How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[Denny Zartman]

Every so often the topic of the JFK assassination comes up on different websites that I browse. It's always interesting for me to read the comments and conversations. I can get a sense of the way a number of people think and react to the subject. It's good to know that people are still interested in the JFK assassination and seem quite willing to engage in debate.

There are certain specific topics that appear to come up again and again, but it seems one of the most persistent is the theory that Secret Service Agent George Hickey actually killed JFK. I'd say that only about 20% of people I've seen discussing the assassination seem to adhere to this theory, while the rest are evenly split between conspiracy and lone shooter.

According to the George Hickey theory first raised in the 1992 book "Mortal Error" and widely distributed via the 2013 documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", Hickey accidentally fired the head shot at Kennedy as the limo Hickey was standing in accelerated suddenly.

So, how do/would you address it when the George Hickey theory comes up in conversation?

[Chris Bristow]

I think the weakest part of the theory is that it requires the 'official' head wound location. The Parkland staff's testimony is highly consistent and there is a great deal of corroboration by autopsy personnel. The weight of the evidence in their testimony and reports from that day are far greater than the very weak counter arguments that support the WC or Hickey injury location.
 It does seem likely that he discharged the AR as many people like Sen Yarborough distinctly smelled gunpowder.

[Pat Speer]

I have an article on my website entitled "The Smoking Gun that Lied" that debunks the Hickey theory and the TV show The Smoking Gun in particular.

The most damning piece of evidence, by far, that went unmentioned in the The Smoking Gun, is the Bronson film which shows Hickey at the time of the fatal shot. Well, guess what, he's sitting.

 

 

Shortly after I wrote my article, moreover, Bonar Meninger, the author of Mortal Error, wrote an article claiming the Bronson film failed to show Hickey was sitting. Except, he was forgetting something...his own book. I then took an illustration from his book showing Hickey's position at the time of the shooting and placed it on top of the Bronson film. It's conclusive, IMO. Hickey was sitting, not standing, when the fatal shot was fired.

 

 

Edited February 28 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

On 11/1/2021 at 12:06 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Every so often the topic of the JFK assassination comes up on different websites that I browse. It's always interesting for me to read the comments and conversations. I can get a sense of the way a number of people think and react to the subject. It's good to know that people are still interested in the JFK assassination and seem quite willing to engage in debate.

There are certain specific topics that appear to come up again and again, but it seems one of the most persistent is the theory that Secret Service Agent George Hickey actually killed JFK. I'd say that only about 20% of people I've seen discussing the assassination seem to adhere to this theory, while the rest are evenly split between conspiracy and lone shooter.

According to the George Hickey theory first raised in the 1992 book "Mortal Error" and widely distributed via the 2013 documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", Hickey accidentally fired the head shot at Kennedy as the limo Hickey was standing in accelerated suddenly.

So, how do/would you address it when the George Hickey theory comes up in conversation?

That depends on who your talking to.  To most people I'd say bullshit.  It was a concocted Mockingbird much like case closed story to counter Oliver Stone's JFK.  To the rest, pull your head out.  Look at the year it came out. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Pete Mellor]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:06 PM, Denny Zartman said:

So, how do/would you address it when the George Hickey theory comes up in conversation?

Denny, I'm no ballistics or film expert & nothing from the autopsy X-rays or photographs prove anything to me of bullet trajectories...but I've always dismissed the Hickey AR-15 theory simply on the Queen Mary seating positions of O'Donnell and Powers, who were right in front of Hickey.  Their ears would have been ringing if any firearm was discharged.

'While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off.  We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air.  The impact lifted him and shook him limply, as if he was a rag doll, and then he dropped out of our sight, sprawled across the back seat of the car.  I said to Dave, "He's dead."  A Secret Service agent beside me, probably Tim McIntyre who was standing behind Clint Hill on the left running board, pulled his gun and I reached for it, pushing it down, thinking that if he fired, he might hit somebody in the crowd.'  (Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye)

Kennedy aide Dave Powers said, "Someone a foot away from me or two feet away from me couldn't fire a gun without me hearing it."

[Benjamin Cole]

Zero eyewitnesses.

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

That depends on who your talking to.  To most people I'd say bullshit.  It was a concocted Mockingbird much like case closed story to counter Oliver Stone's JFK.  To the rest, pull your head out.  Look at the year it came out. 

Except...Donahue had been spewing his theory on radio and in articles since the '70s. You are correct, however, in that the book would almost certainly have not found a home with a major publisher should Oliver Stone's movie have not met with a popular reception. But Donahue's theory is far from the defense of the government one might assume it is. He claimed there was mass conspiracy to cover up what actually happened. Which is pretty much what most of us believe. He also pointed out that the Warren Commission's head wound bullet trajectory was nonsense. At the time Mortal Error came out, Donahue was probably the most credible person, in the eyes of the mainstream media, to claim as much.  

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Except...Donahue had been spewing his theory on radio and in articles since the '70s. You are correct, however, in that the book would almost certainly have not found a home with a major publisher should Oliver Stone's movie have not met with a popular reception. But Donahue's theory is far from the defense of the government one might assume it is. He claimed there was mass conspiracy to cover up what actually happened. Which is pretty much what most of us believe. He also pointed out that the Warren Commission's head wound bullet trajectory was nonsense. At the time Mortal Error came out, Donahue was probably the most credible person, in the eyes of the mainstream media, to claim as much.  

Thank you for hanging on to straighten me out once again.  You, Jim, Larry, Joe McBride and so many more I lean on, true researchers while I just try to understand.  I didn't know Donahue's theory went back to the 70's.  No idea about his mass conspiracy theory or the WC/trajectory thoughts.  Being somewhat pessimistic about some things I have to wonder where he got the idea in the first place.  I've just always found the idea ridiculous based on what I've read of the book, which I've not wasted (imo) my time on.   

I really need to read the link you provided earlier.  It may answer questions for me.  Was the idea suggested to him, was he urged to use it.  Was it considered handy as a back story by the Mockingbird when Stones JFK was developing?  Just waiting to be developed.  It's amazing how many have fallen for this story.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you for hanging on to straighten me out once again.  You, Jim, Larry, Joe McBride and so many more I lean on, true researchers while I just try to understand.  I didn't know Donahue's theory went back to the 70's.  No idea about his mass conspiracy theory or the WC/trajectory thoughts.  Being somewhat pessimistic about some things I have to wonder where he got the idea in the first place.  I've just always found the idea ridiculous based on what I've read of the book, which I've not wasted (imo) my time on.   

I really need to read the link you provided earlier.  It may answer questions for me.  Was the idea suggested to him, was he urged to use it.  Was it considered handy as a back story by the Mockingbird when Stones JFK was developing?  Just waiting to be developed.  It's amazing how many have fallen for this story.

Donahue believed the Clark Panel when they said the entrance wound on the back of the head was by the cowlick, and not by the EOP. He then rear-projected the presumed location of the exit wound through this supposed entrance, and realized that it didn't point back to the sniper's nest, but to an area above the back seat of the follow-up car. He then convinced himself it was Hickey, the only person in the follow-up car with a rifle. Part of the reason he came to believe as much, moreover, was that the Clark Panel's claim there was a small bullet entrance but a large exit was much more in keeping with the wound ballistics of the AR-15 than the Mannlicher-Carcano. He was right about most of this stuff. Where he went wrong was trusting the Clark Panel. There was no bullet entrance by the cowlick. They pretended there was so they could discount Josiah Thompson's observation that the WC's trajectory made little sense. 

FWIW, I came to conclude that the reason neither the WC nor Clark Panel's trajectories made sense was that the small entrance on the back of the head and large head wound observed at autopsy were not connected, and that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, as first proposed by the first doctor to examine the head wound, Dr. William Kemp Clark.

[Denise Hazelwood]

My documentary on YouTube describes a modified Donahue theory. Part 1: "The Players" can be found at https://youtu.be/kcLEDnamxyk There is a PlayList at the end of each video (but before the YouTube algorithms add their own "watch next" links) to help navigate to the various episodes. Feel free to comment under each video. 

 

I do not specifically address #1 and #2 in the "against" arguments below within the videos, but I do briefly touch on them in the written description to Part 3 of my series. I do talk about EOP vs. cowlick entry, however. 

 

 

The arguments against “Hickey did it” (and my responses)

 

1. “The Bronson film shows Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination.”     It does no such thing. 

A. the AR-15 head shot was not concurrent with the Moorman photo as most researchers believe. The AR-15 shot happened farther down Elm Street.

B. The blurry Bronson image really doesn’t show a lot, but you CAN see a “black stick” that is probably the AR-15.

C. Since my “kill shot” is the FIRST shot (from the TSBD), Hickey actually WAS "seated at the moment of the assassination.”

 

2.  The lawsuit “proves” Hickey didn’t do it.    Again, it does no such thing.

A. The law suit (against St. Martin’s Press, not Donahue or Menninger) was filed AFTER the statute of limiitations had expired. In my view, it was done as a quasi-legal attempt to discredit Donahue.

B. It was settled for an “undisclosed amount”—possibly as little as $1. St. Martin’s Press may have settled as a matter of convenience rather than on the merits of the suit.

C. I communicated with Menninger and the St. Martin’s Press attorney, who both gave me different accounts of the Bronson film viewing than the lawsuit alleges, and the prevailing opinion is that it was a “set up” by Gary Mack. 

 

3.  “The autopsy doctors disavowed the cowlick entry in favor of the EOP, which means Donahue got his trajectory wrong. And if his trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart.” 

A. There is a ogical fallacy here. I disagree with Donahue’s cowlick in favor of the EOP. But the part to whole fallacy applies. Just because PART of the theory was wrong, doesn’t mean that OTHER PARTS are wrong, too.

B. If the Z-film is authentic, the EOP entry would mean an UPWARD trajectory—which is nonsense, of course. That’s why the Clark Panel & HSCA insisted on the cowlick.

C. There is also the matter of the slightly left-to-right travel through the skull.

D. Those who believe in BOTH the authenticity of the Zapruder film AND the EOP entry have a major trajectory problem on their hands. Donahue resolved it by accepting the cowlick entry. I resolve it by accepting Zapruder film alteration.

 

4. “Accidents don’t get any freaker.”

A. Maybe not, but freak accidents CAN and DO happen. My own aunt was killed in a freak accident.

B. When guns are involved, accidental shootings happen quite frequently.

C. The too-heavy firing pin making the AR-15 prone to slam fire means that Hickey didn’t even have to pull the trigger.

 

Evidence in favor of the AR-15 accident:

 

• AR-15 immediately removed from Secret Service arsenal after the assassination.
• Shanklin memo noting that the “gun that apparently killed the President” was in the hands of the Secret Service on the same day as the assassination.
• 6.0mm entrance wound
• Smell of gun smoke at street level in Dealey Plaza, clinging to the motorcade on the way to Parkland Hospital, and even smelled INSIDE the hospital.
• Hickey’s “agitated” state of mind
• Some witnesses reporting the sound of a shot “from right there, in the car.”
• Fits accounts of an “accident” or “mis-hap"
• Fits the “Knoll Rider and acoustical perception.
• Fits accounts of a Secret Service man falling like he was killed, too.
• Fits the “double bang” reported by witnesses
• Fits the “puff of smoke” reported by witnesses
• Adequately explains the cover-up, including the immediacy of the cover-up. 

 

If I'm missing anything, please comment under my YouTube video, so I can address it.

 

-Denise

 

[Denny Zartman]

Cross posting this for Denise

-

Hi Denise, thanks for sharing your work. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it.

I'll try to watch some of your documentary when I can. I appreciate your summary.

It's not exactly clear from your summary where in the firing sequence you think the AR-15 shot took place. I am sure your documentary covers this. If it was the final head shot, there are significant questions outstanding. If it was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot, and therefore difficult to understand why this would be urgent focus of an extensive multi-decade cover-up. Either way, the Hickey scenario does not explain the evidence indicating that shots were fired from in front of JFK's limo, nor the myriad other mysteries that exist in this case.

The documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", which advocates the Hickey theory, relies primarily on Senator Ralph Yarborough's testimony of smelling gunsmoke at street level and Jean Hill's testimony that she initially believed the Secret Service was shooting back. Hickey was in front of Yarborough. Yarborough placed the gunfire he heard as coming from behind. Hill placed the source of the shots she heard as coming from the grassy knoll. Neither Hill nor Yarborough placed the sound of shots as coming from Hickey's position relative to themselves.

Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, riding in the limo with Hickey, told former speaker of the House Tip O'Neill that they (Powers and O'Donnell) believed the gunfire was coming from in front of them. Hickey was in the seat behind Powers and O'Donnell at the time.

If you have other witnesses who stated that they thought the gunfire was coming from inside one of the cars, I'd be interested in reading what they had to say. I haven't ever heard of them, and from what I recall, they were not highlighted in "JFK: The Smoking Gun".

If the alleged AR-15 shot was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot. Therefore it is very hard to believe that an immediate cover-up would take place just to save the feelings of a Secret Service man who had an accident and didn't even fire a fatal shot. 

More importantly, the remaining documents that were scheduled for release this year were delayed again until December 2022 because they felt there was a potential for endangering national security. I am genuinely curious: how could Hickey's accident and a benign cover up to save him the shame of being branded by history as the killer of a president in 1963 possibly endanger US national security in 2021?

If the alleged AR-15 shot was the final head shot, then it does not explain the doctors and nurses at Parkland who report that there was a large exit wound in the right rear of Kennedy's skull. An exit wound in the rear of the head would not have occurred if the shot had also been fired from behind. A shot from Hickey would also not explain JFK's head and body being driven backward and to the left, toward Hickey and not away from him.

And then there's Jackie's behavior to consider. Either she was going back to 1. retrieve a piece of JFK's skull which had been driven backwards from JFK's head, or 2. she was trying to escape from a shooter. Either one is inconsistent with a headshot shooter behind JFK.

[Denny Zartman]

I was reading a JFK discussion on another forum yesterday and, like clockwork, four or five people state authoritatively that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot and killed JFK. They never know Hickey's name, and that to me always says a lot. If the theory they believe was true, they literally have the name of the real killer of Kennedy on hand, and they don't care enough to retain it in their minds.

The basic attitude seems to be "Case solved, move on."

I think I try to keep as open a mind as I can whenever I can in this case, but I just can't buy the Hickey theory. To me, it's strained and unbelievable, not supported by significant evidence, and in the end doesn't provide any useful answers.

I think I do understand the appeal of the Hickey theory, though. It's simple. "JFK Revisited" brings it home that to understand the Kennedy assassination is to demand some knowledge of complex 1960's geopolitics and to be willing to walk into a virtual blizzard of names. Names of many folks who lived their entire professional lives in clandestine shadows. Not a lot of people are willing to step up to those requirements.

In contrast, from what I see, the Hickey theory is just "Whoops, lost my footing and had an accident". Everyone makes mistakes, and all of us understand the motivation to want to try and cover it up whenever someone has made an embarrassing, tragic mistake. It's easy to understand, it's relatable, and it doesn't demand any knowledge of geopolitics from half a century ago or keeping track of dozens of relatively obscure names of people who were intentionally trying to remain obscure. For many who seem to automatically advocate the Hickey theory, they don't even bother to keep track of Hickey's name. Really, what could be easier than that?

[Ron Bulman]

8 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

My documentary on YouTube describes a modified Donahue theory. Part 1: "The Players" can be found at https://youtu.be/kcLEDnamxyk There is a PlayList at the end of each video (but before the YouTube algorithms add their own "watch next" links) to help navigate to the various episodes. Feel free to comment under each video. 

 

I do not specifically address #1 and #2 in the "against" arguments below within the videos, but I do briefly touch on them in the written description to Part 3 of my series. I do talk about EOP vs. cowlick entry, however. 

 

 

The arguments against “Hickey did it” (and my responses)

 

1. “The Bronson film shows Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination.”     It does no such thing. 

A. the AR-15 head shot was not concurrent with the Moorman photo as most researchers believe. The AR-15 shot happened farther down Elm Street.

B. The blurry Bronson image really doesn’t show a lot, but you CAN see a “black stick” that is probably the AR-15.

C. Since my “kill shot” is the FIRST shot (from the TSBD), Hickey actually WAS "seated at the moment of the assassination.”

 

2.  The lawsuit “proves” Hickey didn’t do it.    Again, it does no such thing.

A. The law suit (against St. Martin’s Press, not Donahue or Menninger) was filed AFTER the statute of limiitations had expired. In my view, it was done as a quasi-legal attempt to discredit Donahue.

B. It was settled for an “undisclosed amount”—possibly as little as $1. St. Martin’s Press may have settled as a matter of convenience rather than on the merits of the suit.

C. I communicated with Menninger and the St. Martin’s Press attorney, who both gave me different accounts of the Bronson film viewing than the lawsuit alleges, and the prevailing opinion is that it was a “set up” by Gary Mack. 

 

3.  “The autopsy doctors disavowed the cowlick entry in favor of the EOP, which means Donahue got his trajectory wrong. And if his trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart.” 

A. There is a ogical fallacy here. I disagree with Donahue’s cowlick in favor of the EOP. But the part to whole fallacy applies. Just because PART of the theory was wrong, doesn’t mean that OTHER PARTS are wrong, too.

B. If the Z-film is authentic, the EOP entry would mean an UPWARD trajectory—which is nonsense, of course. That’s why the Clark Panel & HSCA insisted on the cowlick.

C. There is also the matter of the slightly left-to-right travel through the skull.

D. Those who believe in BOTH the authenticity of the Zapruder film AND the EOP entry have a major trajectory problem on their hands. Donahue resolved it by accepting the cowlick entry. I resolve it by accepting Zapruder film alteration.

 

4. “Accidents don’t get any freaker.”

A. Maybe not, but freak accidents CAN and DO happen. My own aunt was killed in a freak accident.

B. When guns are involved, accidental shootings happen quite frequently.

C. The too-heavy firing pin making the AR-15 prone to slam fire means that Hickey didn’t even have to pull the trigger.

 

Evidence in favor of the AR-15 accident:

 

• AR-15 immediately removed from Secret Service arsenal after the assassination.
• Shanklin memo noting that the “gun that apparently killed the President” was in the hands of the Secret Service on the same day as the assassination.
• 6.0mm entrance wound
• Smell of gun smoke at street level in Dealey Plaza, clinging to the motorcade on the way to Parkland Hospital, and even smelled INSIDE the hospital.
• Hickey’s “agitated” state of mind
• Some witnesses reporting the sound of a shot “from right there, in the car.”
• Fits accounts of an “accident” or “mis-hap"
• Fits the “Knoll Rider and acoustical perception.
• Fits accounts of a Secret Service man falling like he was killed, too.
• Fits the “double bang” reported by witnesses
• Fits the “puff of smoke” reported by witnesses
• Adequately explains the cover-up, including the immediacy of the cover-up. 

 

If I'm missing anything, please comment under my YouTube video, so I can address it.

 

-Denise

 

Can anyone here spell horse s h i t?

[Denise Hazelwood]

Quote

It's not exactly clear from your summary where in the firing sequence you think the AR-15 shot took place. I am sure your documentary covers this. 

Yes, it does. See Part 7: "The Four Shots" It is the first shot of the double-bang. Note that the Moorman photo is not concurrent with any head shot. Moorman thought her picture was simultaneous with the first shot, not the last (she missed earlier shots, as the ones she was not "sure of"). The Z313 head shot is the product of film alteration.

As far as JFK:The Smoking Gun documentary and Mortal Error are concerned, these advocate for Donahue's original theory. Donahue was on the right track with the AR-15 accident, but was wrong about the SBT and the cowlick entrance. I explain why in the documentary.

I don't know why Biden is holding documents for another year. Maybe waiting for Clint Hill to die of old age? Who knows. My ego would like to think they're waiting to give my documentary a chance. 🙂 

If you watch Part 6: "The Kill Shot" you will know that the fatal shot did come from the front. Why it was covered up even though it came from the TSBD (Oswald?) was because there was a math problem. In order to hide the AR-15 shot, one of the TSBD shots had to "disappear." The Secret Service were slow to respond to this shot--had "their thumbs up their butts" as described in Part 1, and in part 10 I give a Yarborough quote as to how he felt lulled into a false sense of security for the President's safety, because the SS agents didn't seem to react. So covering up this shot had an additional benefit of hiding the SS inaction. The first shot was the one people were least likely to notice (the "moonwalking bear"). It created only a small entrance wound, and the "hair lift" helped to hide the exit in the back of the head. What ejected flew out very quickly, and was thought to be "paper" or a "streamer" or bits of a "firecracker" (actually a skull fragment). I give a video of Pierce Allman describing where the first shot happened, and give a contemporaneous newspaper account of young Alan Smith describing that it hit Kennedy in the "forehead" and some clips of Dan Rather describing the corner is "right here" where the President was hit and a clip of Walter Cronkite saying that Kennedy was struck "once or twice in the head." 

I am unaware of any account of Hill placing any shots as coming from "the Grassy Knoll" although there are acoustical reasons why many people thought it came from there. There was no shooter behind the fence. If you listen to Lee Bowers in the Rush to Judgement LP, the only "pedestrians" he describes seeing were two men on the Elm Street side of the fence (Emmett Hudson & the young man he was standing with, perhaps?) There is a transcript of an excised portion of Rush to Judgement where Bowers specifically says there was no  shooter on his side of the fence.

Austin Miller thought that at least one of the shots was coming from "right there, in the car." If you watch the whole documentary, you'll see that not just the AR-15 shot came from the Secret Service, but also the Altgens 6 shot was a warning shot fired by one of Johnson's follow-up car agents (ricocheting off the Stemmons sign and causing the windshield hole).

 

-Denise

[Denise Hazelwood]

Quote

Can anyone here spell horse s h i t?

Comments like this are why I generally avoid the forum sites. If, after actually watching my documentary, you would like to post any factual arguments against what I've presented there, you are welcome to do so.