It's not called eye witness accounts in legalese terms for the simple reason human beings have five senses not just sight. It is termed witness to the fact which must be first hand for it to be credible. For example Nell and John Connally in their testimony stated that they did not see the shot which blew apart Jack kennedy's head but both said they heard it and felt it. By that they meant they heard the impact and felt the blood and brain tissue hit their bodies. Two people of sound mind and impeccable integrity, that's as good as you'll get from inside the limo. They also stated that the shot that hit Kennedy in the neck was two seconds before the one that hit John Connally. They never changed their story - ever.

Nellie was of such sound mind sh told us JFK clutched his throat. That never happened. Great witness. JBC had no way of knowing whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot. He didn't turn all the way around until he had been seriously wounded. I don't care how sound minded he was, he didn't have eyes in the back of his head.

You cannot cherry pick the statements of the Connally's just because Arlen Specter came up with the notion that it was a single bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. At some point in this assassination you have to start believing people who were in the limo not some dude in a suit making up strange bullet theories.
In my previous post I called Brennan a liar. The reason being, it is impossible for a witness to see the height of a gunman through a brick wall and boxes and his build, whether he's nice looking or not and how much he weighs yet the Dallas police acted on it and the Warren commission believed it too. The same commission then ignored two statements from high status witnesses who were actually in the limo!!!!!
When does common sense prevail? When does this nonsense stop?

I don't place any value on Brennan's ID of Oswald. I place value on him establishing the location of the shooter. The forensic evidence tells us that Oswald was the assassin, not any eyewitness.

The assumption is based on the fact that the four other passengers in the limo turned their heads within half-a-second of JFK's Z-144 head turn, the fact that Secret Service Agents Bennett and Hickey began leaning (to look at JFK and at the pavement, respectively) during the same timeframe, and Rosemary Willis turned her head away from JFK/Jackie and towards the TSBD just before JFK quickly turned his head to his left.

JBC, who was looking to his right, quickly turned his head to his left in Z-150, and in your beloved Z-164 quickly turned his head back to his right to see if JFK was okay.

Your theory is based on "jiggle analysis" and the assumption that JBC began his quick head turns in Z-164.

Why do you suppose JBC quicky turned his head to his left in Z-150?

I don't suppose anything. There are any number of reasons for the people in the limo to turn their heads. A reaction to a gunshot is just one possibility. Maybe that was the point in time when Nellie said to JFK, "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you" and JFK responded by saying, "No, you sure can't." According to Nellie, that first shot sounded just after that exchange. I'm not stating that as fact, only a possibility. Nellie wasn't the most reliable of witnesses.

-- Pitzer's family said he had been repeatedly threatened to keep quiet about his knowledge of the JFK autopsy.

Eaglesham and Palmer talked with Pitzer's family as well as friends and co-workers. I don't recall him reporting any of them saying such a thing. Did this really happen, then?

I am confident this is BS. As described above in one of my posts that no reads, in the 1976 edition of Penn Jones' Forgive My Grief, Jones borrowed directly from the 1975 newspaper article without contacting Dennis David (and probably without even knowing David was the source) and apparently invented out of whole cloth that Pitzer had been subjected to a "horrifying" debriefing and had repeatedly been warned by military types to keep his mouth shut.

This is precisely how conspiracy factoids with no more foundation than Penn Jones' fertile imagination harden into conspiracy gospel and are repeated as such by someone like MTG 50 years later.

I will now bow out because it really does become tedious to keep repeating things I've already said because know-it-alls can't be bothered to read it before ostensibly "responding."

In my recent reading, including rereading In the Eye of History, I’ve been reminded of the quality of some of the “kooks” who don’t accept the LN narrative. FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill both flatly rejected the SBT, and O’Neill became a full-tilt CTer.

Another “kook,” apparently, was Admiral George G. Burkley. There is nothing original in this post; it’s all been covered elsewhere. It’s entirely possible that someone here knows more than I do and can show I’m all wet. Nevertheless, I am astonished that Burkley doesn’t receive more attention.

Who would be more qualified than Burkley to speak about the medical aspects of the JFKA? He was a highly respected physician who served multiple Presidents; in the case of JFK, to whom he was the personal physician, he was in the Dallas motorcade, at Parkland and at Bethesda; and by his account he was “in charge of” the autopsy and entrusted with custody of the brain. By all accounts, he was capable and extremely discreet. At the time of the JFKA, he was only 61, not some doddering figurehead.

And yet, he was not called to testify by either the WC or the HSCA. Does this not seem “just a bit” odd in light of some of the obscure characters and dubious experts who did testify? He seemed to be extremely miffed that he wasn’t called by the WC. After his death, his children emphasized to the HSCA (Doug Horne) that the only thing he ever talked about in connection with the JFKA was his mystification and disappointment at not being called by the WC (more about this below). His 9-page written statement to the WC, dated November 27, 1963, is buried in Volume XXII as CE 1126 and is completely devoid of any details about the autopsy: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm.

There are clear indications that Burkley’s views differed from the orthodox LN narrative in a big way.

As early as October 17, 1967, he was interviewed by William McHugh for the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program. This exchange stopped McHugh cold:

McHUGH:  Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body?

BURKLEY:  I would not care to be quoted on that.

Really – why not? Burkley was apparently a sufficiently imposing figure that McHugh just moved on.

On March 18, 1977, then HSCA chief counsel Richard F. Sprague wrote a startling memo to the file: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/numbered_files/box_23/180-10086-10295/html/180-10086-10295_0002a.htm.

Sprague had been contacted by telephone by Burkley’s attorney, William F. Illig. Illig was no lightweight either. He was a name partner in a large and long-established Erie, PA, law firm and was 72 years old when he contacted Sprague. In consultation with Burkley on a tax matter, Burkley had indicated that “he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald may have participated.” Illig said that Burkley “wanted no publicity whatsoever” but had consented to the contact and would meet with Sprague in Washington.

Bombshell, right? We’ll never know. Less than two weeks later, Sprague was gone. Apparently – unbelievably – there was no follow-up.

Note the phrasing: Burkley “has information.” Burkley was most definitely not the type to be spreading rumors or contacting the HSCA because he’d been wowed by reading Rush to Judgment. He had something he believed was substantive and significant.

Burkley was one of several people subsequently interviewed by the HSCA in connection with a “Search for missing autopsy materials,” the title of a memo to file that Andy Purdy wrote on August 17, 1977: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md19.pdf. No bombshells, but “DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two.” Hmmm.

Burkley was interviewed by Purdy in January of 1978. Purdy followed up with a letter and a short, bland draft affidavit. See https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/BURKLEY.TXT. Paragraph 7 of the draft affidavit contained the slightly odd statement, “I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets.”

“Or bullets?” It’s a safe bet that Purdy didn’t come up with this language. When Burkley returned the signed affidavit, dated 11/28/78, he included a handwritten note stating, “Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated.”

“The possibility of two bullets?” Was Burkley perhaps trying to telegraph something? “Deemed to call me?” This sounds like a guy miffed that he wasn’t called.

Next we have the curious episode of Burkley speaking with author Henry Hurt in 1982 in connection with the preparation of Reasonable Doubt. According to the book, “In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. This startling statement, after so long a silence, amplified an obscure exchange Dr. Burkley had in an oral-history interview on file at the Kennedy Library in Boston.”

At Burkley’s request, Hurt sent him a list of the areas that Hurt wanted to explore. Burkley expressed a willingness to cooperate. Two months later, Hurt proposed a meeting. “The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.” Since Burkley was very much alive when the book came out in 1986, it’s unlikely the respected Hurt was fabricating.

Lastly, we have the ARRB. Burkley died in 1991. Doug Horne of the HSCA contacted all four of Burkley’s adult children, including the daughter (Nancy Denlea) who was the executor of his estate. The children said he was extremely discreet and never spoke about any aspect of his work with any President (which makes Sprague’s memo and Hurt’s book all the more remarkable). The only thing he said about the JFKA was to express his disappointment at not being called by the WC. The children had no relevant documents.

Here are Horne’s contact reports: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md253/html/md253_0003a.htm; https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md250.pdf; https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md251/html/md251_0002a.htm; https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md252/html/md252_0001a.htm.

The only one of interest is the first – Nancy Denlea. On January 13, 1997, she told Horne that she would sign an ARRB waiver allowing access to Burkley’s files with Illig. She would have “no objection” and this would be “no problem.” The quid pro quo was that Horne must provide her with anything the HSCA had about her father’s contacts with the WC and HSCA, to which Horne agreed. Horne’s handwritten noted dated July 16, 1998 (18 months later?) stated that she “changed her mind and decided not to sign the waiver” – and that was that.

The ARRB report does not indicate the change of mind:

The Review Board contacted the children of deceased Vice Admiral George G. Burkley, former military White House physician to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, to find out if their father had deposited his papers at any institution, or if they possessed any assassination records. The staff came up empty-handed.

According to House Select Committee on Assassinations records, Burkley’s personal attorney apparently told the HSCA that his client believed there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. Mr. Illig, Burkley’s attorney, however, is now deceased. The Review Board staff asked Burkley’s daughter, the executor of his estate, to sign a waiver allowing the Review Board access to papers at Illig’s law firm, but she declined to sign and return the waiver.

I don’t know about you, but I find all this intriguing. Burkley either knew or thought he knew something pretty seriously wrong with the LN narrative. As utterly discreet and close-mouthed as he was, what Illig communicated to Sprague seems astonishing.

Was Burkley a “kook?” Hardly. Was he so miffed at not being called by the WC that he was willing to invent tales and blow the JFKA wide open? Highly unlikely. It’s stuff like this – and there is lots of it – that fuels my nagging doubts that the LN narrative is the full story.

Thanks, Tom. There is much wisdom in what you say. My "53 word" quip was prompted by a post by one of the Local Gods (in his own mind anyway), which was quickly removed by Duncan, characterizing me as a "pathetic dipshit" who "thinks he's the smartest guy in the room" and writes unreadable "books" that no one cares about.  And that was in response to a post of mine that had nothing to do with the JFKA! (If anyone wants to see what a "book" looks like, try reading Keven Hofeling's 20,000-word AI-generated posts at the Ed Forum. Yes, there is a point at which "this really doesn't belong on an internet forum.")

The problem with internet forums is that they are a hopeless mix of ages, educational levels, psychological quirks, emotional maturity levels, personal hot buttons, etc., etc. I always say it's like standing in the middle of a crowded Walmart and shouting "So, what does everyone think about Bayes theorem anyway?" - and expecting a productive discussion.

In addition, there is also a certain type who is likely to become a forum regular. I used to limit myself to a maximum of 300 posts on any forum precisely to avoid becoming one of "them." I've never accumulated anywhere near as many posts on any forum as I have here. That type - across all forums, even ones dealing with completely mundane, non-controversial subjects - tends to be ultra-assertive and always looking for a fight. He views the forum as his turf, and woe to you if you fail to acquiesce to his dominance. I have a friend who participates on several completely non-controversial (or so you would think) forums like those devoted to photography, and he says they are exactly the same way. Ditto with my experience on golf forums.

Most people just aren't into deep research or thought. Forums like this really are just 95% mental masturbation, little echo chambers to strut your stuff in 20-word (or less) bites and generate 20-word (or less) responses from those who cheer you on or call you a kook. It's just the reality. My participation is truly for an audience of one - me. It's just self-amusement and putting in writing what I think I've learned simply because I enjoy doing it. If someone actually gains something from it, so much the better - but I have no expectations and don't really care.

---

Now back to Pitzer: Thanks to one of Mark Ulrik's posts at the Ed Forum, I had seen and taken into consideration Allan Eaglesham's work that is still on the Wayback Machine. To his great credit, Eaglesham had the intellectual honesty to disavow "Dangerous Dan" Marvin after first buying into his schtick and to change his verdict on Pitzer from murder to suicide when the evidence demanded it. However, he seemed to have lost interest at that point. Kent Heiner's 2019 update of his excellent little e-book was the latest thinking I could find.

The notion that Pitzer was experiencing some sort of personal crisis at the time of his suicide just doesn't seem likely to me. He was about to retire at age 50 after a 30-year Navy career and take a low-key teaching position with a local junior college with which he'd been previously affiliated. His lady friend in Florida accepted the relationship for what it was and placed no demands on him. He had a 29-year marriage, including one son who was still a teenager, and no huge domestic problems. He left no note for anyone, and the letter to his lady friend written 90 minutes before his death indicated he would see her in a few months. His wife said he was "quite enthused" about his teaching position, and he in fact went into the office that Saturday ostensibly to work on a speech he would be giving at the junior college in a few days.

It's very difficult for me to find the vaguest inkling of a reason for a suicide in the above, which is what causes me to wonder "Could there have been something else? Could it have been related to what Dennis David described?"

By all accounts, including his lady friend and Eaglesham's work that you linked, Pitzer was a perfectionist and a dedicated "company (Navy) man" who took great pride in his work and career. He was about to retire with an unblemished reputation. Could something that threatened that reputation have sent him off the deep end? As I noted, Lifton first went to Liebeler with his body-alteration theory just days before Pitzer's suicide. The Kennedy family announced that the autopsy materials would be released to the National Archives at exactly the same time. Did Pitzer in fact know more about the autopsy than even David suggested and fear that it was all going to come crashing down after he was out of the Navy and no longer even in a position to contribute to damage control? Perhaps not - perhaps such speculation is 110% off-base. But such speculation doesn't seem preposterous to me in the context of a suicide that has no other plausible explanation.

This little exercise has also been useful to me in steering my thinking toward the possibility that perhaps there actually were autopsy-related shenanigans but that these were not related to the assassination per se but were simply in furtherance of what was seen as a patriotic, WW3-avoiding exercise in maintaining the lone nut explanation. This to me is not necessarily "likely" (although there is certainly evidence pointing in this direction) but is 1000% more likely than the Lifton/Horne-type scenarios where a huge, preplanned operation to alter the body was part and parcel of an almost comically complex conspiracy.

Voila, I've written another book! 

Lance,
Pitzer composed the letter you described and, instead of mailing it on his way home from work, he took time out of the latter part of his work day to
leave his workplace to personally mail that letter, and then return after what amounted to an interruption of his workday.

You seem to think he would have said goodbye in that letter, but he behaved like someone trying to be prepared at all times to give in to the urge
to shoot himself, and to conceal that urge from everyone because he was torn between doing it, or not. It isn't rational to shoot yourself unless escape
is truly justifiable.... terminal illness and associated physical or psychological pain, loss of a loved one, overwhelming remorse after committing murder, etc.

As you can read on page 23, a recap of  FBI interviews,

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Third-Fourth%20Decade%20The/Item%2005%20v5n2.pdf

...Finally, an enlisted man in his office reported what
he thought was unusual behavior during the week of
his death, the enlisted man offering to return the Navy
pistol which Pitzer had checked out (with blank ammunition) for training purposes. Pitzer said he would return it himself, an "out of character" act, since he always had enlisted men to do such "errands" for him.
[19

Pitzer allegedly turned down an offer to return the revolver for him and evidently did not ask an enlisted man to mail that letter.
There are quotes at the link above of other witnesses testifying that their impressions were that Pitzer presented visible signs
of disturbance up to a year before.

At the least, it is reasonable to strongly suspect Pitzer's decision to return the revolver and to interrupt work instead of waiting until
the end of his workday or assigning the task to an enlisted man were symptoms of an inner struggle to maintain the choice of committing
suicide if he deemed it his best option at any given moment. The letter had been mailed, the revolver had been retained, BANG!