"Enemy of the Truth" by Sherry P. Fiester [a review]

[Greg Burnham]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

[David G. Healy]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

excellent work.... thank you!

[James R Gordon]

Greg,

Thank you for this post. I had not been aware of David's article on Sherry's book. I agree whole heartedly with his conclusions. When Sherry posted on Lancer about this book, which I did buy and read, I commented on the impossibility of a frontal shot at Z 312/3. I pointed out that had such a shot occurred from the Tripple Underpass then it would have needed to pass through the car and was bound to injure other passengers, like nellie Connally first.

I got a reply that basically said she was right and I was wrong.

Unlike David Mantik, I did not have the ability to comment on her actual thesis - the blood spatter as well as the medical contradictions of the skull to such a thesis.

It is an excellent article, which will probably be ignored. However I will be interested if Sherry does respond. I will be interested in her response to the very valid points David has just raised.

James

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Thank you for this post. I had not been aware of David's article on Sherry's book. I agree whole heartedly with his conclusions. When Sherry posted on Lancer about this book, which I did buy and read, I commented on the impossibility of a frontal shot at Z 312/3. I pointed out that had such a shot occurred from the Tripple Underpass then it would have needed to pass through the car and was bound to injure other passengers, like nellie Connally first.

I got a reply that basically said she was right and I was wrong.

Unlike David Mantik, I did not have the ability to comment on her actual thesis - the blood spatter as well as the medical contradictions of the skull to such a thesis.

It is an excellent article, which will probably be ignored. However I will be interested if Sherry does respond. I will be interested in her response to the very valid points David has just raised.

James

James,

You weren't aware of it because it's a brand new work! David was here in San Diego about two weeks ago. We met in Coronado where he finished up the details. It's been posted online less than 48 hours.

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

[David G. Healy]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

Edited September 7, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

That's pretty funny! Using the argument by authority against me, when Mantik spends much of his time arguing against people with far better qualifications than himself.

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

P.S. There's a reason Mantik posts his stuff on CTKA, and never posts on this forum. No one can call him on his nonsense at CTKA. It's verboten.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

That's pretty funny! Using the argument by authority against me, when Mantik spends much of his time arguing against people with far better qualifications than himself.

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

P.S. There's a reason Mantik posts his stuff on CTKA, and never posts on this forum. No one can call him on his nonsense at CTKA. It's verboten.

There are few with better qualifications than David as far as the JFK case goes in general. As for the specific qualifications to make judgments regarding bullet trajectories, medical evidence, and autopsy materials, particularly x-rays: Who is more qualified than a board certified Medical Doctor with a specialty in RADIOLOGY who just happens to have a PhD in PHYSICS? Who is more qualified to comment on evidence: someone who has handled the actual autopsy materials at the National Archive or someone who hasn't even been to College Park to feed the birds?

These credentials don't make him infallible. But they do make him less fallible than you are in his field of expertise. Prior to my deciding whether or not to have surgery on my cervical spine I asked David to look at my MRI and x-rays. No offense, Pat, but I would not have even asked you for an opinion. If you had offered one after seeing my MRI and x-rays, I would have trusted it and you even less! Why? Because you simply lack the proper qualifications in this field to make a meaningful determination.

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

That's pretty funny! Using the argument by authority against me, when Mantik spends much of his time arguing against people with far better qualifications than himself.

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

P.S. There's a reason Mantik posts his stuff on CTKA, and never posts on this forum. No one can call him on his nonsense at CTKA. It's verboten.

There are few with better qualifications than David as far as the JFK case goes in general. As for the specific qualifications to make judgments regarding bullet trajectories, medical evidence, and autopsy materials, particularly x-rays: Who is more qualified than a board certified Medical Doctor with a specialty in RADIOLOGY who just happens to have a PhD in PHYSICS? Who is more qualified to comment on evidence: someone who has handled the actual autopsy materials at the National Archive or someone who hasn't even been to College Park to feed the birds?

These credentials don't make him infallible. But they do make him less fallible than you are in his field of expertise. Prior to my deciding whether or not to have surgery on my cervical spine I asked David to look at my MRI and x-rays. No offense, Pat, but I would not have even asked you for an opinion. If you had offered one after seeing my MRI and x-rays, I would have trusted it and you even less! Why? Because you simply lack the proper qualifications in this field to make a meaningful determination.

Oh, c'mon Greg, let's not be silly. No one has ever challenged Mantik on his actual area of expertise: radiation oncology. Stretching that into making him some sort of expert on forensic radiology, however, is QUITE a stretch. How is it that the same people complaining that a mere pathologist, James Humes, performed a forensic autopsy, have no problem pretending David Mantik's qualifications as a radiation oncologist make him an expert on forensic radiology? Bizarre.

The bottom line: certain people like Mantik, and what he says. Ergo, he's suddenly an expert on stuff way beyond his actual level of expertise. That's embarrassing, IMO.

I mean, if you're willing to swallow whatever an "expert" tells you, why didn't you disown Mantik's research when Horne finally admitted he'd consulted a forensic radiologist on Mantik's findings, and the expert dismissed them out of hand? And why didn't anyone in your camp pause, if even for a moment, and say "Wait a second! This 'expert" is saying exactly what Pat Speer has been saying, only a decade BEFORE Pat Speer said it! MAYBE Pat Speer knows how the experts think after all... Hmmm..."

I long ago concluded that Mantik is one of the gang, and that his buddies feel some sort of weird loyalty to him whereas they feel he can do no wrong, even when he's speaking nonsense.

Here's another one. In his review of Sherry's book, Mantik cites Tom Robinson as a witness claiming to see an entrance wound on Kennedy's face. In Mantik's opinion, the bullet creating this wound broke up and left a trail of fragments across Kennedy's skull. So how did Robinson describe this wound?

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

He saw a tiny mark, that he thought to have been the exit of a tiny piece of bone or bullet! I don't think I have to explain to you that his description is not one of an entrance wound for an exploding bullet.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pamela Brown]

It seems to me in EoT that Sherry F. is doing everything in her power to create a realistic scenario as to what she believed happened. In many respects, the book is articulate and insightful. It isn't perfect. Nothing is. I hope her critics will not try to throw the baby out with the bathwater and instead, simply agreee-to-disagree on various issues and move forward in tandem.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Pat

I do not have any experience with "exploding bullets", and I am not sure what would even qualify a rifle bullet to be in this category. I do, however, have a great deal of experience with hunting deer with ammunition loaded with "soft tipped" hunting ammunition.

I also have some experience hunting deer with "hollow point" ammunition. I handload my own rifle cartridges, and, for a time, I experimented with handloading 110 grain .30 calibre hollow point bullets into cartridges for a .308 deer rifle.

I should point out that I and most of the people who live up here are strictly meat hunters, and we always attempt to maximize the amount of meat we can recover from a kill. For some, this will mean a carefully placed lung shot. This will work, but I like eating the heart of the deer, and there is a good chance the bullet will hit it and spoil it. The rest of us go strictly for head shots which, of course, requires more concentration while shooting and the grace to pass up a shot if there is a possibility of missing.

I chose the hollow point bullets because I wanted the slug to achieve maximum expansion once it entered the deer's skull and, thereby, maximum damage. Well, they did everything I wanted them to do. Not a single deer that I shot in the head with a hollow point bullet ever got back on its feet. However, the results were so obscene that, out of respect for the deer, I eventually quit using them.

Judging from the damage done to JFK's head, I do not believe any kind of exploding bullet was used in the assassination and I believe a hollow point rifle bullet could easily have accounted for his head wounds. This, of course, depends on which school of thought one subscribes to regarding JFK's head wounds. I believe Tom Robinson was very thorough in tracking down these wounds and, by his count, there appears to be one large exit wound in the right rear, one small 1/4" entrance wound in the right temple, and, as pointed out by Mr. Robinson, severe breakage of most of the bones in JFK's face. I find it a little disturbing that Mr. Robinson, supposedly an experienced mortician, could be so easily convinced that a large gaping wound the size of an orange could be an entrance wound and that a neat little quarter inch wound in the temple (gee what a coincidence, the same diameter as a 6.5 calibre rifle bullet!) could be an exit wound from a piece of broken up bullet. In all my experience hunting, I have NEVER seen an entrance wound of this nature, or an exit wound smaller than the entrance wound.

If the only damage done was a small entrance wound in the temple and a large exit wound in the rear, I would say the work was done by a hollow point. I have seen this many times hunting deer. The hollow point will make an entry wound no bigger than a FMJ or soft-tipped bullet, yet it will exit (or not exit, depending on how much it breaks up) with a large gaping wound on the other side; and NOT always perfectly lined up with the trajectory of the bullet. Remember, it is not the bullet itself that makes a 3-4 inch exit wound but, rather, the pressure wave this rapidly expanding bullet creates in front of it.

The damage to the facial bones puzzles me, though, and may be the one thing supporting your claim of an exploding bullet. It may also point to a second bullet that entered the rear of JFK's head within a fraction of a second of the one that entered his temple. There seems to be other evidence that supports this theory.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David G. Healy]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

...

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

...

sounds like you're throwing down a gauntlet at the Wecht Conference, is that correct? So there's no misunderstanding of your intentions?

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

...

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

...

sounds like you're throwing down a gauntlet at the Wecht Conference, is that correct? So there's no misunderstanding of your intentions?

Actually, no. I was asked to debate David about the Harper fragment. I said I didn't want a debate per se, where we went back and forth and tried to one-up each other. I said I thought David and I could take turns discussing our interpretations of the Harper fragment, and how it fits into our over-all view of the medical evidence. I expect we can do this in a friendly manner, where we won't even need a moderator.

So there it is. I respect David Mantik and consider him a gentleman. I just think his "expertise" has been greatly exaggerated...

I consider him a knowledgeable researcher, whose views are worth considering, but not one whose views should be considered gospel until proven otherwise. This puts him in pretty good company, IMO.

[Pat Speer]

Hello Pat

I do not have any experience with "exploding bullets", and I am not sure what would even qualify a rifle bullet to be in this category. I do, however, have a great deal of experience with hunting deer with ammunition loaded with "soft tipped" hunting ammunition.

I also have some experience hunting deer with "hollow point" ammunition. I handload my own rifle cartridges, and, for a time, I experimented with handloading 110 grain .30 calibre hollow point bullets into cartridges for a .308 deer rifle.

I should point out that I and most of the people who live up here are strictly meat hunters, and we always attempt to maximize the amount of meat we can recover from a kill. For some, this will mean a carefully placed lung shot. This will work, but I like eating the heart of the deer, and there is a good chance the bullet will hit it and spoil it. The rest of us go strictly for head shots which, of course, requires more concentration while shooting and the grace to pass up a shot if there is a possibility of missing.

I chose the hollow point bullets because I wanted the slug to achieve maximum expansion once it entered the deer's skull and, thereby, maximum damage. Well, they did everything I wanted them to do. Not a single deer that I shot in the head with a hollow point bullet ever got back on its feet. However, the results were so obscene that, out of respect for the deer, I eventually quit using them.

Judging from the damage done to JFK's head, I do not believe any kind of exploding bullet was used in the assassination and I believe a hollow point rifle bullet could easily have accounted for his head wounds. This, of course, depends on which school of thought one subscribes to regarding JFK's head wounds. I believe Tom Robinson was very thorough in tracking down these wounds and, by his count, there appears to be one large exit wound in the right rear, one small 1/4" entrance wound in the right temple, and, as pointed out by Mr. Robinson, severe breakage of most of the bones in JFK's face. I find it a little disturbing that Mr. Robinson, supposedly an experienced mortician, could be so easily convinced that a large gaping wound the size of an orange could be an entrance wound and that a neat little quarter inch wound in the temple (gee what a coincidence, the same diameter as a 6.5 calibre rifle bullet!) could be an exit wound from a piece of broken up bullet. In all my experience hunting, I have NEVER seen an entrance wound of this nature, or an exit wound smaller than the entrance wound.

If the only damage done was a small entrance wound in the temple and a large exit wound in the rear, I would say the work was done by a hollow point. I have seen this many times hunting deer. The hollow point will make an entry wound no bigger than a FMJ or soft-tipped bullet, yet it will exit (or not exit, depending on how much it breaks up) with a large gaping wound on the other side; and NOT always perfectly lined up with the trajectory of the bullet. Remember, it is not the bullet itself that makes a 3-4 inch exit wound but, rather, the pressure wave this rapidly expanding bullet creates in front of it.

The damage to the facial bones puzzles me, though, and may be the one thing supporting your claim of an exploding bullet. It may also point to a second bullet that entered the rear of JFK's head within a fraction of a second of the one that entered his temple. There seems to be other evidence that supports this theory.

Thanks, Robert, for your insight. To be clear, my statement about an exploding bullet was in reference to Mantik's article, in which he cites Robinson in support of his contention a bullet entered Kennedy's face and left a trail of fragments across the top of his skull. This trail should be taken as evidence the bullet broke up upon entrance. A full metal jacket bullet that breaks up upon entrance would be expected to leave a larger-than-normal entrance, not smaller than normal entrance.

Perhaps Mantik believes this bullet was not a FMJ bullet, and that the tiny entrance sans abrasion collar described by Robinson was consistent with this other kind of bullet. He doesn't say.

[Daniel Gallup]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.