Ken Davies

Pat, I have read your blog, and I admire your fine work, however, I cannot believe that the doctors at Parkland were so incompetent,or confused as be unable to correctly identify the size and location of the head wounds. I believe that their evidence on medical points does trump that of lay people who observed something from a greater distance. ( My own viewing of the Z film in regular, slow, freeze frame, etc,, many, many times, makes me think that a portion of JFK's head on the right side is sliced and falls sideways, but this makes no sense.)

Andric, Read Mrs. Newman's sworn affidavit. I have quoted her correctly. Mr. Newman also says JFK stood up. Read it. Again, rather than dodge, explain why the evidence of theNewmans trumps that of experience doctors who had a closer, longer view of the damage. How many juries have you swayed with such logic?

The Newmans were not entirely credible in their testimony. She claimed that JFK stood up in the car at the first shot and put his hands over his head. Anyone else ever claim that? Why would an objective person prefer their evidence over location of head wounds, over that of medical experts who viewed the wounds at a much closer distance?

No, Tommy, I think that he was being manipulated, but I don't think that he thought that he was going to "hit" Castro. There is a great deal of "intelligence" smoke and mirrors in this matter, and most of it was probably intended to cover the actual roles and "perceived" roles of those involved. Happy near year!

There are Mirabiles in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Tommy. Are they related to those listed under your interests?

The book's section quoted above does not say who claimed that Clark said that. In fact the article goes on to say that others heard Clark say two other things that are far different from this. Clark's sworn testimony does not agree with the allegations in this book, by a doctor who was a second year med student at the time, and not directly involved in treating Kennedy. Jones points this out himself. He talks of seeing YELLOW roses on the floor of the presidential limo, as he was milling about outside the hospital. If one weighs "evidence" how much weight would one place on these "recently" collected anecdotes?

Are verbatim, unsourced quotes from the National Enquirer now trumping sworn testimony from the person allegedly quoted? What's next?

It fits in with Kellerman's comment about a "volley" of shots coming into the car.

Mr. Caddy, without asking you to breach solicitor/client privilege, what is your take on the assassination? Thanks in advance.

Ready, aim , fire! Walkie-talkies, like in DCM's back pocket - the sound of three shots!

Ruby was a candidate for much simpler things, eg. Extortion,blackmail, etc. He probably had to kill LHO, or be killed ( or have his sister killed...). His behaviour was odd the entire weekend. He was at the police station trying to get into the interview room, he was at the midnight press conference (where he corrected the DA as to LHO being a member of Fair Play for Cuba. How did he know that? Wink, wink!), he was delivering sandwiches, he went to synagogue (although not known to be devout), ... Having spent many an hour watching Bogart, Cagney, Robinson, and Raft movies in my 11 years, even I knew that there was a conspiracy when LHO was "rubbed out" on live tv.

I find it hard to believe that the "head of neurosurgery" would be mistaken as to the location of a head wound. Yes, professionals do make mistakes, but rarely such obvious ones.

How many other women in Texas in 1963 were trying to learn Russian? (and why?). Mrs, Paine states that is her original reason for getting involved with the Oswalds. ( before she spins her tale of offering shelter to a pregnant woman, whose husband feels that he "has been persecuted by life") I would need my snowblower to get through this pile, as a shovel would not suffice!!!

Thanks for this info, Vince. I just listened to the Paine(ful) talk, and it was very interesting how she deflected a question from the audience as to how she had found incriminating evidence against LHO in her home after the police and FBI had already searched it. Her response was that the FBI seemed more adept at searching than the Dallas police. She did not respond directly to the question, and danced around it by complaining about the police taking her dance records, and stealing her "phone book" which they then gave to the FBI. I would not buy a used car from her!

Mr. Newman, in his Nov. 22,1963 deposition stated that JFK jumped up and was standing up when he was hit. Mrs. Newman in her deposition on the same date said that JFK jumped up and had his hands over his head at the FIRST shot. Dr. Burkley was not a witness to the shooting and saw JFK at the same time as the Parkland doctors.

Thanks, David. Happy holidays to all!

Mr. Caddy, with all due respect, the article indicates that they believed that there was a conspiracy, ( a domestic right wing one according to the original source material) but it does not state that they believed that there was more than one assassin (i.e.shooter).

I agree Robert. It has also invaded Canada.

Excellent post, David!

Well done, Vince! Still looking for your book here in Ontario.

Who makes a better witness, a person who is holding her spouse while he has his head blasted by a bullet, spaying her with his blood, or a trained officer of the law, with no emotional attachment or traumatic shock who is sitting nearby? Dr. Phil.....

Don't be selective, post all of Jackie's testimony, and all of Kellerman's.

Where is the Z film corroboration? Distraction, encore un fois?

She was was a traumatized spouse, who was handled gently in questioning under oath. Some of her testimony was not included in the material originally released to the public. Kellerman was straight forward, contradicted the official line re the number of shots,and timing, and had a vigorous exchange under oath. In regard to your post above, you are not a witness. Did you give a sworn deposition? You are someone claiming something which contradicts facts.

There is no corroboration by anyone ( or anything ) of the claim that the Z film was shown in a theatre in NY in 1964. Dan Rather did not corroborate this claim. His work on the JFK case is dubious. Kellerman's sworn testimony trumps an opinion. That is evident. It is not an ad hominem comment.