A Forensic Look with Sherry Fiester PT 1

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
One world currency. I imagine thatright now you're feeling a bit like Alice
tumbling down the rabbit hole. Letme tell you why you're here. You're
here because you know something. Whatyou know you can't explain, but you

(00:25):
feel it. You felt it yourentire life that there's something wrong in the
world. You don't know what itis, but it's there, like a
splinter in your mind, driving youmad. It is this feeling that has
brought you to me. This isyour last chance. After this, there
is no turning out. You takethe blue pill. The story end,

(00:46):
you wake up in your bed andbelieve whatever you want. You take the
red pill. You stay in Wonderland, and I show you how to beat
the rabbit hole dolls. All I'moffering is the true when we are opposed
around the world by a monolithic andruthless conspiracy and relies primarily on covert means

(01:10):
for expanding its sphere of influence,on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion
instead of elections, on intimidation,instead of free choice, on guerrillas by
night instead of armies by day.It is a system which has been scripted
vast human and material resources into thebuilding of a tightening myth, highly efficient

(01:32):
machines that combine military, diplomatic,intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. Its preparations are concealed,not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its descentives are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned,
no rumor is printed, no secretis revealed. I am asking your

(01:56):
help and the tremendous task of informingand alerting the American people. And now
welcome to another episode of Down therabbit Hole. Here's your host, It's
Popeye. Ladies and gentlemen, Welcometo another live edition of rabbit Hole Radio.

(02:17):
It is December sixteenth, twenty twentythree. On tonight's live edition,
I am diving back into my archives. I have a special three part series
I'm going to be presenting for youover the next few weeks that I did
exactly ten years ago with forensic investigatorand author Sherry Feaster. I would have

(02:43):
loved to brought Sherry back on livewith me so you could all hear her
intellect and her take on things,but unfortunately, on May fourth of twenty
seventeen, we lost Sherry and she'snot with us anymore, so I can't

(03:04):
obviously interview her. So the bestthing I can do is go back and
pull this three part series out ofthe archives and you know, blow the
dust off of it. As itwere. This three part series was actually
part of the massive purge from YouTube, so I know that I had it

(03:28):
on three channels. I'm pretty sureall three channels. They've been perged from
over the course of time for onereason or another, or one excuse given
or another. But that's why stufflike this, especially the purge stuff that's
been sent to the memory hall,I like to rebroadcast from time to dime.

(03:49):
I mean, I've got well overseven hundred shows that I did before
I was ever on KGIRA and beforeI was doing rabbit Hole Radio when my
show was down the rabbit Hole withand some of these broadcasts are just absolutely
archives, or not just archives,but they're absolutely treasure troves. That's the

(04:15):
word I'm trying to think of,like a treasure trove of information, and
it just, you know, itwould be great to have Sharry on,
but I can't go back in timeobviously to interview her before she passed away.
But what I can do is goback in time and play the interviews

(04:36):
and the special broadcasts that I didwith her when we did a three part
series on the investigation of the assassinationof President John F. Kennedy, and
we broke down the crime scene itselfand the investigation itself from a forensic viewpoint.

(05:00):
We didn't get into politics. Wedidn't get into, you know,
well, who would have wanted himkilled? Or you know, why did
they do it? Or was itthe Russians or was it the mafia,
or was it the Cubans or wasit the you know, was it a
conglomeration of all of them? Wasit the CIA, it was the FBI.
We didn't get into the you know, who did it? We got

(05:21):
into it, and not even thewhy. We got into the forensics of
it, because Cherry was a forensicinvestigator. I'm going to give you a
little bit of background about who shewas, and I'm going to tell you
about her book that she wrote.Cherry was a detective sergeant in the forensics
department at the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Department. She actually started off as a as

(05:45):
a deputy, like doing patrol,and then worked her way into forensics and
she was she worked with the LafayetteParish Sheriff's Department from nineteen eighty two until
nineteen ninety three, so for elevenyears, and then from nineteen ninety five
five to nineteen ninety nine for fouryears and three months she worked with the
Saint Charles Parish Sheriff's Department as adetective lieutenant in their forensics department, and

(06:12):
she actually ran their forensics department fora little over four years until she retired.
And then from two thousand and sixuntil she passed away, Cherry was
working with JFK Lancer Productions and Publicationsand JFK Lancer is their historical research company

(06:33):
that they specialized in the administration andassassination of President John F. Kennedy.
And they were founded in nineteen ninetyfive by Thomas Jones and Deborah Conway,
and Deborah is Sherry's sister, andthen Sherry joined them and she was just

(06:56):
Cherry was a great person. Shereally was just an awesome human being and
very missed by many people in theJFK research community. There anyone that had
the opportunity and the the honor,I would say, of talking to Sherry
really really got to enjoy her companyand got to know her really well.

(07:18):
And I haven't met anybody. Imean, I'm sure there's somebody out there.
Maybe nobody's perfect, but everybody I'veever seen that has interviewed her,
like radio show hosts or podcasters orwhoever, has never had anything negative to
say about her, you know,as a person, even if they didn't
agree with her analysis on things.As a person, she just really Sherry

(07:40):
was awesome human being and she hasmissed. So it is my honor to
bring her back to the airwaves sixyears later for everybody to be able to
hear what she had to say.And it's a shame a lot of you
know, a lot of videos sinceshe passed and removed from YouTube and from

(08:01):
the Internet, and a lot ofresearchers and stuff have had their stuff either
removed or blocked for one reason oranother. So I'm not sure how many
of her former and previous interviews arestill available. And I think it's really
important that you all hear what Sherryhad to say, because she was again
just an absolutely amazing researcher. SoI want to bring up I got the

(08:30):
video ready to go, but beforeI do that, I want to bring
up her book. The title ofit is Enemy of the Truth, Myths,
Forensics and the Kennedy assassination, andyou can still buy copies of it
from Amazon. I urge you togo buy copies of it on Amazon.

(08:50):
And the forward to the book wasdone by Jim Mars. So Sherry's work
is impeccable and I think you'll findit enlightening at the very least. And
mind you know opening because here youhave a forensic investigator and I just read

(09:13):
you her bio. You have aformer forensic retired forensic investigator who ran a
forensics unit, and she's going totell you that the official government version of
events does not line up forensically,and she's going to go over in during

(09:33):
this three part series, she goesover a couple different aspects of what happened.
You know, on tonight's broadcast,we covered two pieces of the evidence.
The first is the ballistics of theheadshot and whether it came from the
Grassy Knoll or elsewhere. And thesecond is whether or not the Dallas Police

(09:56):
Department followed protocol in the standards ofthe day when it came to the investigation.
You know, a lot of peoplewill say, oh, well,
the standards weren't what they are now. And Sherry actually blows that out of
the water and says, no,that's not true, and she shows how
it wasn't just a bungling of things, but it was much much more than

(10:18):
that. Now, you know,she didn't go too deep dark down the
conspiratorial rabbit hole, right, butshe stayed with the evidence. But her
work does show that there was obviouslya conspiracy to kill Kennedy and it wasn't

(10:39):
just Oswald shooting from the school bookdepository. And her and I get into
that. It's very interesting, tosay the least, what her work shows.
And there's a diagram which in thevideo that I put together, you'll
see the diagram when we're talking aboutthe headshot, and she explains like how
to you know what trajectory analysis isand how she goes about doing it and

(11:05):
how you know how the lay personcould do it. So it's gonna be
an interesting broadcast. Get a cupof coffee, Get maybe a beer some
it's almost close to Christmas. Getsome eggnog with a little rum in it,
maybe a little jack and coke whatever, maybe maybe a little Maybe you

(11:26):
live in a legal state and youcan partake in some of the legal cannabinoids
that you're allowed to partake in inthose states. Whatever, whatever your choice
may be, get something to sitand relax with. Sit back and put
your feet up. Maybe get anotebook and a pen, just in case
you want to jot a few thingsdown. I always urge people to listen

(11:48):
to my broadcast to take notes theway you can go back later on and
research what I'm talking about in thebroadcast. I do that, you know,
when I listen, if I listento or if I'm researching something,
I have a plastic bin that's gotabout twenty notepads just full of notes in
it, and I save all mynotes. I have stuff that dates back

(12:13):
to, you know, fifteen twentyyears ago, and I can go back
through the notes that I wrote,because if you throw that stuff out,
you can forget stuff as we getolder, but you can always refer back
to that stuff. I still doit to this day. When I hear
stuff, I'll write little notes downin myself, even if I hear a
show that was done because sometimes Ilisten to an art bell show. I
like to listen to old art bellstuff, and I'll listen to an old

(12:35):
art Bell Show. I'm doing somethingor be playing in my garage or whatever,
and something will pop. He'll saysomething, and I'll make a little
mental note of it, or I'llwrite it down to look at later,
you know, so it never hurtstake notes. Anyway, I'm gonna bring
up the video here for you all, and i want you all again just

(12:56):
to sit back and listen to whatSherry has to say, because I promise
you, without a doubt, youare going to find this broadcast enlightening.
So here we go, a forensiclook at the JFK assassination with Sherry Feaster.

(13:18):
Here we go. Tonight is specialJFK Night, as I've been doing
once a month since last year.Since well, I've done other episodes,
but since last February, I've beenfocusing at least one show per month on
the assassination of President John F.Kennedy. So tonight, the past couple
months, I've had Judith Baker,I've had Vince Palomar on Well, tonight,

(13:41):
I wanted to change it up alittle bit. I want to get
into the forensic side of things,because, as has been told to us
so many times, on so manydifferent occasions, that by different researchers over
the years. If we only hadenough forensic evidence to back up what we
were talking about and what we wereyou know, the conspiratorial angle of it,
if you will, we'd be ableto bring this to a court of

(14:05):
law and find justice finally, Butno one's ever really tackled it in the
forensic field. Well, tonight,my guest has Now. I want to
read you a little bit of abio about her really quick so you can
get a chance to know who sheis and understand why it's important to take
what she has to say seriously.It's extremely important, Okay, to research
the jfk assassination. I've talked aboutthis time and time and time and time

(14:28):
again. But in this case youhave a forensic specialist, somebody who testifies
in court. And this is notThis isn't like a radio show host.
This isn't just an author and researcher. This is someone who literally her work
has either freed people or put peoplein jail, and it's never been able

(14:50):
to be refuted. It's that spoton. So who is this mystery superperson
I talk about. Her name isSherry Feaster. She's a retired certified senior
crime scene invest gator and law enforcementinstructor. She's got over twenty five years
of experience. She's testified as acourt certified expert in crime scene Excuse me,
she has testified as a court seeinga court certified expert in crime scene

(15:13):
investigation. That was a mouthful.Couldn't get that one out. Crime scene
reconstruction in bloodstained pattern analysis in LouisianaFederal Court and over thirty other judicial districts
including Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. She's author of numerous different articles and
professional publications, and she's recently completeda second book, and it's everything her

(15:35):
books. Her work is done froma forensic standpoint, a scientific standpoint,
the standpoint of getting into it,doing the research, hardcore. Okay,
that's the standpoint. It's not thisisn't someone in their basement. This isn't
a conspiracy theorist or a radio showhost or an author that you can just
sit and throw labels at, throwattacks at, you know, comments,

(16:00):
whatever. You can't just attack herwork. It's not that simple, okay.
Her past work in her professional lifeas a crime scene investigator stands above
all of that. She's like aship plowing through the sea. Ladies and
gentlemen, she knows her stuff.Now. I had the pleasure of talking
to her for a few hours beforewe came live tonight on air, and

(16:22):
she's just an amazing lady. AndI want to get right to it because
you need to hear what she hasto say, and you need to check
her book out. By the way, her book the title of his Enemy
of the Truth, Myths, Forensicsand the Kennedy Assassination. I just amazing,
ladies and gentlemen. You need topurchase the book. So, without
further ado, I want to bringto the airwaves Sherry Feaster. Sherry,

(16:44):
welcome to the broadcast tonight, Popay, thank you so much for having me
your book. I got to say, I've read a lot of stuff on
the JFK assassination. I've done alot of research over the course of years.
As I said to you earlier,I've been researching this since i was
about a fourteen fifteen years old,and I've never seen a work of you

(17:08):
know, a completed, compiled workof evidence put together in a forensic fashion.
I've seen people talk about crime sceneyou know, use reference work too.
Maybe a forensic manual here or there. But I've never seen other than
perhaps Cyril Wack, I've never seenanybody else go into it at least as
in depth from your point of view, from your standpoint as a crime scene

(17:30):
investigator. And I read your book, and you know, I admittedly I
haven't read it cover to cover yetI've read through some of the chapters and
I've had the chance to talk toyou, and the evidence in there,
I have to say it it handsdown, it's a slam dunk. You
really you cut through the garbage.As you put it, myths have no

(17:52):
place in historical references in they haveno place in history. And we need
to sort through this garbage. Andit's you did just that. And ladies
and gentlemen, if you haven't everheard of Sherry's work or her book,
you need to go out and publicyou need to go out and pick it
up and pick up a copy Cherry. Before we get into any of the
technical issue, the technical details withthe forensics and everything which I want to

(18:17):
pick your brain about, I wantyou to plug where they can get the
book really quick, because this isone of those books, ladies and gentlemen.
And I tell you that you needto get a physical copy of and
have this thing is one of thosebooks. So Sherry, where can they
get a copy of it? Youcan purchase Enemy of the Truth at Jfkanswer
dot com, or you can purchaseit through my web page at Sherryfeaster dot

(18:40):
com. Of course, it's alsoavailable other places online and through bookstores and
that type of thing. All right, cool, And again I'm sorry,
but if you want to an autographcopy, then you need to order it
either through my web page or throughJFK Aanswer dot com. Okay, so
the best place I would just say, go to your web page or go
to JFK Lancer dot com and orderit that way. But you can.

(19:02):
I have seen it on Amazon.In fact, I was telling Sherry this
earlier today. I was on Amazonthe other day picking up some books for
reference material, and while I wasgoing through I happened to see her book
as a suggestion on there. Sothat's pretty cool. And ladies and gentlemen,
I tell you what, if youdon't think that conspiracies are real,
you think you've heard me talk aboutthe evidence before, you've heard me talk
about the the you know all theJack Ruby and Oswald and You've heard me

(19:29):
talk about their connections. You've heardme talk about the connections to weaponized cancer.
You've heard me talk about all thesebehind the scenes shady stuff that was
going on behind the scenes, butwe never really got into the crime scene.
Now, I've talked with Vince numeroustimes about the secret Service stand down
and the you know, d LeePlaza where the shooting took place. But

(19:49):
again I have not gotten a chanceto sit down with a forensic expert and
do so. So, Sherry,I want to do just that, and
I want to start to pick yourbrain about the crime scene. As a
crime scene investigator, someone who doesthis and is testified in court numerous times,
where would you say would be likeas an experienced investigator, what would

(20:11):
you say would be the first thingyou want to tackle in the crime scene
that is Dally Plaza and the assassinationof John F. Kennedy. Well,
absolutely, the first thing that youwould want to do is to make sure
that the scene is protected, thatit's not going to become contaminated. And
you want to document the scene becauseonce you leave, then you no longer

(20:33):
have access to that information in apristine state. It's going to be altered
in some ways, altered just simplybecause people are going to be there.
Of course, we think about thisa lot more today than they did in
nineteen sixty three. But the bookstarts with what Dallas Police Department did.
And I don't look so much todeally Plausa as the crime scene because no

(21:00):
physical evidence was collected from there.But I do look at the Dallas Police
Department and the Texas School Book Depositoryand determine whether or not they process that
crime scene in a way that wouldhave met the standards in nineteen sixty three,
because it isn't fair for us tocompare what we do now with what

(21:22):
they did then. So that's,you know, the first thing that I
would have done if I would beworking at crime scene today, and it
is the first thing that should havebeen done if you were working at crime
scene in nineteen sixty three. Sothe first myth that I address speaks to
Dallas Police Department and whether or notthey followed protocol. Yeah, And in

(21:45):
the book, again she destroys anybody'sopinion that the Dollars police did a hell
of a job, because that's whatthat is. That's an opinion, it's
not a fact, you know,an opinion that's been turned into again what
you said, Sherry, a myth. That's what a lot of this stuff
is. A lot of it ismyths. And some of this stuff,

(22:06):
by the way, ladies and gentlemen, myths. On the other side too,
on the conspiratorial angle, there arepeople that swear, to god,
you know, the shot came fromthe Grassy Knoll. If and I'm not
saying that there wasn't a shooter thereor anything like that. I'm using this
as an example, and we're goingto get into this, but there are
people that will get attached emotionally toan idea. So we'll say we'll use
the Grassy Knoll as an example.And then if evidence comes out showing that

(22:30):
maybe it wasn't the Grassy Knoll butsomeplace else close to the Grassy Knoll,
but maybe you know, the ballisticsand everything and just the forensics don't show
that they show it was here,somebody might get emotionally attached to that,
just like somebody would get emotionally attachedto it. No, it was only
Oswald and no conspiracy. It's thesame thing. And what I like about
your book, Sherry, is youcut right through the crap. You don't.

(22:52):
There's no emotional attachment to either side. You strictly deal with the forensics
of the whole situation. And whatamazes me is when you stick to the
forensics, you still come out withthe fact that it was a conspiracy and
that the evidence shows that there definitelywas not a single shooter. And you
don't even have to get into whetherit was All's Walder, this Burson or

(23:14):
that person. You destroyed the wholeofficial story and you give facts for conspiracy
by just taking a look at thecrime scene itself as a crime scene in
a forensic way. And the Dallaspolice did a horrible job, a horrible
job. What would you say,out of everything that they did, if
you could pick one thing, onered flag that the Dallas Police that exposes

(23:40):
their behavior for what it was,what would you say would be the one
major thing? Although I know andanybody that's researched that knows, there's way
more than one thing. But whatwould you say? There are several things,
But I think the biggest mistake thatthey made was placing someone that had
no training and no experience in theposition of making the decisions about what had

(24:03):
to be done and protecting the crimescene, which is exactly what happened.
Student Baker, who had been withthe crime scene section for a very short
time, was left there by LieutenantDay, and he had to decide what
am I going to photograph, whathas to go on the sketch, how

(24:25):
am I going to process for fingerprints, what needs to be collected. All
of those things were left to hisdevices, and he wasn't in the position
to make those types of decisions.He was markedly in experience, He didn't
have the necessary skills in training,and he was unsupervised. I think that

(24:48):
that right there created the majority ofproblems. And the fact that not only
did his supervisor, but the supervisorabove that, Lieutenant Day's supervisor, they
all knew that that's who was leftin charge, and that's who is processing
the crime scene. But they determined, you know, we have our man,

(25:11):
so it doesn't really matter what isgoing on at the crime scene.
And I think they gave it asecondary position in their mind. And as
a result, the crime scene inthe Texas school Book Depository was very poorly
handled, and the evidence is skewed, and I think it's terribly unreliable and

(25:32):
your book again, ladies and gentlemen, to understand a lot of the stuff
that she brings to bear evidence wiseas to why this is so, we
couldn't get into it in a twohour broadcast on that chapter alone. I'm
telling you it's that in depth.You need to purchase this book. If
there's one JFK research book that youneed that you can afford to purchase in
the next three months, make it, Sherryes, I'm not kidding. And

(25:56):
you know, I mean, there'sa ton of great work out there.
There's a ton of grade authors outthere that have published stuff. But if
there's one work if you want toif you want to convince somebody you know
that, say you know someone thatloves CSI or whatever whatever City episode show
that they like about it. There'seighteen different spinoffs they like CSI. Right,

(26:18):
Oh, I love that Gil Grissom. He's so smart. Those csis
they know everything. Blah blah blahblah. Well, okay, here you
have Sherry, who is a reallife CSI. Okay, telling you that
in her book, not only itwas there a conspiracy, but just pointing
out so many different things about abunch of different I would say myths,
but one the biggest, one ofthe biggest myths is the Dallas Police and

(26:42):
their investigative prowess, which here youhave, again a certified crime scene investigator
telling you that the Dallas Police andthe investigators of the time didn't even follow
SOPs from the sixties stuff that wasin place back then. I mean,
I know things have changed, Jerry, over the course of time from then

(27:03):
till now, but would you saythat even according to nineteen sixties standards,
they were very lax. Yes,absolutely. In fact, it wasn't just
the nineteen sixties, but those standardshad been in place since the nineteen fifties.
So these people came up through theirdepartment, it entered the detective feel

(27:23):
knowing what the standards were, andyou know, there's really not much of
an excuse. At that time,Dallas was I think the tenth largest city
and population in the US, andthey were one of the top three for
three years before this in the numberof homicides. So they had the experience.

(27:45):
There was no reason for them notto have the experience, and they
had the training because Lieutenant Day testifiedthat he had training, and even Studebaker
said, you know, we're supposedto use a certain type of processing for
fingerprinting on cardboard boxes. But wehave this new type of powder that I'm

(28:08):
going to use, a magnetic powder, and so that's what he did,
when that is absolutely not the typeof thing that you would use. So
even when you know something, itdoesn't mean that you're going to do the
right thing. And I think someof it had to do with the fact
that in the nineteen sixties, crimeswere not solved with forensics like they are

(28:33):
today. Crimes were solved because detectivesknew their beats, or the police officers
on the street knew their beats,and they developed suspects, they brought them
in and they were absolutely fabulous atgetting confessions and information out of people.
Their skills are, the skill ofquestioning people were the skills that were looked

(29:02):
for in detectives, because just takethe single thing of fingerprinting. If you
have a fingerprint in nineteen sixty three, and in fact even in the nineteen
seventies and the early nineteen eighties,if you didn't have a suspect, there
was no one to compare it toand there was no way to compare it.
So why if you had no suspects. Would you take a fingerprint and

(29:25):
just do what, stick it ina drawer because there was no way to
make a comparison. Then Aphis camealong, and Aphus automatically identifies fingerprints,
so you can put all of thisinto a database, and then you put
that one print that is questionable,and it spits out a number of people
that it could possibly be matched to. But if you didn't have that,

(29:48):
then it makes it unimportant. Andthat's the way that they looked at physical
evidence to a great degree. There, Even though we were on the cusp
of forensics becoming important, they stealsome of them. Still had that mindset
that we have the confession. Look, we have Oswalt in our police department.

(30:08):
We've got our best guys trying toget the information out of him,
so we don't have to put ourbest guys over there at the Texas Book
Depository. Yeah, they figured theyalready had their man, so right,
So yeah, they go, ladiesand gentlemen, scientific proof. You know,
I don't know what you need more. It's just right in your face.

(30:30):
All right, we're going to break. Don't go anywhere. We're back
in a few minutes. Ladies,and gentlemen, we are back enemy of
the truth, myths, forensics andthe Kennedy assassination by Sherry p Feaster.
You need to get the book.If you look at the Kennedy assassination,

(30:52):
if you say, yeah, hewas killed, blah blah blah blah blah.
But I don't have any way toexplain it to people when they questioned
me and they say, well,what's the evidence, because everybody nowadays you
have the CSI effect. Everybody's afreaking forends siccesspert from watching CSI, right,
So hit them with this, Hitthem with the evidence from someone that
obviously knows what she's talking about.Okay, this isn't me. I'm you

(31:15):
know, a radio show host,webmaster, researcher. This isn't a regular
just book author and researcher. Thisisn't even as the some people would use
in the pejorative sense, Oh,an idiot in his basement with a pair
of boxers and a tinfoil hat inhis head. No, this is a
certified crime scene investigator, somebody whothe courts in this country, the federal

(31:41):
courts, I may add, Okay, we all know how bad the court
system could be. They take herseriously, so we should too. I'm
not kidding. This isn't you knowPopeye's plug athon. You know how I
am. I don't. I onlyplug and promote things that I truly believe
in. Okay, and this,this is something I'm telling you. This
book, her book Enemy of theTruth, My Myths, Forensics and the

(32:05):
Kennedy Assassination. Incredible book. Ifyou want to sit down and go through
the crime scene investigation version of theKennedy assassination, read this, and I
guarantee you you'll start to look atthings differently. So, Sherry, when
we were going to the break,we were talking about the Dallas Police and
you made a really good point.At the time, they didn't focus on

(32:29):
forensics. So even though forensics werejust starting to be accepted widely more widely
accepted, they kind of looked atit like, you know, who really
cares. And it's that same attitudethey had, you know, I know,
I was all fair. We chattedfor a while. I talked to
you about I've researched serial killers andstuff, and that's the same type of
attitude the FBI had with Robert Wrestlerwhen they started with the whole profiling unit,

(32:54):
and they wanted to start profiling killersand coming up with the term serial
killer or or spree killer or massmurder and coming up with these actual definitions.
It was the same type of attitudethey had where these law enforcement agencies
were like, Oh, that's allhuey fui bologna, you don't need that.
And the Dallas Police, I mean, I'm not trying to make any

(33:15):
I'm not trying to defend them.In a way. The police department itself
did have corruption in it, butlooking at it from a professional viewpoint like
Sherry did, looking at it froma crime scene investigator's viewpoint, they dropped
the ball. I mean, handsdown, they dropped the ball. But
you also have to understand the mentalityof the law enforcement at the time too.

(33:36):
I mean, all of this comesto play. I know that a
lot of conspiratorial thinking doesn't want tosometimes Oh, it's everybody's one hundred percent
evil. Well, no, youhave the right people in the right places
of power, and then the restof the people. They know the people
that control the people that are inthe right places to the power that control
things right, they know how thingsare done, so they just move and

(33:58):
manipulate the investigation, you know,as such. And I think that's a
real important point to, you know, just throw out there and cover really
quick. And before I had forgottenabout it and we moved on, I
wanted to throw that out there.What are your thoughts on that, Sherry.
I don't think that the Dallas PoliceDepartment actually or anyone in that department
actually thought to themselves, I'm goingto do something that's going to degrade evidence,

(34:24):
or I'm going to do something tomishandle evidence or anything similar to that.
I really don't. I think thatthey were overwhelmed. I think that
they had a lot of people lookingat them, and they knew that this
was something that was really major,and they made mistakes. I don't think

(34:45):
that they did it on purpose,but I think they made mistakes and it
could have had something to do withconfirmation bias. And confirmation bias is something
that happens to everyone different circumstances.But I will say with this is the
way that it happens. You goto a crime scene and you see someone

(35:09):
that's shot and the gun is therenext to their hand, and you go
to autopsyne and you find out basedon all of the available information that you're
looking at a suicide, and thenyou have that same scenario repeated several times,
and then one day you go toa crime scene and it looks the

(35:30):
same, and so you make thatassumption that this is a suicide, and
you begin to work a crime scenewith the answer and working backwards, try
to find evidence that supports your conclusion, which is exactly what the Warrant Commission
did, if I can put thatin there. But you have a particular

(35:50):
bias towards what you're looking for,and that's one of the things that happens
with police departments, and I thinkthat it could be possibly something that happened
here. I don't think that thesewere people of poor integrity. I don't
think these are people that took theirjob lightly. I think that they wanted
to do a good job, butthey fell back on habits that were not

(36:14):
necessarily good habits, and they failedto follow the written procedures for their department
or for the national standards that werewell known across law enforcement nationwide. So
you know, it's I don't wantto excuse their behavior because I think it's
inexcusable. I mean, we aretalking about the murder of the president of

(36:36):
the United States, and this issomething that needed an experienced crime scene investigator,
and I just don't see how theycould have let someone with you know,
such two I think he had twomonths of experience left unsupervised the process

(36:59):
the crimes. Mean, but evenwhen you had supervisors there, they missed
evidence and they mishandled evidence. Andthese were people that should absolutely have known
better. And you see that's thepart where to me, I think it
was a mixture of both. Ithink that there was corruption, probably at

(37:19):
the higher levels, and what happenedwas you just had the right person in
the right place, and they know, like you were just talking about,
they understand how all of that works. And if you understand that, then
you can probably it only takes oneperson or maybe two, that's all you
need. And it doesn't mean thewhole police department is corrupt. It just
means that someone probably higher up wasand it doesn't mean that they might have

(37:43):
even known why. Somebody could havecome to them and said you need to
do this, you need to dothat whatever. A lot of times when
people investigate conspiracies because they are real, when people have a tendency to investigate
conspiracies involving the government. Will saysometimes the first and I used to be
I speak to this because I usedto do this myself. Sometimes a lot

(38:06):
of one of the first things youwant to do is all the whole But
they all knew, you know,they're all corrupt, every one of them.
They're all in on it. Andmore often than not, that's not
true. Yes, there are caseswhere there are heavily corrupt police departments.
And I know Dallas had a lotof issues and stuff. I get it,
But I think a lot of timesthat that aspect gets blown out of

(38:30):
proportion by the disinfo people on purpose. So that way, when you look
at it like you did, andyou look at it with a fresh mind
and you understand everything. You understandthe forensics of it because of your law
enforcement background, but you also arelooking at it with an open mind and
you understand how things were at thetime, and there's many different factors you're

(38:53):
taking into accounts where I'm going withthis, right, And you know,
not many people do that. Alot of people, I think because that
and it's not I'm not making funof anybody. Again, I've done it
myself. A lot of that isthat innate distrust we have in us for
the government because they've lied to usso many times and about so many other
aspects of this case. When yousee a government agency getting involved, instantly

(39:16):
you think everybody involved was bad.I do think there was corruption inside that
that my this is just this isnot Sherry, this is me from my
research. I think there was corruptioninside there part and there There might have
been people here or there that mishandledthings or do stuff, but that was
at higher levels. I think allthe lower level people, just like in
anything else that's there, you endup becoming a useful idiot and you end

(39:40):
up being manipulated and you don't evenrealize it, and then you end up
becoming the fall guy too, becauseyou're the ones doing the investigation. So
if the like if the Dallas PDscrews up, we don't really know what
happened behind the scenes, somebody elsecould have manipulated the situation, and they
become the fall guy. And thenthe real perpetrator of who whoever you know,

(40:00):
planted something or moved something or whateverthe case may be, right in
the situation, they you know,they walk away while and I'm again I'm
not excusing the Dallas PD Uh.You know, I think it's a mixture
of both. That's just my personalopinion, but you know, it is
what it is. Again, whenyou read Cherry's book, it gives you
this understanding. You need to havethis better understanding. You can't just look

(40:23):
at something one sided in order tobetter understand the complexities of the situation,
because we all know that situations,no matter what they are, are always
more complex than they seem on theoutside. Right. I mean, you
can look at your own personal lifeand you can see that somebody on the
outside might seem that they have agreat personal life, but there's all this
inside strife inside them and fighting withtheir wife or something behind the scenes.

(40:45):
But on the outside, you know, it's a different story. Same thing.
Cherry's book really makes you look atstuff, not only in a forensic
way, but it helps you lookat it, you know, and take
other things into account. Again,the way that the police Department's SOPs were
And I like how you put inyour book you don't really choose the side.

(41:05):
You're not defending them, and you'renot attacking conspiracy theorists. You're or
defending conspiracy theorists. And attacking thepolice. You're middle of the road and
you let the facts lead you wherethey may. And again, I mean,
we could go for two hours juston the Dallas Police Department alone,
but there's so many other things Iwant to cover while I've got Sherry on
and the hour is just flying.You know, the first hour is already

(41:28):
almost over, so she will behere for hour number two though, so
don't fear. But there's a fewother things that I want to pick your
brain about, Sherry, because thiswas a massively large crime scene. Before
we move out of the Dallas PoliceDepartment, I want to say, bring
up one other thing if you don'tmind, no, go right ahead.
You know, the most important evidencethat came out of there were the shells.

(41:51):
People have questions about the paper bagin the boxes, and of course
the weapon. And there's not onepiece of evidence that there's not a question
about. There's not one piece ofevidence that you can point to and they
can say this is on a sketch, this was photographed, it was properly

(42:12):
packaged and processed, and the chainof custody is correct for it, not
one piece. That's almost stunning injust knowing that because you would think there
would be at least one thing thatthey did correctly, that they handled correctly,
that there's no question about it.But there isn't. And that is

(42:35):
why I think people want to believethat they purposely messed up, because how
can anybody be that bad? Butit's one of those things, you know,
if something can go wrong, youknow it will go wrong. And
a lot of it had to dowith the mindset of the people that were
working there. You had one personwho knew absolutely nothing in Studebaker, who

(43:00):
is processing. He you know,allows people. He decides he's going to
fingerprint the boxes. They haven't beenphotographed, but he's in such a rush
to do what he thinks he,you know, needs to do something,
and so he takes the boxes downand he starts fingerprinting, and then he
realizes, oh, I don't havethem photographs, So he puts them back

(43:21):
and he photographs them. But hedoesn't tell anybody because he knows he's done
the wrong thing, and instead helets his supervisor get on the stand before
the warrant commission, and then LieutenantCarl Day is asked, why does the
photograph from outside look different from thephotographs from inside? Of the boxes that
are in the window, and he'sforced to admit that they must have been

(43:44):
moved. Then you have the thingabout people that are testifying saying that Captain
Fritz picked up the spent shell casingsinside the depository by the sixth floor window
that supposedly osa a shot from andhas him in his hand, and he

(44:04):
lets someone else look at them andtake a photograph of them. Then Studebaker
comes in and he gives them tohim, and there's testimony to that,
but he doesn't know where they go, so he just throws them down and
takes a picture. But then whenpeople are ready to testify, they look
at the photograph and they say,for instance, Mooney and Detective Johnson both

(44:29):
look at that photograph and say,well, that's not what they look like.
And that's when people start thinking,well, someone is changing things.
They're doing this on purpose, there'sa sinister motive behind it, when really
the motive is Fritz, who isthe captain, is used to doing whatever

(44:50):
he wants and he's not concerned aboutwhether or not things have been photographed yet,
and so he's just in that goodold boy phase and doing what he
wants to do. He's the bigboss there and he can pick up casings
if he wants to. And thenyou have somebody on the other end of
the spectrum who knows absolutely nothing andis trying so hard to do what he

(45:14):
thinks he's supposed to do, andthe only thing he can remember is that,
Oh, I'm supposed to fingerprint things, but I need to I know
now, I know I've messed up, and I need to hide that.
So it's not that there's this sinisterconspiracy necessarily to confuse the evidence and the
processing of the crime scene. Butthere's a lot of other things behind it.

(45:35):
And all of this is in thetestimony, and it's just a matter
of understanding how crime scenes are processedand worked and knowing the kind of mindset
that police officers have and how thatworks. That really gives us the insight
into what happened in the Texas schoolbook depository. And we need to have

(45:55):
that kind of understanding. That's whatI was talking about about you having that
understanding as a crime scene investigator andwith law enforcement background, you know,
being a trainer, uh and teachingthese type of things to other people.
UH, it's good to have thatinformation and you're you know, your your
look on things and your take onthings, because again, it's easy to

(46:17):
look at it from an obviously thiswas a conspiracy. So now you've ready
we've already determined there's more than enoughevidence to say that Oswald wasn't alone government.
Okay, so obviously there's a conspiracy. So we've taken that step.
So now when you start to lookat things that can that can taint the
way you look at things, youknow, you automatically you're going to look
at everything with it. Oh,it's conspiratorial done that way. And again

(46:39):
I'm not saying that there weren't thingsdone that I have a problem with the
Dallas PD and and the way somecertain things were handled, or you know,
I think there was corruption here orthere. But you all you need
is to have one person higher upthat knows the exact traits of the people
that you just talked about. Thosetwo individuals by themselves are perfect examples because

(47:00):
they're higher up. If they knowhow those two people are, can manipulate
the situation so that those people willact in a ready predetermined way because they
know how they're going to react toa situation. So you just put the
right maybe instead of that, I'mtelling you a lot of times it's not
as and I'm not saying that therewasn't conspiratorial stuff anything going on. I'm

(47:22):
just saying a lot of times itgets That's where a lot of the misinformation
comes from, because when you startto research it and you actually look into
it, like you did, yousee that you I mean you read the
testimony and stuff. And I'm notsaying I mean they could have lied or
whatever, but that when you digdeep and you start to research this and
you go through everything and you havean understanding also of how a things work

(47:43):
back then, be how things worknow, and how crime scene should be
investigated. I don't have that background, so you can look at this with
a set of eyes that I don'thave and say, wait, wait,
wait, this wasn't done. Youknow, it is a conspiracy, ladies
and gentlemen, But this and thisweren't done to be conspiratorial. This and
this we're done because of X,Y and Z. And it's important to

(48:04):
point that stuff out, ladies andgentlemen, because the whole premise of the
book, like Sherry puts in thebook, is that there are myths and
facts, and there are a lotof them surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and
she is trying to separate the mythsfrom the facts, because if we're going
to get to the bottom of thisand actually make any headway with this and
do something like everybody says they wantto do right and bring the perpetrators to

(48:29):
justice, well, the only waywe're going to be able to do that
is to sort through the myths fromthe facts. And a lot of the
myths end up being created over thecourse of time because of misunderstandings about how
maybe police work is done, orhow the SOPs were at the time,
or how a particular individual. Remember, everything comes into account from ranging from

(48:49):
the SOPs of the police department andtheir investigative research all the way to the
subtle nuances of the investigator themselves.All of that comes into play. Now.
It's you know, even to evento this day, it's the same
way it has to come into play. Today. It's a little different though,
because now there is there is morestuff, time, energy effort focused
on the forensics aspect of it.But it really is important to have that

(49:15):
understanding because that helps weed through alot of the garbage because once you can
separate the fact and from the myths, right, that enables you to move
on to the next subject, right, and then the next subject, and
you do that with each one.You can kind of get the garbage away
from the good stuff and then getall that evidence and put it, you
know, together, and then lookat all of the real evidence and with

(49:37):
a fresh mind. You know,first you got to sort of the real
stuff out from the garbage, andthen you can look at the real stuff
collectively afterwards and try to piece ittogether and figure out how everything works together.
But in order to do that,you have to separate fact from myth.
And your book does a hell ofa job doing it. Thank you.
I appreciate that. And again withoutthat, without that forensic a research

(50:00):
aspect, you know, angle ofit. You know, I asked you
why, you know when we weretalking off air, I said, you
know, why did you why didyou you know, want to look what
made you a cold case investigator kindof look at it? And you told
me basically it was you know,you you had heard so many times the
JFK research community, because you know, you knew people and they had said,

(50:22):
oh, you know, we ifwe only had the evidence, if
we only had the evidence, ifwe only had the evidence, well,
now they have the forensic evidence andit's from someone who is certified and the
courts believe. So it's not likeif we actually took this to a court
of law, say, and I'mnot saying that's what Cherry's goal is.
But if we took it to acourt of law per se, and we

(50:44):
had a prosecutor or whoever, wefigured something out right, and they were
able to read her book, theycould literally use her book and bring her
they could I mean, they couldbring her in as a as a witness,
and she she could be literally incourt testifying about this, and they
I mean they would have to takeher seriously. They take her seriously about

(51:06):
other stuff. And if you don'tthink that people in the past have tried
to probably throw the JFK thing inher face, you know, in her
professional life, you know, ina crime scene case or whatever. Lawyers
or sharks, I'm sure they havealready and I'm willing to bet if they
have, it's gotten destroyed already.You see, that's how impeccable her credibility
is. So can you imagine ifwe could get this case and I'm just

(51:29):
saying this, Sherry, but canyou imagine if we could get this case
and you to be able to testifyin court, if we could figure out
like who did what? You knowwhat I mean, and we could,
you know, at least, evenif we're not going to bring a physical
person to justice, at least dothe same thing they did with the Martin
Luther King Junior investigation where they broughtthey brought it to a civil trial and

(51:50):
they were able to prove that therewas units within the CIA, FBI,
and Army Special Forces slash tell thatconspired to take out Martin Luther King Junior.
So can you imagine if we couldjust get Sherry and her information into
a court of law like that,and even if it was just a civil

(52:13):
trial, with her impeccable background,Ladies and gentlemen, she hasn't been refuted
yet in her work. Okay,that's amazing. And this lady is telling
you, she's telling you that thereis enough evidence to at least point to
the fact that there was a conspiracy. The forensics show it. I'm telling
you if you need to check herbook out, all right, Our number

(52:34):
one is up, Our number twocoming up don't go anywhere. We'll be
right back in a few minutes.While we're at break, and check out
Sherry's book Enemy of the Truth,Miss Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination. Ladies
and gentlemen, we will be rightback. Well, ladies and gentlemen,
we are back with our number twohere on tonight's live edition of Down the

(52:55):
Rabbit Hole. I'm your host,Pop I from Federal Jack dot Com.
It is February twenty seventh, twothousand and thirteen tonight. I have been
talking about the JFK assassination, asI said in Hour number one, since
last year. I've decided to devoteat least one if not more show per
month to the topic of the Kennedyassassination because it's the fiftieth anniversary. Now.

(53:20):
I've done broadcasts on it before,but now I am definitely at least
once a month, if not twiceor more, focusing on the assassination because
it's the fiftieth anniversary, and asit leads up and gets closer to November,
I'm actually going to start to domore and more and more broadcasts,
and Sherry's going to be back onwith me. I'm going to have Vince
Palmyra back on. I already talkedto Lenosanik about it. I'm going to

(53:44):
have him back on more the entireyear leading up to the fiftieth anniversary.
I am going to hammer home thepoint that the assassination of the president was
not by a low job, thatit was a conspiracy. And I'm not
going to tell you who did it, or why they did it, or
I mean, I'm going to coverall that, but I'm not going to

(54:05):
try to pound into your head anexact point of why they did this or
did that. I'm just going togive you an overwhelming amount of evidence that
shows that there's a conspiracy. Idon't want you to trust me. I
want you well, I rephrase that, I don't want you to believe everything.
I want you to trust me,but I want you to go check
it out for yourself. Trust butverify. Like Kennedy used to say,

(54:30):
you must do the research yourself.I could sit here and beat you over
in head with this for two hours, three hours, four or five six
hours. My guest Sherry Feaster couldsit here and beat you over the head.
And you know, all the otherJFK researchers out there could beat you
over the head. But unless youdo the research yourself, unless you read,
I don't mean just watching a YouTubevideo. Cherry and I were talking
about this offair earlier. That isnot researching. Yes, I release things

(54:53):
via YouTube, I play audio fromYouTube clips, and there are many good
reference resources on YouTube, but thatis not the only place you should be
doing your research. You need toread. You need to do investigations,
and that entails reading. Whether it'sreports, articles, books, it is

(55:14):
what it is. And one ofthose super important books to get is my
guest, Sherry Feaster's book, Enemyof the Truth, Myths, Forensics and
the Kennedy Assassination. And I'm goingto keep plugging her book, ladies and
gentlemen. And then the reason I'mgoing to keep plugging her book is because
this thing is an eye opener.Now. I've been investigating the JFK assassination

(55:37):
for I don't know, since Iwas about fourteen fifteen, so for an
epically long time, over twenty yearsnow, and I can tell you that
I have never seen a book likethis where they took the forensic approach to
it and dissected it. And Sherry, I know you probably get trolls and
haters and stuff hate non you youfor some of the things that you've put

(56:01):
in here. And I know evenmaybe some of those haters might even be
people in the JFK research community,because, as I said in hour one,
people get emotional attachments to certain evidence. I know one of the things
that you have tackled is pretty controversialin the community, at least from my
standpoint and others, I guess,But as far as I'm concerned, basically

(56:23):
it's ironic. As I talk toyou about this off air, I kind
of had the same thoughts that somethingwasn't right about a certain thing dealing with
the assassination, and that would bethe Grassy Knoll. And when I talk
to you off air about this,you confirmed what I had thought, and
your book actually is what really Imean, it just verified it. It

(56:46):
hit it home, and that wouldbe the Grassy Knoll. Now, a
lot of people have issues with thefact that you have said that there was
not a shot from the Grassy Knoll, and automatically people go, oh,
I thought she said there was aconspiracy. Well hold up, people before
you have a super emotional reaction,and don't let the lady finish and actually

(57:07):
listen to what she's saying. Okay, she's saying there was a shot from
the front, which by definition destroysthe official government story. So there was
a conspiracy. There was obviously asecond shooter. All she's saying is the
evidence doesn't point to the fact thatit was at the Cressy Knoll, but
somewhere else. Now that somewhere elsewas the Triple Underpass, the Stemens Motor

(57:29):
Freeway, the top of it upthere. Okay, So Sherry, I
know this is very contentious. We'llsay, you know, amongst the research
community. First, how have yourpeers and the people you know researching this
whatever, how have they responded toyour shocking But as I said, verifying

(57:52):
my thoughts on this earlier evidence thatthe shot didn't come from the grass,
you know. And ladies and gentlemen, to understand really quick, if you
look at the and I'm gonna letyou, I'm gonna give sherrit to floor
and let her take over. Butto understand, if you look at the
grassy knoll, and this is whatthis is what I had said to her
earlier. This was always my issueand my bone of contention. If you

(58:13):
look at the Grassy Nle where itis. If you look at the headshot
and a pruder film, if yousee how his head went back, and
then if you look at the ifyou look at the wounds, and you
look at the autopsy photos and stuff, Kennedy's head it was the right.
It was the right side of hishead where the bullet entered. Okay,
well, if you had if itcame out the back right, that would

(58:36):
that would indicate it came from thefront, like through the windshield area towards
that towards the Triple Underpass. Andthe thing I always had an issue with
about the Grassy Knoll was if heshot from the Grassy Knoll, it would
have been on more of an angle. It would have been more to his
right, and if that was thecase, it would have hit him in
the forehead. Even if it hithim in the same spot, it would
have been at a different angle andthe wound would have been extremely different.

(58:59):
It wouldn't have on the angle itwas. It would have been more out
the side of his head and atthe left side of his head. I
mean, not that Jackie didn't haveblood and stuff on her and the driver
and all everybody around him didn't have, but they would have been. There
would have been more of it onthat side than out the back half of
the limo. And talking to Sherryand reading her book, it confirmed my
thought on it. I was like, oh wow, just wow. And

(59:21):
then I got a chance to pickyour brain on it today. So Cherry,
you have the floor. First,how have your peers, you know,
taken your to your evidence, andthen you know, just go from
there. For many years, Iwas a person that believed that the headshot
originated from the Grassy Knoll, andI do believe that a shot came from

(59:44):
the Grassynome. But now I knowthat that shot did not strike President Kennedy
in the head. And I knowthat because of reconstructuring reconstructor instructing the trajectory
analysis for that particular headshot. Thefirst time I did that, and I

(01:00:08):
called my sister and said, hey, guess what I just did trajectory analysis
on the head shot and the shooteris not at the Grassy Knoll. Her
words were, You've lost your mind. You're absolutely crazy. Because for thirty
years people have looked at this,they know that the shooter was there.

(01:00:30):
They have witnesses that observed smoke thatherd shots originating from behind the fence.
All these people rushed up the slopeto the fence. There was even one
witness that said they saw a flashof light. The police officers believed the
shot originated from that area. Sohow can you possibly believe that the shooter

(01:00:57):
or the head shot was anywhere butthe grassing. Well, I worked this
case as a murder. I reconstructedthe crime scene, and one of the
steps within that reconstruction is to dotrajectory analysis. This is something that is
done on crime scenes in shooting casesall over the country and all over the

(01:01:23):
world in the same way. Soit's not a matter of what procedure do
you like to use and how doyou interpret the information that you get.
But by looking at the standards fortrajectory analysis, you follow the steps one

(01:01:44):
by one, you come to aconclusion. It's mathematically based and so it's
very difficult to be miscon for theinformation to be misconstrued. So I did
the trajector analysis, and I determinedthat you cannot do a single line trajectory,

(01:02:06):
which means from a particular entry pointto a particular exit point, because
we don't have that. But whatwe do have is I think a consensus
of people that believe, if youbelieve in a front shot at all,
that the right front quadrant of thehead is the area of entry and the

(01:02:27):
right rear quadrant of the head isthe area of exit. And if you
use those areas instead of little pointsof entry and exit, then you can
develop what is called a trajectory cone. And so I did that. And
if you extend the trajectory cone outin front of President Kennedy, then it

(01:02:49):
says the shooter is going to besomewhere within that trajectory cone and in a
right to left and in an elevatedposition. And in doing that, the
trajectory cone doesn't include any portion ofthe north side of Dilley Plaza. That

(01:03:12):
means it had no portion of theGracyknole, no portion of the area behind
the fence, no portion of thatarea of the triple overpass that is adjacent
to the grassy Knole. The shooterhad to be on the opposite side,
on the south side of Dley Plaza. And it has to do with one

(01:03:36):
question where is front? Because ifyou don't know where front is, then
you can't determine where the shooter waslocated. If you have been saying for
many years the shooter was in frontof the president. By determining where the
shooter where front is, it helpsyou determine where the shooter is. For

(01:04:01):
many years, I was one ofthose people that assumed wrongly that front with
the Grassy Knoll. But it isn'tAnd have you gotten have you gotten like
any type of vitriolic reaction to this, I'm sure there are people that are
emotionally connected to the Grassy Knoll theory. And by the way, she's not

(01:04:24):
saying there wasn't a shooter on theGrassy Knoll. All she's saying is the
fatal headshot that you see in thefamous Suppruter film, and the headshot that
blew his brains out did not comefrom the Grassy Knoll. That's what she's
saying. And actually, if youthink about it, what Sherry is saying
backs up the idea of a triangulationof fire. That means that there was

(01:04:45):
a guy shooting from the dal Texbuilding, there was a guy shooting from
the Stimmens Motor Freeway, and therewould have been somebody shooting from the Grassy
Knoll area. That's a triangulation offire. That's three points fire on Kennedy's
position. So and you could getinto you know, well, where did

(01:05:06):
the guys round from the grassy andnoalgo? Where you hoo did it hit?
Where did it go? You know, blah blah blah. But what
she's not saying there there wasn't somebodythere. What she's saying is there was
the headshot that killed him did notcome from there. And if that's what
the forensics and the evidence show,then again we cannot allow our emotions to

(01:05:29):
lead us. We have to allowthe evidence to lead us. So have
you gotten negative responses, possis orresponses? How have been the responses?
Let me frame it that way.The first time that I presented this information
to a public group was at aNO Member in Dallas conference that was hosted

(01:05:51):
by JFK. Lancer in Dallas,and I think it was in two thousand
and three, so I've been sayingthis for a while. They looked at
me when I finished giving this presentation, and I took them from step one
right down the line everything that hasto be done and explained it. And

(01:06:14):
when I finished, there was amicrophone to the side of the room and
I said, are there any questions? And I mean literally people were just
looking at me with their mouths open. No one was moving, and no
one was saying anything. They wereabsolutely stunned that I would say that to
them. And I have to tellyou, it's great when you're saying what

(01:06:35):
people want you to say. That'slike preaching to the choir, and it's
like amen's sister, We're with you. But when I did that, they
objected. They did not want toaccept it right away. Now some people
did. They said, Okay,yes, I understand this and I'm with
you. I'm going to I acceptit. But then there were other people

(01:06:57):
that said, no, I don'tthink you understand there. You have had
to have made a mistake somewhere becauseeverybody knows that the shooter for the headshot
is behind the grassy null. Well, here's the deal. We all use
our life experiences to help us todetermine what truth is and what reality is.

(01:07:20):
In our life. We use theinformation that we have at the time
to make the best decisions that wecan and to reach conclusions that we believe
are true. But if someone comesto you with new information, information that
is verifiable, that is scientific innature, the kind of evidence that flies

(01:07:46):
in the face of what you believe. You have two choices. You either
refute it or you integrate that newinformation with what you know and you reconcile
that by either saying it's not true. I can prove that it's not true,
or you're going to say this istruthful because scientifically the scientific basis for

(01:08:14):
it is credible. And so that'swhat people have had to do at different
times. They get the information andthey have to reconcile it within themselves.
Am I going to believe this?Well, you can either believe in math
or you cannot believe in math.It doesn't really matter, because the truth
is the truth, whether people believeit or not. And I know that

(01:08:38):
there's people that are heavily vested inthis and they just don't want to say
or believe that for almost fifty yearsthey've been wrong. That's hard to do.
It takes a big person to say, for fifty years, I was

(01:08:58):
wrong, and I talked about it, and I wrote about it, and
I defended it, but I waswrong. And so you know, that's
that's kind of what has happened.And some people are very accepting right away,
and they say, I appreciate youknow, the work that you've done,

(01:09:20):
and this is going to make adifference in assassination research community and for
the history of our nation to havea more accurate narrative and for people to
understand what happened Indely Plaza. Andthen there are other people that are going
to say, you know, it'sjust a bunch of bunk. I don't

(01:09:43):
even need to read the book toknow that it's just a bunch of bunk.
And that's the kind of results thatI get. And that's an emotional
reaction. That's exactly what that is. That's an emotional reaction to something that
they don't want to admit because Ithink a lot of times they if they
say, well, I was wrong, and yes, it's the it's the

(01:10:03):
admitting that they might have been wrongabout it. But I don't I think
they're afraid that if they say thatthey were wrong, then that automatically makes
their argument against the government, thegovernment's official story invalid, and then that
makes the government's argument right. Butwhat they're not paying attention to is know
what she's saying is there were twoshooters, two dose double two. That

(01:10:25):
means guess what the official story thatone person shot him goes out the window
too. So it's not that youbelieve the official government story. And I
think it's also part of, youknow, admitting that, you know,
somebody has to admit that they're wrongand though everything that they've believed for that
long is wrong. Uh, youknow, there's I think there's it's like
an onion. There's a couple ofdifferent levels to it. And at the

(01:10:47):
end of the day, it's anemotional reaction that they have to the evidence
and you can't get emotionally attached toit. You know, for the longest
time, I thought that, youknow, I've always said, well,
the second government on the grassy know, the government on the grassy Knoll.
I've repeated it, you know,over and over and over again. Now,
yes, Lee Bauer saw two guys. There is there evidence to support
the fact that there was a gunmanthere, Yes, but the evidence does

(01:11:11):
not support the fact that his shotis what hit Kennedy in the head,
which means there was another shooter.So by any means that shouldn't piss off
the conspiracy research crowd. That verifiesthat there was another shooter, and it's
something that was done forensically. Soif it ever does go to a court
of law, or if you atleast wanted to try to win the court

(01:11:31):
of public opinion, you could say, look, this woman is a forensic
investigator. She treated this as acold case murder. That's how you treated
the JFK assassination. And that's exactlywhat she did, Ladies and gentlemen.
I spoke to Sherry about this.She looked at this like it was a
cold case murder, and she wentand reopened it and you know, did

(01:11:53):
everything from square one. And guesswhat. Guess what. The evidence proves
that there was two gunmen of someof the forensic evidence refuge a little bit
of what we might have believed overthe course of time, but it still
verifies that there was more than oneshooter. And that emotional attachment, that's
a bad thing because it happens inall these research communities. I've noticed,

(01:12:15):
Sherry, whether it's JFK nine toeleven, anything, you'll get that,
you know, visceral emotional reaction.But you know, I do have to
say there are a lot of peoplethat are in the research community who have
immediately embraced this. And I'm talkingabout authors like Sarah Wett, Larry Handcott,

(01:12:38):
Lamar Waldron Stu Wexler, very EarnestBarry kersh Phil Drago. I mean,
you know, I could go onand on. There are people who
understand this and they accept it,and they have come to me and said,
this is a great job, andwe appreciate it. Because you know,

(01:12:59):
we were talking earlier and we weretalking about people being conspiracy theorists or
historical researchers, and I said,I don't like the term conspiracy theorist because
today conspiracy theorists have come to symbolizesomething ridiculous or you know, crazy behavior,
emotional statements that don't have any realfactual context, and it makes it

(01:13:27):
easy for people just to dismiss whatis being said because they can put that
label on them. Well, theyare conspiracy theorists, so we don't have
to listen to it. And thenthere are people who so and I definitely
don't. I don't associate myself asa conspiracy theorist. Then there are people
that are historical researchers. These arepeople that they look at the facts that

(01:13:49):
are already there. They collect information, they organize it, they analyze it,
they interpret it, and they provideanswers. These researchers, these historical
researchers, look at evidence that's beencare reviewed, research that has been done
by other people with scientific knowledge.They're respectable sources, and I think that

(01:14:15):
that's where the majority of people arethat aren't looking at this particular homicide.
I agree. I'm going to cutus off, Ferry, because we got
the break sneaking up on us,but I wanted to let you get that
in there as much as possible.That was very well said, Ladies and
gentlemen, Do not go anywhere.We'll be right back the last half hour
coming up, Ladies and gentlemen.We got back final segment of tonight's broadcast.

(01:14:39):
You know, I realized, andI didn't even realize I was doing
it until I caught myself doing it. But I was trying to put too
much into just two hours tonight,even though I already knew I wasn't gonna
be able to fit it all intotwo hours. And what I mean is
picking Sherry's brain. Now, we'regoing to stay on the topic that we've
been on because this is something that'sreally important to stay on the fact that

(01:15:03):
the forensic evidence shows that the shotfrom the shot to the head came from
the front by the Triple Underpass,and we're going to stay on that.
So Sherry has graciously agreed to comeback on the broadcast in the next to
sometime in the next two weeks,and we're going to get into some of
the other evidence in her book,and if we have to have her on

(01:15:24):
a third time to keep going overit, or in a fourth time and
a fifth time and again she's goingto come back on in the future over
the course of time leading up tothe fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.
But first of all, Sherry,thank you so much for being willing to
come on for you know, doinganother show with me, because I know
there's just too much evidence, justan amazing book, Ladies and gentlemen,

(01:15:45):
Enemy of the Truth, Myths,forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination. Now
that aside, before we get intothe evidence, where can the people purchase
the book so that way maybe intwo weeks they can kind of thumb through
it and be maybe a little bitof ahead of some of the other listeners
for the next broadcast. You canget a signed copy from JFK Lancer dot

(01:16:10):
com or Sherryfeaster dot com, butit's also available through Amazon, Warrene and
Noble and all of the other majorbookstores over the internet. Awesome, Okay,
ladies and gentlemen, we're going todo a bit of an interactive thing
here in the last twenty minutes orso here. And this was not my
idea. You can actually thank Sherryfor this idea. She came up with

(01:16:32):
this during the break because we weretrying to figure out how we were going
to get all the evidence and beable to fit in into like twenty minutes,
and she came up with a reallyingenious way to do it. So
I want everybody, if you're ona computer right now, if you're listening
to the broadcast later on, youcan do this too, you know,
in the archive or whatever. Aslong as you're not driving, don't attempt
it. But if you're near yourcomputer, go to Google whatever search engine

(01:16:54):
you use, I don't care,and bring up a picture of Dearly Plaza.
But it's got to be an aerialphotograph looking down on the plaza so
you can see the book Depository andthe Triple on their pass and Elm Street
and everything. Because you got tobe able to see it so she can
walk you through it. Now.I'm gonna give everybody about ten fifteen seconds
to do that while I chat here. Go to your favorite search engine whatever,

(01:17:17):
Bring up an aerial photograph of DalyPlaza so you can get an idea
of what is where. There areones out there that will show you where
the book depository is. You cankind of get an idea as to which
way the motor kid was traveling.There's plenty of them out there. They
have arrows showing you everything. Findit really quick. Well, I'm chatting
right now. Bring it up onyour computer, and about ten more seconds,

(01:17:41):
I'm gonna have Sherry go and doher magic. Because I'm telling you
what this lady is. You cannotrefute her work. You can't. Sorry,
you can't. That's why she's here. That's why I'm promoting her book
the way I am. She didn'tpay me to promote her book. She
didn't say pop, I please promotemy book. Please please, please know.
She sent me a copy of herbook and said, I and I

(01:18:01):
know you do JFK research. Youmight be interested in my book. Check
it out. And I read herbook and then emailed her back and said
you need to come on my broadcast. Wow, okay, so get her
book. Mui im portante. Thethe the the crime scene itself, the

(01:18:24):
freeway, the triple underpass, thegrassy knoll, all of these things have
been brought up in the first halfhour, and we and Cherry brought out
this information that said that the shotdidn't come from there. And I agree
that that, you know, afterseeing her stuff. It, like I
said, it verified what I alreadythought. So with that in mind,

(01:18:46):
and now that I've given you allenough time to have the picture, Sherry,
the floor is yours. Please walkeveryone through how you came to the
conclusion via the evidence and the forensicevidence, I should say, please walk
everybody through how you came to theconclusion of where the shot came from,

(01:19:08):
because this is really important, ladiesand gentlemen. The floor is yours.
Thank you, okay. Trajectory analysishelps us to determine where possible shooter locations
for the head shot are located,and so in order to do that,
there are four steps that have tobe completed. The first step is to

(01:19:29):
determine where the womb locations are.Now we have wounds that have been identified
in autopsy, changed and identified bythe Warren Commission, the Clerk Panel,
the House Select Committee, and alot of other people that have looked at
it as individuals. And the wounditself a entry wound and an exit wound

(01:19:54):
is not a little point that anyonecan agree on. So I think the
easiest thing for us to do isto be the most generous and say that
we believe that all of the evidence, which is true, All of the
evidence does say that the damage toPresident Kennedy's head is restricted to the right

(01:20:17):
side of his head. Now,if you believe in a rear shot or
a front shot, trajectory analysis worksthe same way. If you believe in
a front shot, then we aregoing to use the right front quadrant as
the entry and the right rear quadrantas the exit. So if you have

(01:20:41):
a little piece of paper handy drawnoval which would be like a bird's eye
view of the head, put alittle nose on it so you'll be able
to determine which way the head islooking. Draw a cross that would divide
the head into four sections. Andif you do that, then it's going
to allow you to do trajectory analysis. So step one is to determine where

(01:21:09):
the wounds are. Step two isto determine which direction of the projectile is
traveling. Now, at autopsy,they looked at two things. One,
they had Oswald that they had arrested. They believed that he was in the
sixth floor window at the Texas schoolBook Depository and they had a weapon there,

(01:21:33):
and they had the casnes that werefound on the floor near the window,
and so they said the shots camefrom the rear. End of discussion,
However, there's other ways that youcan make a determination about the direction
of travel for a projectile. Oneis beveling. Historically, beveling determines the

(01:21:56):
trajectory directionality in bone. They hadsome bone with beveling, but it was
just a piece of a bone.It wasn't a hole in the skull.
It was just a little area thathad a little beveling. What we have
found out, however, is thatbeveling is not the best standard for making

(01:22:17):
that determination and that it should notbe used because it's easily confused with entry
and exit, and it also dependsupon where the bone is and how thick
it is, and there's a lotof things. It's extensively covered within enemy
of the truth. Another way oftelling is prefracture sequencing, and this is

(01:22:43):
the little lines that are made inthe skull when a bullet strikes the skull,
and the way those lines are createdindicates to a forensic pathologists the direction
of force, the direction that theforce is traveling, and in this case,
it would be the direction that thebullet was traveling. The fracture sequencing

(01:23:04):
combined with the movement of President Kennedy'shead and I'm talking about both the forward
and the rear movement, combined alsowith the bullet fragment distribution that we see
in the X rays and the bloodspatter that is observed in the Zapruiter film,

(01:23:26):
and from testimony and evidence outside theZapruter film all point to a forward
shot. So if you want tobelieve those five things that are scientifically proven
as a front shot, then youwould want to say the right front quadrant
is the entry and the right rearis the exit. If you do not

(01:23:47):
believe that, if you believe thatthe shooter for the head shot came from
behind President Kennedy, you would justreverse that. Now, the next step
would be to determine President Kennedy's locationwithin Dally Plaza. This was determined by

(01:24:12):
Thomas Canning, who was an engineerwith a with NASA. The House Select
Committee asked him to come in andwith photographic analysis and a geological survey,
they placed President Kennedy within Dally Plazaat the time of the shooting. So,

(01:24:32):
if you have your little map andyou had a little oval that would
be your head, you could actuallyplace the direction that he was looking within
Daley Plaza. And the way thatyou would do that is the same way
that Thomas Canning did it. ThomasCanning determined that he was at a position

(01:25:01):
that was about ninety degrees to Zupruteras Zapruter was filming, but that he
was turned in profile about twenty sixdegrees beyond that. So, if you
took your little head and you putit on that map at a ninety degree

(01:25:25):
angle to where Zuppruter was, andthen you turned it an additional twenty six
degrees, that center line that goesdown the top of your skull, if
you extended it out within Dey Plaza, you would be pointing to the area
that's considered front for President Kennedy.Now, if you had had all of

(01:25:49):
that done, the next step wouldbe to extend the trajectory cone out into
the plaza in the direction that thebullet came from. But we don't have
a point. We don't have asingle point. So let's assume that one

(01:26:11):
shooter was directly in front and thathe entered a bullet, entered just to
the right of the mid line ofthe skull, and exited right behind the
ear, so that you have anextreme to the left entry and an extreme
to the right exit. And thenyou reversed that so someone standing as the

(01:26:32):
President Kennedy would be looking to hisright, would come in to the temple
before the ear, but exit theback of the head before crossing that midline.
What you've done is created an angle. If you extend that angle out
into Daley Plaza, then you havedetermined where the shooter for the headshot had

(01:26:56):
to be standing, and that ishow trajectory analysis is done. Then the
only thing you have to determine iselevation, because you not only have to
have a right to left trajectory,but you also have to have an elevation
that's going to work. You shouldhave president looking the president looking just beyond

(01:27:21):
the angled south end of the TripleOverpass slightly into the parking lot that was
adjacent to it at that end,still is at that time, and the
trajectory cone that you would create isgoing to be about thirty five degrees.

(01:27:43):
Only the very south end of theTriple Overpass and the majority of that parking
lot is included within the trajectory cone. The south the north side of Daly
Plaza, which contained the area thatSupruter was in, and the grassy null

(01:28:04):
that we know it and the placewhere the people were standing on top of
the Triple Overpass is all excluded mathematicallyas being a point of origin for the
headshot. Just amazing, just amazing. I haven't seen this in history books.

(01:28:27):
I haven't seen this on the news. Erry, when was your book
printed? Hold on, let medouble check. Why why isn't this in
the news, ladies and gentlemen,Why why isn't this on ABC, NBC,
PBS, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, HM Why. I'll
tell you why. Because this wouldrefute the government's official story, which he

(01:28:49):
just told you is there was ashot from the freeway, and there's forensic
evidence to prove it. Her bookshowcases that not the freeway, but the
overpass. Well, yeah, that'swhat I meant, the triple overpass right,
the triple overpass, not the freewayright. And it could have come
from the parking lot to I mean, that is not excluded. And the

(01:29:13):
interesting thing about this is that theelevation for that area is sufficient to get
over the highest point of the limousine. And Jackie is not an intermediate target.
She would not be obscuring a shotfrom that location. And the person

(01:29:33):
that would that could be there wouldbe easily concealed. Everybody's looking on the
other side, and they would justhave to get in their car and drive
away. You know, you youmade a really good point too, even
if they weren't, you know,because some people could say, well,
how could they be concealed up ontop of the overpass there, there's you
know, there's there's no way.Well, what happens if they were in

(01:29:55):
a car. What happens if theywere in a car that was parked right
on the side, or a vanor whatever, and they shot from inside
the car. And you made areally good point to me off air,
how the sound the report of thegunfire will sound completely different if they were
standing up on top of the freeway, you know, on the overpass.
They're above the freeway shooting down atKennedy. Or if they were in a

(01:30:19):
van or a vehicle or whatever carwith maybe a suppressor or something on a
rifle and they were aimed out overtop right at Kennedy, it would sound
completely different and it might even throwthe ear witnesses off with where they heard
they thought they heard the shot comingfrom. I mean, that's that's really

(01:30:40):
important. If it came from uptop there, they could have been in
a car. This was done with. This whole thing was pulled off with
military precisions. So to think thatthe shooters hadn't trained previously for a moving
target, knowing they'd be shooting ata moving target is absurd. So these
guys, obviously they could have pulledus off. It's what is why I
point out the fact that they couldhave been in a car. They could

(01:31:02):
have you know, you brought thatup to me when we were chatting earlier,
And that's important. I mean,the possibilities up there of how they
could have camouflaged themselves, They couldhave been in a police uniform. I
mean, is anybody going to questiona cop standing up on top of the
overpass with their RIF phones, andno, they would think he's there to
protect the president, right right right. You know what's interesting too, is

(01:31:24):
that this was thought of long beforeI thought of it. Do you know
that it is a part of theofficial record that the Triple Overpass was a
consideration in determining trajectory in the WarrenCommission Meeting notes on April fourteenth, nineteen
sixty four, and they directed thatthat trajectory be examined when the reconstruction was

(01:31:50):
done. And yet we don't haveany records at all saying that that was
followed. That doesn't surprise me,because you know, there's really a lot
of stuff in the book. Enemyof the Truth is the very best that
I could do to present information ina non biased way that allows people to

(01:32:15):
take that information and make educated decisionsabout what happened. And I think that
without it we have a distorted viewpoint. Well again, that's why when I
brought this up hour one, Ilike the way because you're right at the
beginning of the book, you explainthe whole reasoning pretty much, and you
explain in there that look, ifyou're going to do this investigation of the

(01:32:39):
murder of a president, any typeof justice, you have to weed out
the week from the chaff, asthey say, right, so you have
to be able to get out thegood from the bad. And once you
can weed out all the misinfo fromthe real info and the facts and the
evidence, then you can sweep allthat stuff together, the good stuff,
and now look at it with afresh eyes. But first you have to

(01:33:00):
weed through all the garbage. Andyour book helps someone do that. And
it doesn't cover again, not thepolitical stuff, the behind the scenes,
the conspiratorial to who the where she'scovering the crime scene, the one thing
that seems to never get talked about. Almost it's almost like they you know
what crime scene, crime scene,but I don't see a crime scene.

(01:33:21):
You know, cut the hands overthe eyes, the hands over the ears,
the hands over the mouth. Thereis no I have not seen anybody
do a comprehensive breakdown of the crimescene itself like you have, Sherry.
And that is why I really appreciatethe work and the time and the effort
that you put into this book.And that's why I plug it and promote
it the way I do. Becauseladies and gentlemen, this is a tool.

(01:33:44):
Now we can kind of start tosort through just the stuff that she
went over in the book. Nowthere's other things. She again she focused
on the crime scene, but ifyou take her approach and you start to
maybe look at every other aspect ofthe conspiracy right through her set of glasses,
maybe through a take a try totake as much of a forensic approach

(01:34:04):
as you can to it. Seehow that applies to some of the knowledge
that you have and some of theinfo that you have about the ken of
the assassination, maybe some of themisconceptions or ideas that over the years you've
become emotionally attached to try to putit to I say, let's take her
viewpoint, her look at it,and let's try to apply it to other

(01:34:27):
aspects. I'm not saying the wholething needs to get changed, but you
never know, we might find somethingelse that we might have overlooked. You
never know, we might be ableto use, you know, her methodology
and sort through the garbage in otheraspects of it, in the who,
what where when, the political aspectof it, the conspiracy behind the scenes,
the mascinations, the secret government,the who, the big oil all

(01:34:50):
of that. I think if weused Sherry's idea of how she looked at
it like a crime scene, Ithink maybe if we tried to, if
you read her book, you'll havethe understanding, and then maybe if you
can if you once you see thingsthrough her eyes, maybe we can apply
that to the other stuff. Butagain, you have to read her book
first in order to understand where she'scoming from. Sherry, we got about

(01:35:13):
a minute. I want you toplug everything again. Any websites, emails,
anything, go ahead, Okay.You can purchase a book at jfklancer
dot com or on my web page, which is Sherryfeaster dot com. And
if you are a person that likesto read blogs, I have a blog
called Enemy of the Truth at WordPressdot com and I would enjoy hearing uni

(01:35:38):
feedback from anyone. Just amazing informationin this book. I'm just I'm really
look, ladies, Jim, youknow how I am about books, and
you know how I am about Idon't plug things I don't believe. And
I've said this one hundred times tonight. I'm just the reason I was so
glad to get her on tonight andget some of this info out is again
why has this not been on ABCNews? The information she's providing in this

(01:36:00):
book refutes everything, and again,her credentials, Her credentials, ladies and
gentlemen are impeccable. They can't tryto character assassinate her. Won't work.
I mean, I'm sure they wouldtry, but it won't work. Her
credentials speak for themselves. Sherry,it has been a pleasure and an honor

(01:36:20):
to have you on the broadcast,and I and you know what, again,
I'm just gonna have to have youback on within the next few weeks,
So ladies and gentlemen stay tuned forthat, and again purchase her book
Enemy of the Truth, Myths,Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination. With that,
we are out of time and weare out of here. I love
you all, all right. SoI'm gonna pause it there because that's the

(01:36:43):
end of it and only goes onfor like another ten seconds. And you
all know how I usually end mybroadcasts. So and I have something else
I'm going to squeeze in because Ihave enough time, and it sets it
up for the second broadcast that herand I did, and I do end
up playing this next piece in thatbroadcast. But I want to set up

(01:37:08):
I have time to do, soI have a little extra time, so
I want to set it up forpart two for y'all. And it coincides
with what Sherry and I were talkingabout. So I'm gonna bring it up
in a minute. But interesting information, stuff that maybe you haven't heard before.
You might have heard what could beconsidered perhaps conjecture or theory, but

(01:37:35):
not forensic proof. Now, Iobviously the stuff that I present to you
is not just conjecture. And Imean a theory is a theory, but
if you have enough evidence to backup that theory, then you know that

(01:37:56):
theory becomes correct. Anyway, whatSherry does and what she or what she
did, was she looked at theassassination through the lens of a forensic investigator.
And that's an angle that you don'treally see too much. Uh Cyril
Wecked looked at it. I know. I think Michael Bowden looked at the

(01:38:23):
uh the autopsy, so to speak. But I mean Ciro Wecked was probably
the one that did the He's donethe most work forensically besides Sherry, and
it's why I mentioned him about youknow where the head shot directionality of the
head shot and stuff because of thewounds to President Kennedy's head and stuff.

(01:38:44):
But Sherry goes a little bit furtherinto the forensic end of things. You
know, she's able to get intoit more so as the not just it's
like if you were watching like CSI, you know, usually it's the medical
examiner and the both the medical examinerand the you know, the team of

(01:39:10):
investigators, usually involving the head ofthe unit if it you know, whether
it's CSIGN Miami or Vegas, whatever. Usually like the head and one of
the other investigators and the coroner allwork together. So Cyrol Weckt or Michael
Bowden as the coroner would be workingwith Sherry. She would be the investigator.

(01:39:34):
So and then she would be theone, you know, going back
and forth with the medical examiner overyou know, what does the wounds tell
us versus you know, the forensicevidence that I was able to you know,
get or you know, get myhands on either from the scene or

(01:39:55):
you know, in this case,what's available to us. And then no,
you know that the suppruter film helpsout a lot because you like she
explained, you're able to you know, we know where he was hit.
There's that actual big X out inthe street on Elm Street there where he
was shot. So I've stood onit taking pictures there. I have a

(01:40:17):
picture up in the hallway of myhouse of it, a big framed photo
from the X looking up at theschool book depository. So knowing where he
was, having that video footage,knowing the dimensions of Dealey Plaza and being
out there, you're able to learna lot and figure a lot out.

(01:40:39):
And of course all this stuff willbe poo pooed and made fun of or
you know, attacked. Usually theattacks, especially if it's like the attacks
on someone's character over over some ofthis information or something that's that's a telltale
sign right there that they're afraid ofthe information that you know, is getting

(01:41:03):
out there. They don't want peopleto see this stuff. They don't want
people to know this stuff. Theyjust want this to go away. They
want everybody to forget that the JFKassassination happened. I mean, it was
sixty years ago. Why should wecare about what happened? You know,
that's the mentality they want people tohave. I mean, that's the inappropriate

(01:41:24):
mentality. But that's still the mentalitythey want people to have. So I'm
going to bring up this other videohere really quick, and this is a
segment, a scene that I cutout of the movie JFK by Oliver Stone
from the director's cut, and toset it up, it is the character

(01:41:47):
of Lou Ivan, who plays ishe is one of Jim Garrison's investigators.
Remember, Jim Garrison was the onlygovernment official, state or federal to actually
do an investigation into the JFK assassination, not just assume that Oswald did in

(01:42:08):
the case closed because now Oswald's convenientlydead. Garrison was the only government official
to ever bring anyone to trial forthe assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
and he did that with Clay Shaw. Anyway, in this scene in
the movie, it is Lou Ivan, one of Garrison's investigators, and Garrison

(01:42:34):
looking out the window out over ElmStreet, over Dealey Plaza from the supposed
sniper's nest and trying to figure outthe you know, the forensics of it
back then, and it wasn't calledforensic extent, but they were looking at
it in an investigative viewpoint. Andthey were both veterans, so they were

(01:42:59):
trying to figure out how this makessense and how this fit in because it
just didn't make sense to them asveterans, as people that have you know,
been to war and seen things.It didn't make sense to them.
And this sets up the whole secondbroadcast that I did with Sherry and an

(01:43:26):
article that I later on wrote,and I talked to her about that subsequently
as well in another broadcast I didwith her. But this gets this actual
scene gets talked about by Sherry andmyself in the next episode. So I
want to set up the next broadcastwith this, so I have enough time

(01:43:53):
to do this. So I'm goingto bring this up now. And it's
called I titled it JFK Crossfire andShooters, but it's it's it's just a
piece that I cut out from theoriginal JFK movie by Oliver Stone. It's
the JFK the director's cut, andI urge people to go get it and
watch it because it is a greatfilm. So here we Go is a

(01:44:16):
prude of film establishes three shots andfive point six seconds. Yeah, I'm
Oswald time me go time between sixseven seconds, and that's without really aiming.

(01:44:39):
She is the second and third shotscame almost right on top of each
other. It takes some minimums twopoint three seconds to recycle this thing.
The other problem is there was atree there blocking the first two shots.
At the time they come a Prudifilm jay who will say something about that
leaves it falling off and over.It was in Texas, live oak Chief.

(01:45:02):
It shed just leaves the first weekof March. So you take this
Carconnell was worst shoulder weapon when youtry to hit a moving target at eighty
eight yards through heavy foliage, Noway. Yeah. FBI tried two sets
of tests. Not one of theirsharp shooters could match Oswald's performance, not

(01:45:25):
one. And Oswald was the bestmedium shot. The scope was effective on
it too. I mean, there'sthe whole essence of the case to me.
The guy couldn't do the shooting.Nobody could, and they sold this
lemon to the American public. Thefruit of film is a proof that didn't
count on. You gotta get ourhands on it. That means we have

(01:45:53):
to subpoen a timeline. Let meask you something, live, why not
just shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.There's plenty of time, is out and
open. I keep asking myself thesame things. Even if you miss him
for the first shot, if itaccelerates, you still got him for the
second shot. No, the onlyreason for wait to get him on ELM.

(01:46:14):
You got him in a triangulated crossfire. You put a team there
down that the fence for a frontalshot, flat low trajectory. Put a
third team down here in this buildinghere on a low floor. Kendy gets
that kills on there. It's aturkey shop. How many men, okay,

(01:46:38):
one shooter at one spot on aradio, maybe three teams. I'd
say these professional rifles. Two chicksare serious people. Patient takes skills to
kill with the rifle people. Yougot to figure that's why there's been no

(01:47:01):
execution of the chief executive with oneof two hundred years two Main Street's over

(01:47:25):
there, all right, original preyroute on the way to that trademark,
it's too far right, too far, impossible shots. So they change a
prey route. Bring them down here, moving a normal twenty five miles pound.
The new motivator have to slow downto about ten miles pound to make
that to now. And that's wherewe got. So what really happened that

(01:47:50):
day? Let's just for a moment, speculate, shall we we have the
epileptic seizure around twelve to fifteen pm, distracting the police make it easier for
the shooters to move into their places. The epileptic later advantaged, never checking
into the hospital. The eight teamgets on the sixth floor of the depository.

(01:48:12):
Now they were furbishing the floors intothe pository that week, which allowed
unknown workmen in and out of thebuilding. They moved quickly in the position
just minutes before the shooting. Thesecond spader on the radio talking to the
other two teams has the best overallview. The gods spat Beteam one rifleman
and one spader with the headset andaccess to the buildings, moves into the

(01:48:34):
low floor of the doll Tech building. The third team, the C team,
moves in behind the picket fence abovethe grassy knoll, where the shooter
and the spada are first seen bythe late Lee Bowers and the watchtow of
the rail yard. They have thebest position of all and it is close
and are a flat low trajectory.Part of this team is a coordinator who's

(01:48:57):
flashed security credentials that several people chasingthem out of the parking lot. Probably
two to three more men are downthe crowd on l ten to twelve men
Threetine reshooting the triangulation of five Claysh David Berry discussed too much before they
walked the plasma. They know everyinch. The calibrated their site. They

(01:49:24):
practice on moving parkings. They areready. Kennedy's motorcut makes a turn from
Maine on to Houston. It's gonnabe a turkey shoot. They don't shoot
him coming up easton, which isthe easiest shot for a single shoot in
the book depository. They wait.They wait till he gets in the killings

(01:49:45):
over between three rock. Kennedy makesa final turn from us on the LM,
slowing down to some eleven miles anhour. The shooters across Gedy plausa
Titan taking the waiting for the radioto say green, green, or a

(01:50:05):
board a door. The first shotrings out, sounding like a backfire,
and miss the car completely frame onesixty one. Kennedy stops waving as he
hears him. Connie's head turns slightlyto the right frame one ninety three.

(01:50:29):
The second shot hits Kennedy in thethroat from the front frame two twenty five,
the President emerging from behind the roadsign. You can see that he's
obviously been hit, raising his armsto his throat. The third shot,
frame two thirty two, it's Kennedyin the back, pulling him downward and
forward. Conley, you will notice, shows no signs at all of being
hit. He's visibly holding his stetson, which is impossible if his risk has

(01:50:53):
been shattered. Conley is turning herenow frame two thirty eight. The fourth
shot. It misses Kennedy and takesTommy in the battle. This is the
shot that proves there were two rivals. Conley yells out, my god,
they're going to kill us all somewherearound this time. Now another shot that
this is the Corfu strikes change tagdown by the underpats cork Ray. The

(01:51:16):
sixth and fatal shot three thirteen takesKennedy in the head from the front.
This is the key shot. ThePresident going back and to his left.
Shot from the front and right,totally inconsistent with a shot from the depository.
Again, back and to the left, back and to the left,

(01:51:47):
back and to the left. That'sright, ladies and gentlemen, back and
to the left. No forward andfrom the right, because it would have
been on his right side, andit would have been coming in through the

(01:52:09):
rear of his head and coming outthe front, if the official version of
events was actually true, but theyare not, and you could see how
there's the triangulation of crossfire presented inthat video that I was discussing, although

(01:52:30):
I don't think and I get intothis with Sherry in the second episode and
in the article that I subsequently wroteit's no longer around. Unfortunately, it
was on Federal jack dot com andwhen the site went down years ago,
the article got lost. But Iread the article and I have reference in
the video and in the show withSherry, and I have her give her

(01:52:56):
take on it. So there's thatit's unfortunate that the article has gone I
don't even have like a draft ofit anywhere. There might be We did
have the archives on Federal Jack backedup, so there's some stuff backed up,
but we'd have to like upload itsomewhere and sort through it and everything.
Anyway. So I wanted to presentthat video because it covers a lot

(01:53:20):
of things that a Sherry and Idiscussed tonight that you heard and then be
what you're gonna hear that we discussednext week when I play the second episode
and we get into more into thetriangulation of crossfire and what actually happened at

(01:53:42):
Deally Plaza that day on November twentysecond, nineteen sixty three. That was
the day, as Beverly Oliver saidto me, she's the the famous Babushka
lady. I'm gonna play the interviewsI've done with her too. I'm gonna

(01:54:02):
rebroadcast those. Beverly is just anabsolutely lovely woman. And I don't know
if she's still doing interviews anymore ornot. I've reached out to her,
but I haven't heard anything back,so I don't know if she's okay or
not. I think she's still willus, but if she is, I
don't know if she's doing interviews anymore. But she's just an absolute gem of

(01:54:24):
a human being. And she wasthere. She was on the grass in
the median there when Kennedy got shot. She was standing maybe twenty feet away
from his limo when she got shot. So she has an interesting tale to
tell. And she used to workfor Jack Ruby, and she had seen
Oswald in Ruby's clubs before, soshe has an interesting She has an interesting

(01:54:50):
tale to tell. Her story hasnever changed, and she's an awesome lady,
and she's another witness that I'll beplaying stuff from. But she was
there, and she told me thatthat day was the day that America lost
its innocence, and that the innocencethat this country used to have was lost.

(01:55:14):
Because before that, nobody would havebelieved that, you know, somebody
in the government, or you know, or a group of people within the
government, so the government itself wouldkill a sitting president. Nobody thought that
that would happen. And after thishappened, and after people like Beverly you

(01:55:44):
know, and you'll hear in herstory why but you know, things didn't
add up. She knew that theofficial version of events and what she knew
to be true about certain things anyway, were not true. And even if
it's only one little thing that Petesheer interest. Over the years she came
to realize, you know, whatthe deal was, and that event is

(01:56:09):
what changed everything. Before that that, you know, nobody would have accused
their government of trying to kill theirown president. But after that, many
people did, you know, peoplewere asking questions, why are all these
witnesses dying? Anyway? It's alynchpin event, Ladies and gentlemen. It's
what led to the tyrannical forces thatcaused nine to eleven to have the power

(01:56:33):
that they had to do that,and it's what led to where we are
today in twenty twenty three, andthe tyrannical powers that were forced on everybody
in this country, I mean worldwide, but especially in this country during the
COVID nineteen lockdowns. Kennedy's assassination wasa huge lynchpin event. It changed history

(01:57:01):
for the worse. Anyway, Ladiesand gentlemen, we are out of time
tonight, so I want to leaveyou with some positivity, some positivity,
as I always do, even thoughI'm talking about the assassination of a president,
I do still want to leave youwith some positivity. My favorite quote

(01:57:21):
from Martin Luther King Junior, anotherman who is assassinated by these same people.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Onlylight can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate. Only love cando that. Ladies and gentlemen, I

(01:57:41):
love you all very much. Ibelieve in every single one of you go
out and be the change that thisworld needs. I hope some of you
took notes tonight go get Sherry's book, Enemy of the Truth, Myths,
Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination. Youcould just go right over to Amazon and
buy it, get the book.If you buy it now, you'll have

(01:58:03):
it ready for next week and it'llbe like crib notes, you know.
Anyway, Thank you all for tuningin. I love every single one of
you, and I will see youall again live next week with Part two
of a forensic look at the JFKAssassination with Sherry Feister

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

What Are We Even Doing? with Kyle MacLachlan

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}A Forensic Look with Sherry Fiester PT 1

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

What Are We Even Doing? with Kyle MacLachlan

All Episodes

A Forensic Look with Sherry Fiester PT 1

On Purpose with Jay Shetty