Pat Speer

Greetings, Denny. As part of my obsession with the case circa 2006 I spent 3 to 4 months reading 2 or 3 articles per day on human cognition and memory, most of which I'd photo-copied from libraries. These were research papers, peer-reviewed, etc. I then followed up on that research by reading books and articles by cognitive psychologists like Loftus and Tversky, etc. In any event, the subject of false memories was discussed in many of these articles. And it's common-place. Essentially, our emotional brain dominates our rational brain. As a result, when someone asks us if we recall something and we can tell that it's important to them we are far more likely to say something like "Yeah, I think so." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If they say "Did you see the green car turn the corner?" after showing us a film of a car racing from a crime scene, a large percentage will say "Yes, I saw the green car" when in fact the car was blue. And even worse, when asked about it weeks later, the majority of people, without prompting, will now say the car was green. Humans are EXTREMELY prone to suggestion. We also have terrible memories. Researchers have found that while people want to believe they remember important and traumatic events with more accuracy than everyday activities, this just isn't true. As time passes, we can have clear-cut memories of our emotional response to an event, but the details are liquid. Even worse, when we remember an oft-told story we are usually accessing our last telling of the story, and not our initial recollections of the original event. That's lost forever. As a result, most every story about a traumatic event changes over time, and becomes more and more focused on the emotional response of the witness. ("It was so loud!!! Everyone was screaming!!!" or whatever). There is a classic case of this that came to light with the ARRB. One of the Dallas doctors told Jeremy Gunn about how horrifying an experience it was, and that he'd never forget the sight of Jackie with blood smeared all over he white outfit. Her outfit, of course, was pink. But the contrast of red blood on white fabric is more shocking, is more emotional, so that was how he'd come to remember it.

Yes. But those who are sworn to secrecy have been known to tell the truth as they know it in novel form. John Ehrlichman is an example. When he wanted to write about the tensions between a President and CIA Director going back to an unsuccessful invasion of another country, he wrote a novel. Or what about Robert Tanenbaum? When he wanted to write about his experiences on the HSCA, he wrote a novel as well. It could very well be that Angleton told Buckley he thought Colby was the mole.

Yes. In the story, Angleton realizes that only someone out to destroy the CIA would expose so many of its secrets. And so egads he has his mole.

FWIW, William F. Buckley, a former spook who remained well-connected with the agency, wrote a novel in which Angleton ultimately uncovered his mole--and it was Colby.

Ouch. Really? I have written book-length chapters on a number of aspects of the case, and remain on the fence on a number of issues. But after studying the behavior of Ball/Belin and analyzing the evidence linking Oswald to the sniper's nest and rifle, I am 99.8% convinced Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, and did not kill JFK. The evidence for Oswald's guilt, and my conclusion this actually suggests his innocence, is discussed in chapters 4-4h. As far as who orchestrated the murder, I am on the fence. But I can say it's quite clear there is an element within research-land that is desperate to pin it on the CIA, and let LBJ, the Mafia, and the military... skate. I am reluctant to do so. The CIA/mafia/anti-Castro Cuban attempts on Castro could very well be the window through which this problem should be viewed. Maheu was the middle-man, forging an alliance of sorts between three groups who largely hated Kennedy. Once united, these forces may very well have changed their target to someone on U.S. soil. But as to who was behind it, it's hard to say. Maheu worked for Hughes, but to whom he was ultimately loyal remains unclear. When one reads through the Church Committee testimony, it seems likely he convinced the CIA to authorize the mob's attempts on Castro and then made out it was their idea. If so, he could have convinced this apparatus to change their target to Kennedy while letting them think it was approved by the CIA, when it was actually a mob hit, or a Hughes hit on behalf of Johnson, etc. It's hard to say. That's the problem with cut-outs. If they have their own agenda, everything can get twisted. And Maheu really only served one man: himself.

Are you claiming to "know" what really happened? The screenwriter William Goldman famously said of Hollywood "No One Knows Anything." The JFK research community--both sides, LN and CT--knows even less than that.

You're just wrong, David. One guy months later said something that wasn't backed up by the rest of the evidence. Judges don't disallow evidence by one statement by one guy months later. if that were the case, well, pretty much every prisoner in America would be set free. I mean, just picture it. A man's fingerprints are found on a murder weapon. He has motive, means, and opportunity. But the fingerprint examiner, when questioned at trial, says he received the prints on a Thursday, when the record indicates they were received on a Friday. Well, GOTCHA! The judge steps in and tells the jury they must disregard the fingerprint evidence. That's just not how it works, my friend. The defense on cross would probably point out that the examiner's recollections are in opposition to the record. The examinier would then correct himself. And the defense would then use this against him--telling the jury that they can't trust this guy because he doesn't even know what day it is.

You missed my point, as usual. Someone describing something in a manner not entirely consistent with how it is depicted in photos is not the same as their saying they are 100% sure of their recollection and that the photos of this something are fakes. None of your witnesses ever said the back wound photos were fakes nor that they measured the wound and were absolutely positive of its location and that it could not be an inch higher or lower. And if they did say something like that they were full of it. People are incapable of that kind of accuracy. I suspect you know it. But if you don't, well, you should spend some time reading books and articles on cognition and memory. It's eye-opening.

To be clear, David, the question is not whether or not we should trust the DPD, FBI or military. My point is that for years certain people have been claiming the evidence prepared by the DPD, FBI, and military, could not be admitted at trial. This is nonsense. As in the O.J. case, ti could be admitted. The defense could then hack away at it. That's the way the system works.

First of all, what notes are you talking about? Second of all, Carrico and Jones never saw the wound and most certainly never said it was at a location inches below where it is shown in the autopsy photos. In fact, I don't believe any of these witnesses have said as much...

I'm 62. Prior to my illness, my memory was as good as almost anybody's--probably in the top 1%. And yet there is no way I could remember what the people playing across the playground looked like when I was in junior high. I KNEW people. And I KNEW the name to almost everyone in my grade (roughly 500 people). But I could not remember the appearance of people I didn't know at the time 30 years later. Now, from the article it's obvious Robert Oswald got Lee's timeline mixed up, and placed him at a school he probably wasn't attending. And it follows from this that word would get out that Oswald went there. And that people would then say "Yeah, I think I saw him once." That's human nature. But it's not solid evidence. There are no records placing him there. There are no photos placing him there.

Thanks. He helps expose a tremendous problem in conspiracy research. First, tracking down potential witnesses 30 years after the fact and asking them questions for which they might not have known the answer even 5 years after the fact. And second, cherry-picking through their statements to extract a chosen narrative, which is not supported by the totality of their statements. This kind of "journalism" is deceptive at best and a scam at worst.

So we agree then. The prosecution could enter the photos into evidence should the judge not find them too horrifying and the defense could claim they weren't authentic if they chose to. it's like the O.J. case. The prosecution got the glove into evidence and the defense successfully cast doubt on the authenticity of the giove. Something like that may well have come to pass should Oswald have reached trial. Most probably regarding Oswald's shirt. I can see it now. The prosecution would enter the brown shirt into evidence and link it to the fibers wrapped around the butt plate. After which the defense would question whether Oswald had even worn that shirt to work that day, and raise strong doubt about the authenticity of the evidence.

By saying "would have rested with the prosecution" they mean that the prosecution would have to establish the authenticity. As stated, the procedure for this is simple: put the guy who took the pictures on the stand and have him say he took the pictures, and have the guy who asked for the pictures to be taken say the pictures reflect the wounds as he saw them. Period. There is no rule stating all evidence submitted needs to be submitted in pen, or pencil, or that all photos entered into evidence need an ID on the photo. That's a fantasy. Photographic evidence is most always used to back up eyewitness evidence. As Humes and Stringer IDed the photos as ones taken of Kennedy, and the x-rays were IDed by Custer, the prosecution would have no problem entering these items into evidence. There is an unless...of course. If a judge found the photos too gruesome and the defense thought they might prejudice the jury, the judge might have disallowed them. But that would be a serious mistake. The photos and x-rays are proof of more than one shooter, and would win the day for the defense if they let the evidence speak for itself, as opposed to trying to fit it all into a box built by Mark Lane or Harry Livingstone or Robert Groden, etc. .

Thanks for the laugh.

Spencer may have been nice and well-spoken, but her recollections would hold little weight in any re-opening of the case. She took no notes. She failed to write a report. She was exposed to God knows how many books and television programs claiming the body was altered etc. Now, her statements about the circumstances under which she developed the photos deserve consideration, but her recollections of the exact nature of the wounds she saw aren't worth much. As far as Knudsen, he was interviewed by the HSCA and his statements contradicted what his family said years later. Although his recollection of JFK's wounds may very well have differed from what is shown in the photos, It is clear that his connection to the case is that he developed photos, not that he took photos. As far as Lee, I read through at least five books by him and he discusses the case in more than one. He also wrote a short article on it that I read somewhere--maybe on the Weisberg site. And his angle is that the evidence wasn't gathered and tested properly, not that it suggests conspiracy. As stated, he has staked out a position between the other two "investigators"--Wecht and Baden. This is not a coincidence, IMO.

Do you really think the 30 year-old recollections of seniors is the best evidence? It's fairly ridiculous to assume someone would have an accurate recollection of a photo they developed more than 30 years before, especially when the recollection is at odds with photos currently in existence. And Knudsen? He developed photos. He didn't take photos. There's no way an official family photographer would be tasked with taking autopsy photos. That would be like sending a wedding photographer to film a crime scene...when the top crime scene photographer was already at the scene.

Lee was one of the Three Investigators. These men made paid appearances together, in which the JFK assassination was discussed. They also sold books about the assassination, and made TV appearances etc. Baden is a full-blown lone nutter. Wecht is a full-blown CT. And Lee tries to have it both ways. As in the O.J. case, (where Baden served as a highly-paid defense witness), where Lee complained about the handling of the evidence (and misled the jury into thinking it had been faked), he goes on and on in his appearances and books about how the evidence was collected improperly (and by extension how he could ave done a better job). But he avoids like the plague what the evidence actually suggests. Instead he takes the stance that we'll never know because the police didn't do a good job. It's self-serving, and doubly-so because it allows him to take a middle ground between Baden and Wecht.

And you just made that up. Obviously.

My understanding is that Oswald refused the help of the lawyer offered him, and wanted John Abt instead. Abt wasn't available or interested. Oswald then asked for an attorney from the ACLU, but was killed before he could talk to one. (Coincidence? I suspect not.) If I recall the ACLU attorney sent to defend Oswald was William Kunstler, who would go on to become the attorney for the Chicago Seven.

Your not trusting the statements of a witness is not the same as a judge refusing to allow evidence brought forth by such a witness into the record. The medical evidence would have been allowed into the record. Obviously.

While we don't know what happened to the brain, there is no real evidence indicating Bobby disposed of it. There's an article in a medical journal from the mid-70's claiming it was recently discovered in the archives. This was around the same time the Rockefeller Commission medical experts were all asked if they felt the brain was necessary to figure out what happened. To a man they said "no." As this is ludicrous, it seems possible they were trying to cut off the brain's being studied by their panel and other panels. So it's possible it disappeared in the 70's and not while RFK was still alive. Now, the paper trail does support that it was handed over to the Kennedy's representative in 1966, if I recall, and that the Justice Dept. failed to ask for its return later, when it asked for a return for the photos and x-rays. But there is no record of anyone's calling up RFK and asking what he did with the brain, and his telling them he buried it or destroyed it.

For decades people have been claiming chain of possession this and chain of possession that. It's smoke. The reality is that with photos you can ignore chain of possession almost entirely if you have a witness who was there who is willing to say the photos reflect what he saw. That's it. And in this case you have numerous participants in the autopsy saying the phots are legit, and reflect what they saw.

Yes, Cliff. You proved my point. They would ask Stringer if these were autopsy photos he'd taken. He'd say yes. And then for good measure they would ask Humes if the body in the photos was President Kennedy and reflect the wounds he saw on 11--22. He'd say yes. If the defense then so reckoned, they could call contrary witnesses, should any come forward. But no judge is gonna withhold evidence from the record because someone not tasked with gathering that evidence (such as the Parkland witnesses) had a contrary recollection. Say there was a hit and run accident, in which the driver was pulled over two blocks later by the cops, and where the DNA of the pedestrian was found on the car. Say the defense has witnesses who will say the car they saw hit the pedestrian was a different color. Is a judge gonna withhold all evidence related to the car? Nope. Now imagine if this wasn't so. Imagine that fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence linking someone to a crime scene could be excluded if the defendant found someone to lie for him and say he wasn't there. Not good. Now, as far as the "deficiencies" with the back wound photo...I think the HSCA FPP was greatly exaggerating these deficiencies to get their friends on the Clark Panel off the hook.

Food for thought...