. And it makes no sense to begin with. There are very few parking spaces in the area that could be reached without passing by dozens of witnesses, and carrying a rifle while in flight in a crowd makes little sense. As anyone who's played Fortnite can tell you, a handgun is much more useful in his circumstance. And it has the added benefit of concealment.

No. The clothing evidence is central to all of it. The clothing evidence, the autopsy measurements, and photos all confirm one another, and all destroy the SBT and the single-assassin conclusion.

Don't believe me. Do your own research. If you do, you will find that macerated cerebrum, basically smashed cerebrum, has a similar appearance to cerebellum. And you will also find that most of those saying they saw cerebellum later retracted their statements, with some even saying it couldn't have been cerebellum because the wound was well above the cerebellum. One of those who stood by his seeing cerebellum, moreover, was Peters, who insisted he saw cerebellum...while looking down through a hole from the crown. As it stands, then, there is very little evidence the back of the head was missing at the level of the cerebellum. It is largely a myth. While there is indeed eyewitness evidence suggesting the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, a GIF morphing the photos demonstrates that the crown of the head was a movable flap, which in turn suggests that the wound as seen at Parkland, with JFK's head tilted back for the tracheotomy and his feet up in the air, would have been an inch or two further back than shown in the photos. Which is to say a mere inch or two away from where most placed the wound.

LOL. One question. 1. The measurements in the autopsy protocol place the wound at T-!, maybe even lower. Can you show us how a wound that low supports the single-bullet theory, and, assuming that you can not, offer us an explanation as to why "they" would fake a photo so damaging to the proposition the back wound connected to the throat wound?

This is disgusting . Few, if any, have spent more time on this issue than myself, and my website presents the earliest statements of the witnesses which suggested the wound was on the back of the head. . I see, moreover, that you claim there were "twenty witnesses who early on said the gaping wound was on the back of the head." This is nonsense. I think you had previously claimed that "20 doctors"had said as much. That was also nonsense, that you backtracked on by admitting very few of them ever said they thought the photos were fakes. Much is made on this website of the admissibility of evidence. IF a defense attorney thought it was a good idea to argue the autopsy photos were fake (which would be blitheringly stupid considering they prove there was more than one shooter), just who do you think he would call? Clark? Nope. He steered clear of the back of the head crowd, and denounced them in the press, and worked with Lattimer on his Oswald did it book. Perry? Nope. He said he didn't really get a good look, and refused to denounce the photos. Carrico? Nope. The same. McClelland? Not likely. Not only did he initially claim the wound was "of the left temple" and gave no sign of being fired from the front, he also made such easily discredited claims as his creating the so-called McClelland drawing. He would be no help at all. Well, then, how about Crenshaw? Yes, that's exactly what you need to convince a jury...a witness who admitted he only saw the wounds for a few seconds and who then failed to say anything for decades after, and who was subsequently denounced by his fellow doctors, including McClelland. The Parkland doctors all said blah blah blah is a hoax that was easily dismantled by McAdams, of all people. A better guide is the statements of the first witnesses. Bill Newman, Gayle Newman. Abraham Zapruder and Malcolm Kilduff, quoting Burkley, all said the wound was by the temple before the Parkland doctors held their press conference, and before the Parkland doctors wrote their reports. And no, they weren't talking about the forward extension of a massive wound stretching from low on the occipital bone to the temple. That's a straight-up con perpetrated by Groden, etc. The witnesses were relatively consistent on the size of the hole, and the hole they described was nowhere near that size. And no, it's not a matter of flaps being closed to conceal this part of the wound, etc. Clark, and later Humes, said there was a large hole absent of scalp and bone. Now, did you hear it? THAT is the smoking gun right there, NOT that some people said they thought the wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, and then changed their minds. No one ever changed their minds about the nature of the wound. It turns out, huh, when one ACTUALLY researches this stuff as opposed to cutting and pasting cherry-picked lists, that the missing scalp designates the wound as an ENTRANCE wound, which lends credence to Clark's early conjecture the wound was a tangential wound. Well, this, when added to the discovery of a small wound by the EOP, means there were TWO head wounds, a scientific FACT further demonstrated by the lack of a passage from low to high through the brain. So, yes, I'm a bit snippy. This attempt to prove the back of the head was missing, while ignoring the first witnesses, and rejecting the majority of statements by the Parkland doctors best in position to view the wound, has been a SMELLY RED HERRING, that has prevented the case from moving forward for decades.