Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[David Von Pein]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

the external occipital exuberance

  Is it the EOE now, instead of EOP?

I know this was just a typo on Sandy's part, but when I read it just now, it made me laugh quite hard. Thanks for today's humor break, Sandy!

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Does it bother you at all that the HSCA moved the entrance wound that  Humes saw near the external occipital exuberance [sic] up by 4 cm [sic], to the cowlick area of the head?

I assume you meant to say 4 inches, not 4 centimeters.

But, anyway, it wasn't the HSCA who first noticed and documented and reported on the fact that the autopsy doctors were wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound....it was the Clark Panel ten years earlier. The HSCA merely confirmed the obviousness of the "cowlick" entry location:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report

----------------------

From a 2015 discussion....

PAT SPEER SAID -- There is a red oval in this photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID -- Yeah, yeah. Sure, Pat. That's why there's a ruler up next to the red spot. And that's why the red spot is the ONLY thing in that picture which comes even close to resembling a bullet hole. And that's why the HSCA and the Clark Panel BOTH confirmed via multiple measurements (in both the SCALP and the SKULL) that the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head was located approximately 100mm. above the EOP.

 

Edited March 29 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

  Is it the EOE now, instead of EOP?

I know this was just a typo on Sandy's part, but when I read it just now, it made me laugh quite hard. Thanks for today's humor break, Sandy!

 

 

I thought something seemed amiss when I wrote that. I was in a rush.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

Dave,

That spot of blood you're referring to in the cowlick area cannot be the entrance wound seen by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. First off, they all saw the wound near the EOP. How could they all be wrong abut that, let alone Humes alone being wrong?

In addition, all three of those doctors said that they saw only HALF of a wound. The other half was on a fragment brought in later. In other words, they saw only half of the hole because it was on the margin of the bone. Even the autopsy report states this.

How do you explain this?

 

[David Von Pein]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In addition, all three of those doctors said that they saw only HALF of a wound. The other half was on a fragment brought in later. In other words, they saw only half of the hole because it was on the margin of the bone. Even the autopsy report states this.

How do you explain this?

Because the entry hole in the SCALP looked quite different from the entry in the SKULL BONE. The scalp was completely intact in the back of the head, unlike the shattered skull bone.

 

Edited March 29 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I wrote a book on this topic because, whether or not the tests prove Oswald's innocence, the DPD and FBI's behavior regarding these tests is proof THEY thought they were suggestive of Oswald's innocence, and were scared this would come out. 

As far as the paraffin (wax) casts, they were taken home by the DPD crime lab employee who'd conducted the tests, and brought back a few days later when the FBI expressed an interest in them. This makes their chain of custody better than average (for this case)...certainly better than the chain-of-custody for the shells.  

In other words, we have no evidence the paraffin cast sent to Guinn is, or is not, the actual paraffin mask used on LHO. 

[Sandy Larsen]

48 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Because the entry hole in the SCALP looked quite different from the entry in the SKULL BONE. The scalp was completely intact in the back of the head, unlike the shattered skull bone.

 

You completely ignored my first question. Understandably so.

Only a WC apologist could believe that three doctors ALL saw a missing bone fragment from the occiput, and half of an entrance wound on the margin of the remaining bone, when in reality there was no missing bone at all and no bullet wound on the margin of the remaining bone.

They all hallucinated. Just like all the doctor and nurses at Parkland hallucinated a gaping hole on the back of the head.

Incredible.

 

[David Von Pein]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Only a WC apologist could believe that three doctors ALL saw a missing bone fragment from the occiput,

They saw no such thing.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The paraffin tests were not considered reliable, even in 1963. The NAA tests are considered reliable, even today. 

But, as to your larger point, yes, you are correct. The tests were performed too late to be conclusive. But there was plenty of gsr on his hands, and he was not believed to have washed his face, so the negative result for antimony on his cheek is undoubtedly suggestive of his innocence. 

When one takes into account, moreover, that the cheek casts ended up with more barium on the control side of the cheek cast than the side that had been applied to his face, the suspicion someone tried to rig the tests is justified. 

PS--

 

This is from your website .You are a solid researcher.

"Another memo on this transfer notes further that (the LHO) paraffin casts were normally thrown out by the Dallas Police Department after testing, and that Louie Anderson, who'd analyzed the casts for the DPD, had washed them and taken them home, apparently as a souvenir."

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

Egads. So the LHO paraffin casts, in addition to having no verifiable chain of evidence, were "washed" before the NAA testing? 

It is not possible (likely?) that in addition to the paraffin tests having been conducted too many ours after the shooting event to be dispositive, the paraffin masks were then "washed," which would have further reduced GSR? Eliminated GSR? 

Of course, it is still possible LH simply shielded his face with paper while firing the M-L one time on 11/22. There was plenty of paper and tape around. 

Really, it seems a bit dicey to deduce much from this particular bit of evidence.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In other words, we have no evidence the paraffin cast sent to Guinn is, or is not, the actual paraffin mask used on LHO. 

What? Not at all.

1. The crime lab person who took the casts home returned them to the FBI. The cheek cast was the only cheek cast the DPD had ever tested. So, no, it's unlikely he returned different casts than the ones he took home. And this becomes especially clear when one considers that someone tampered with the casts by adding barium. I mean, why would he or they have done that, if these were substitute casts, which could have been easily phoned up by having someone else fire a rifle and then testing his cheek?

2. Guinn never tested or even saw the paraffin cast from Oswald's cheek. Fearful the tests would be negative and that the press would find out, the FBI asked Guinn to conduct control studies using similar rifles--to see if one would expect to find gsr on the cheeks of someone who'd fired that rifle. His controls said yes. They then took this info and sat on it, and failed to tell Guinn both that they'd performed one control using the actual rifle which had led them to come to the same conclusion, and that their tests for the actual casts had found insufficient antimony, and had thereby provided a negative result. 

I go through all this in chapter 4f https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention 

If you can make it through you will know more about this topic than all but a handful...

P.S. I wrote this response before seeing your most recent post, in which you make it clear you have taken a look at my chapter. I thank you for your interest. 

Edited March 29 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS--

 

This is from your website .You are a solid researcher.

"Another memo on this transfer notes further that (the LHO) paraffin casts were normally thrown out by the Dallas Police Department after testing, and that Louie Anderson, who'd analyzed the casts for the DPD, had washed them and taken them home, apparently as a souvenir."

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

Egads. So the LHO paraffin casts, in addition to having no verifiable chain of evidence, were "washed" before the NAA testing? 

It is not possible (likely?) that in addition to the paraffin tests having been conducted too many ours after the shooting event to be dispositive, the paraffin masks were then "washed," which would have further reduced GSR? Eliminated GSR? 

Of course, it is still possible LH simply shielded his face with paper while firing the M-L one time on 11/22. There was plenty of paper and tape around. 

Really, it seems a bit dicey to deduce much from this particular bit of evidence.

If you keep reading you will see that Guinn washed his casts when performing his controls, and that by the end of the chapter I make the argument they were not actually washed. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Only a WC apologist could believe that three doctors ALL saw a missing bone fragment from the occiput...

They saw no such thing.

 

Yes they did. See this thread, first post.

 

[Gil Jesus]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Good argument on this point Gil.

The argument has always been that it looks like a smoking-gun incrimination, too much to be coincidence, that of all TSBD employees, Oswald's is the only known TSBD employee fingerprint match found on those cartons in the location from which a shooter was seen and three shell hulls found.

But Gil Jesus has just shown a plausible explanation for why Oswald's, and not any other TSBD employee's, fingerprints might reasonably turn up on those cartons there, in a way not necessarily implicating Oswald in shooting: his work filling orders for Scott Foresman books (assuming that lettering on the side of that carton in the photo of the arrow in the illustration confirms Scott Foresman books; I cannot quite verify that from reading it myself).

To advocates of the Oswald LN interpretation, this is no problem because Oswald still could have done it. But it starts to go in circles when convicting someone on the basis that he could have done the crime, as distinguished from proof that he did.

 

Greg, if you look at WHERE Oswald's prints were located on the cartons, you'll see that Oswald's prints were ON TOP. It appears that CE 641 was lying on top of CE 648, so he picked it up from the bottom and rolled it over and placed it on top of the box under the window. That's how his prints ended up on the top of CE 641.

His right palm print wrapped around the top corner of CE 648 indicates that he lifted it up to read what was on the carton's inside.

Here's a better look at those Scott-Foresman book cartons in the so-called "Sniper's Nest". Courtesy ( believe it or not ) of David Von Pein's blog. Now you know why he's been silent on this issue. He knows it's fact. Cartons of Scott-Foresman books were stacked in the southeast corner, making up the "wall" that hid the "sniper's nest". Oswald was filling Scott-Foresman orders that day. A witness saw him at 11:55 coming from that area with a clipboard ( not a rifle ) in his hands. On the clipboard were the orders he was in the process of filling. The witness saw the orders. He testified to it.

Oswald's prints on the cartons are not evidence that he fired a rifle. You're correct that it's quite a leap that the Warren Commission and its apologists are willing to make. But the evidence indicates that Oswald was working in that area that day so his fingerprints on those cartons are worthless as evidence and NOT proof of his guilt.

Now, if Oswald had killed JFK by throwing cartons at him, I'd say there was proof there. If that sounds silly, that just tells you how silly the argument is that his fingerprints on the cartons are somehow proof that he fired a rifle.

I've offered a reasonable explanation of why Oswald's fingerprints were on the cartons in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. I've provided evidence in the form of photos and testimony to support that explanation. I challenge any of the Warren Commission supporters to refute anything on this subject that I've posted.

Edited March 29 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

deleted

Edited March 29 by Gil Jesus

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Greg, if you look at WHERE Oswald's prints were located on the cartons, you'll see that Oswald's prints were ON TOP. It appears that CE 641 was lying on top of CE 648, so he picked it up from the bottom and rolled it over and placed it on top of the box under the window. That's how his prints ended up on the top of CE 641.

His right palm print wrapped around the top corner of CE 648 indicates that he lifted it up to read what was on the carton's inside.

Here's a better look at those Scott-Foresman book cartons in the so-called "Sniper's Nest". Courtesy ( believe it or not ) of David Von Pein's blog. Now you know why he's been silent on this issue. He knows it's fact. Cartons of Scott-Foresman books were stacked in the southeast corner, making up the "wall" that hid the "sniper's nest". Oswald was filling Scott-Foresman orders that day. A witness saw him at 11:55 coming from that area with a clipboard ( not a rifle ) in his hands. On the clipboard were the orders he was in the process of filling. The witness saw the orders. He testified to it.

Oswald's prints on the cartons are not evidence that he fired a rifle. You're correct that it's quite a leap that the Warren Commission and its apologists are willing to make. But the evidence indicates that Oswald was working in that area that day so his fingerprints on those cartons are worthless as evidence and NOT proof of his guilt.

Now, if Oswald had killed JFK by throwing cartons at him, I'd say there was proof there. If that sounds silly, that just tells you how silly the argument is that his fingerprints on the cartons are somehow proof that he fired a rifle.

I've offered a reasonable explanation of why Oswald's fingerprints were on the cartons in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. I've provided evidence in the form of photos and testimony to support that explanation. I challenge any of the Warren Commission supporters to refute anything on this subject that I've posted.

Thanks Gil for this additional. I see the clear “Scott, Foresman, and Company” labelings on the cartons there. 

My only thought in looking at the photos is in reconstructing how the hands would have worked in moving the cartons. I am not sure two hands on the bottom of a carton, then flipping it over on its back such that the hands and prints end up on top, sounds quite right to me. 

I would think if a carton on top of another was to be lifted to move it out of the way, such as CE 641 lifted off the top of CE 648, it would be done by using two full hands on opposite corners of the three-dimensional carton (one on the bottom for lifting and the other on the opposite corner on top for balancing), lift, pivot, then set it back down nearby, same side up. 

That would exactly account for the full left palm print location on CE 641 as one of the two corners held in that way to move the box (the hand on top for balancing). The other hand, his right hand, would be a full right hand cupped under the bottom of the carton at the opposite corner, even though no print was lifted from there. Not everywhere touched would necessarily leave usable prints. The additional right index fingerprint on the top of CE 641 would have been left in the course of moving or adjusting that carton but would not represent a full hand used in lifting the carton, which requires one full hand under the bottom of the carton. 

Then with CE 641 lifted and moved from off the top of CE 648, that right palm print on the top of CE 648 could represent a lifting up just a little of only that end of that carton for a moment, maybe in order to see if anything was written on the side of that end of the carton. That temporary lift of that end of the carton would be done with two hands, the left hand on the other end of the carton at the top holding it from moving, and the right end by pressure pivoting that end up a little as the lifter (Oswald) might peer down to check if maybe a label was there, then release that end back down to the floor again as before. Again, in this reconstruction of CE 648 both hands would have been used to lift that one end only of that carton a few inches up off the floor before setting it back down on the floor, even though a usable print was lifted from only one of those hand contacts.

Since there is no mention in the reports or visible sign of those cartons being opened, I assume the way this reconstruction would work is there must have been labelings (or maybe penciled information?—something) on the outside identifying contents inside, and Oswald would be checking or looking for that, looking for the right carton which would have what was needed for an order, which in this case the CE 648 carton was not (which would be why it was not opened).

Whether or not my proposed slight modification of how the hand movements would work in moving the cartons, as you bring out there is this alternative explanation for those carton prints of Oswald in which those prints, in themselves, do not strongly indicate Oswald was there to fire the rifle, as long assumed, even though those prints establish he was there. Thanks for bringing out your research on this.