All Activity

P.S. Castro continues to stick around for another 40 years and the raids against "that imprisoned island nation" stop; Vietnam achieves self-determination as colonialism around the globe ends. Does this history sound like a right-wing coup took place?

Bill, as a result of your last few post's I'd just gone back and re read the pages on Florence Smith in Hit List and was about to post suggesting her death was interesting in a related way. Not a journalist but close friends with Kilgallen, close enough for Dorothy to give her the Ruby notes that then disappeared. Your post has info not in Hit list. Which I think I have read a few years back (e.g. Mr. Simkins article). She has been discussed on the forum before. When and where I don't recall. I do remember questioning, "She died of a cerebral hemorrhage apparently as a result of having Leukemia" per the death certificate. No autopsy (?), how did they know for sure? Are cerebral hemorrhage's normally associated with Leukemia? (I think I dug a bit but don't remember what I found, if anything). I just seems a strange coincidence that she died from this, two days after her close friend Kilgallen's suspicious death, and the Ruby notes were lost to history. There is another journalist related death I'll post on separately in a bit.

Ah ... okay so Soviets say same thing as most in America do at that time. If not the Lone Nut Oswald, then the Right-Wingers and if not them then Johnson -- or maybe all of them. But not CIA. Certainly not KGB. What about actual strategic action? Move to high-alert? Not exactly, instead we see Kruschchev "resign" and Brezhnev comes in and detente begins as U.S. "withdraws" from Vietnam, which it "loses" and Soviets fill the void in the third-world in the 70s ... . Domestically, at home, US has cut deal over missile withdrawal and proceeds to usher in largest social change program in its history. Vietnam War fractures Democratic party and the country as a whole. Nixon is the last liberal president -- according to Dems in the 90s -- but has background in spy-hunting and the Red Scare and is forced to resign. Throughout, Soviet military economy is said to be on rise, and many times the beneficiary of alleged espionage as well as other tech transfer programs. Standard U.S. textbooks throughout the Cold War proclaim "crossover point" -- when command Soviet economy will outpace U.S. -- to be about 1987. Maybe Golitsyn was on to something? Hmmmm.

Interestingly enough, Pat, it is regarding this that you and I have some common ground, but for opposite reasons. While you, for obvious reasons, want to discount the reports and testimony of the Parkland Hospital witnesses, I think that testimony is the most credible medical evidence in the entire case, so much so that it makes a mockery out of the Zapruder film headshot sequence which depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead that, as folklore has it, was so perfectly hermetically sealed by a hinged "flap" at Parkland, that nobody saw a hint of it, not even Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the blood clots out of the President's hair before she helped put the body in the casket in Trauma Room One: Although I have the highest respect for Dr. Mantik, I think that he is mistaken about his interpretation of the autopsy X-rays as indicating anterior head damage from gunshots. I suspect that it is actually damage from the modified craniotomy (skull cap) that was performed on the body prior to the start of the "official" autopsy that is responsible for the disruption of the anterior skull in the X-rays and autopsy photographs (EXACTLY as mortician Tom Robinson asserted to the ARRB) , and that the actual gunshot damage was confined to the back of the head, just as all of the Parkland doctors and nurses maintained, as well as most of the Secret Service detail. As can be seen from the following review of Doug Horne's Volume IV of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," Dr. Mantik is well aware of the illicit surgery and clandestine craniotomy: Why he does not factor those pre-autopsy procedures into his analysis of the X-rays and head damage is a mystery to me: "...Illicit Surgery at the Bethesda Morgue In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid co-conspirators, Horne needs first to clarify the timeline – which he does brilliantly (see the Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK's body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse). That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian.3 Quite astonishingly, Boyajian had retained a copy of his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of Dennis David4 who saw the light gray navy ambulance (with the bronze casket from Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was either 6:53 PM or 6:55 PM (the sources vary).5 But just about 20 minutes earlier, David had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40 PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian's recorded time of 6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly as early as 6:45 PM.6 In my opinion, therefore, it is very difficult to disagree with this early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal – it means that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles a long table7 of witnesses to the cheap casket and the body bag, both of which were seen at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton with much of this groundbreaking work. Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As corroboration for this, Horne8 describes JFK's Air Force Aide, Godfrey McHugh, as perturbed about a delay caused by a 'luggage transfer' between the two official planes. After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw) was missing. The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17 PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H. Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty) bronze casket to the morgue.9 This time is consistent with the arrival time of the bronze casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one – at 8 PM (in a light gray navy ambulance). It was delivered by the Joint Service Casket Team.10 The transfer of the body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must also have transpired after the initial X-rays (for reasons to be discussed below).11 Finally, this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could leave the morgue (Tom Robinson recalled this temporary departure12), be 'found' by the official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie's unexpected decision to remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman (who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to Horne. Lifton had argued that body alteration had occurred somewhere before Bethesda. He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through "trajectory reversal" – i.e., turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the body – was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine surgery.13 Horne takes a different tack: he believes that the reason for assaulting the body (before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds. My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne's work, I had become convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses – those at Parkland vs. those at Bethesda – had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound 'inviolate,' meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole.14 I still sense the horror in his voice as he recalled the tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne's witnesses (there are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering. Before Horne's work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda (although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded. Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda, he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck's statement (to the defense team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson's comment to the ARRB that the top of the skull was 'badly broken' when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was 'what the [autopsy] doctors did' – i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin's bullet(s).15 These reports therefore provide more evidence that the head was explored somewhere before Bethesda; the goal was to retrieve bullet debris, but it failed – because the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at Bethesda as follows: (1) with a radically enlarged tracheotomy16 and no bullet debris in the neck (perhaps there never was any, as I have suggested elsewhere17) and (2) with the same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly, resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent from the official record today.) Those are Horne's conclusions about H&B, but let's look at the evidence. [Emphasis not in original]. So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole. Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph. Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24 Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important: We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain. Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26 Horne adds an independent argument for multiple casket entries.27 Pierre Finck told the Journal of the American Medical Association28 that he was at home when Humes telephoned him at 7:30 PM. (In his 2/1/65 report to General Blumberg he cites 8 PM.29) Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further confirmation for Finck's overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck that X-rays had already been taken – and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken – let alone developed and viewed (a process of 30 minutes minimum) – even before the official entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM. Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with much earlier X-rays; in particular, they recall seeing Jackie enter the hospital lobby,30 well after the 6:35 PM casket entry – an entry they had personally witnessed. In summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull X-rays to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM. The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed. Several conclusions follow from the above analysis. First, the official skull X-rays31 do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead, they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering, especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets, but instead by pathological hands. In particular, for a single, full metal-jacketed bullet (the Warren Commission's inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has always defied credibility.32 Likewise, Boswell's sketch (for the ARRB) on a skull33 of this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B – and does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals, uniformly describe a right occipital blowout,34 consistent with a shot from the front. Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this list.35 In photographs,36 both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses demonstrate with remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the right rear skull. The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of the skull.37 So why didn't Humes extract more of these? I have previously proposed (based on their actual appearance – as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable to remove them during his illicit surgery phase. We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O'Neill), which quoted Humes as describing surgery to the head.38 Sibert, in the 2000s, still insisted that they had quoted Humes correctly about such surgery.39 (I also heard Sibert say this in Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law's taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton's tape (which I have heard), he queries Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who quotes Humes40 as asking: 'Did they do surgery at Parkland?' Furthermore, Humes was later told, when some skull fragments arrived at the morgue,41 that these had been 'removed' during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had previously been removed during the unofficial phase. James Jenkins42 observed that the brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even Finck43 bears witness to a transected spinal cord: to the defense team at the Shaw trial in 1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda. Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this, most likely Humes. Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this conclusion.44 However, given the absence of the throat wound from the FBI report, H&B probably learned of it only after the FBI left, i.e., after 11 PM.45 That information then led to the pathologists' interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported by Richard Lipsey.46 Horne even speculates that an early version of the autopsy report included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data from the Zapruder film. Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments47 and (2) Milton Helpern (who had done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small (under similar conditions).48 Then there is the question of the magic bullet. As Horne summarizes, its provenance has been extensively investigated by Josiah Thompson49 (with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted at trial – and that alone would thoroughly devastate any Warren Commission case.50 A final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC): before political leverage was exerted, their scenario actually included a frontal throat shot!51..." 3 Ibid. at Figure 68 and at xxxiii. A more detailed account is in Horne's Appendix 38; see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1932. 4 David Lifton, Best Evidence (1988), at 569-588. 5 For example, see Clint Hill's statement at http://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html: 'The motorcade arrived Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m.' Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM. 6 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002. 7 Ibid. at 989-992. 8 Horne cites William Manchester, Death of a President (1967). 9 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1006. 10 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 70. 11 The entire X-ray collection is listed in Ibid. at Figure 58. 12 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1007. 13 In retrospect, Lifton had been grievously misled by the HSCA's false statements, namely that the autopsy photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only discovered after the movie, JFK, triggered the release of multiple, sequestered witness statements that disagreed with the photographs. 14 James Fetzer, editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), at 433 and 436. 15 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1164. 16 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 60. 17 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 258-259. 18 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery. 19 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437. 20 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250. 21 Ibid. at 242. 22 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005. 23 Lifton (1988), supra, at 492 and 579. 24 Harry Livingstone actually prints a photograph of four fragments in High Treason (1998), at 562. Their provenance, however, seems uncertain. 25 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354. 26 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043. 27 Ibid. at 1000. 28 Breo, D.L., 'JFK's death, Part II – Dr. Finck speaks out, ëtwo bullets, from the rear,' ' JAMA 268:1749 (1992). 29 http://www.jfk-assassination.net/weberman/finck1.htm. Or see Horne's Appendix 29 or 7 HSCA 101, 122, 135, 191. The list of appendices is in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link. 30 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005. 31 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38. 32 See Boswell's sketch from the autopsy: Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 11. 33 Ibid. at Figures 12-15. 34 For two eyewitness sketches see Ibid. at Figures 21 & 30. Also see the sketch approved by Parkland physician, Robert McClelland: Ibid. at Figure 81. 35 Michael Kurtz includes George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenney, David Osborne, and John Stover; see The Assassination Debates (2006), at 39 and 126. 36 Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), at 86-88. 37 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38. 38 Lifton, supra, at 295-307. 39 William Law, In the Eye of History (2005), at 143-288. 40 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036 and 1038. 41 See their X-rays in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 39. 42 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1037. 43 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036-1037. 44 Ebersole also confirmed a call to Dallas during our telephone conversations (see my footnote 14). He estimated the time as about 10:30 PM (Ibid. at 999). What struck me, though, is the reason why he recalled this event so clearly: he said that after they learned about the throat wound, they stopped searching for bullet debris on the X-rays (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 437). Quite interestingly, Stringer also seemed to recall such a telephone call (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1011; Volume I at 166; or HSCA interview with John Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer's estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole's estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday night; see Harry Livingstone, High Treason II (1992), at 186. 45 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999. Oddly enough, Malcolm Perry, before the Warren Commission, initially recalled his conversation with Humes as Friday night; see Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III at 380 or http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm: Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital? Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur? Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when. 46 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 83. 47 Olivier, A.G., Dziemian, A.J., 'Wound Ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition. US Army Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report CRDLR 3264.' March 1965. Also see Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1083 and Kurtz, supra, at 35. 48 Kurtz, supra, at 35. Also see Marshall Houts, Where Death Delights; the Story of Dr. Milton Helpern and Forensic Medicine (1967). 49 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1089-1095. Also see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), at 176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after its initial appearance. Also see http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm. 50 David Wrone has made a similar argument for the chain of possession of the Zapruder film; see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 265. Wrone claims that a good lawyer could have kept the film out of the courtroom (although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see below), that argument today is stronger than ever. 51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: "Öthe 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it." 'Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (Part IV)' Written by David Mantik | Kennedys & King | Friday, 05 November 2010 22:47 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv "I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/climate/rfk-jr-environment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Dozens of people who worked with Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. when he was an environmental lawyer are calling on him to end his campaign. The National Resources Defense Council has taken out full-page ads expected to appear this weekend in six swing states, The New York Times reported, rebutting RFK Jr.’s attempts to brand himself as the “best environment president in American history.” According to the Times, the ads call on RFK Jr. to “Honor our planet, drop out,” and include the slogan, “A vote for RFK Jr. is a vote to destroy that progress and put Trump back in the White House.” Several of the people who worked alongside him, including those who identified as friends, told the Times they “don’t recognize” the person he’s become, citing the science-denying conspiracy theories he’s pushed about vaccines and climate change. “His actions are a betrayal to our environment,” John Hamilton Adams, the man who mentored and hired RFK Jr. to the Council, said of the candidate.

He's a garbage person; just a bad American. And clearly in a bad place with his mental health; negatively comparing the Biden admin, which has accomplished myriad tangible positive things for people, to Trump's "I play golf and commit crimes" incompetence, is truly dissociative, alternate reality behavior.

I try to keep tabs on Mantik's latest findings, and I'm not aware of anything new in this one. Essentially, about ten years ago, he started claiming his OD readings not only proved a white patch had been added to the x-rays, but that the hole on the back of the head was apparent on the x-rays, only we can't see it. And, then, around this same time, both he and Horne started claiming there were two headshots from the front, and three in total--one that entered near the temple and blew the Harper fragment off the occipital bone, one that entered the forehead and exited the left side of the back of the head, and one that entered near the EOP.. Now, the only thing I'm not clear on is what Mantik thinks happened to the bullet entering near the EOP. Horne says it did not exit and that there was no exit wound on the front of the head. But Mantik has long-claimed the large fragment was frontal bone, and that Humes saw a gigantic wound at the beginning of the autopsy, so I gotta believe he thinks this was blown from the head and found in the limo, as purported and, to my eyes anyhow, demonstrated in the Z-film. Now, here's the thing. Without pushing what I believe because who cares really, there are obvious problems with Mantik's scenario. The alterationist wing of the party, so to speak, was formed because Lifton and others had a notion the Parkland witnesses were great witnesses and could not be wrong. But Mantik has 1. A bullet entering near the EOP that exited somewhere on the top of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being observed at Parkland. 2. A bullet entering near the temple that blew out the middle of the back of the head, with the entrance going unobserved at Parkland and only half the exit being observed at Parkland. 3. A bullet entering high on the forehead and exiting from the left side of the back of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being (knowingly) observed at Parkland. He's got six wounds, of which but one half of one wound was observed by the Parkland witnesses I trust I'm not the only one who has a problem with this.

Matt, My question. Is Trump passing gas in court or something more substantial? And, speaking of MAGA fecal material, Bill Barr announced this week that he will vote for Trump! Curiously, Barr called it a choice between playing "Russian roulette" with Trump, or certain suicide with Biden. Calling Bill Barr a despicable toady is an insult to despicable toadies.

The information in this series of posts about dead journalists is new information for me, and I think Bill Simpich makes a good case that these deaths may have dampened the enthusiasm of other journalists to follow the trail they were trying to blaze.

Matt, Here's one analysis of the Soviets' concern of a right-wing takeover, from none other than Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as recently as 2017: While the FBI was investigating possible involvement of the Soviet Union in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Soviet authorities were voicing suspicions that U.S. right-wing groups -- and even Kennedy's own vice president -- were behind the killing, newly released documents show. The Soviet KGB claimed it had information tying Lyndon B. Johnson, who became president as a result of the assassination, to the killing, according to a 1966 letter to a presidential assistant from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that was released for the first time late on October 26. The letter is among 2,800 previously classified Kennedy assassination documents that were released this week following an order by U.S. President Donald Trump. According to White House officials, Trump said in a memorandum that he had "no choice" but to keep some files secret because of national security concerns raised by the FBI and CIA. The documents capture the frantic days after the November 22, 1963, assassination, during which federal agents madly chased after tips and sifted through leads worldwide. But Kennedy scholars say the thousands of documents do not appear to contain any bombshell revelations about the killing that shocked the world. The claim was contained in instructions from Moscow to the KGB residency in New York "to develop information" on Johnson, Hoover said in the letter, which cited an "FBI source" that had "furnished reliable information in the past." Johnson has long been a focus of some conspiracy theorists, but no credible information has ever linked him to the assassination. The documents show that the FBI's own chief suspect right after the assassination was the Soviet Union, with much attention given to assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's contact with "a member of the Soviet KGB Assassination Department" at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, documents showed. But Moscow believed Oswald was a "neurotic maniac" whose goal was to further a right-wing conspiracy trying to poison U.S.-Soviet relations, according to a just-released U.S. intelligence report issued days after the assassination. Later, in May 1964, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev met influential Washington newspaper columnist Drew Pearson in Cairo, Egypt, and told him that he thought a right-wing conspiracy was behind the killing, according to another intelligence report. Khrushchev told Pearson he could not believe the conclusion investigators had reached at that time: that both Oswald and Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner who fatally shot Oswald, had acted alone. "He did not believe that the American security services were this inept," according to a CIA report of the discussion. Pearson "got the impression that Chairman Khrushchev had some dark thoughts about the American right-wing being behind this conspiracy" and rejected all arguments to the contrary, the report said.

I read the book and I don't see how Mantik retreated from his previous positions. I don't think I missed anything. BTW, the book is really selling well. I do not recall any recent book in the field selling like this one. Because of Corsi's connections with rightwing media.

Now that you are endorsing and expressing your unwavering confidence in Dr. David Mantik's work, it is high time that you become familiar with some of that work (as long as you can get past all that "gibberish" written therein, that is...). "For photographic information to be accepted as evidence in court, the images must be vouched for; and their whereabouts ascertained at all times. The legal principle is that eyewitness testimony has priority over photographs. The principle was turned upside down by the battalions of lawyers who worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and for the WC. For them, against all legal precedent, the assumption was always the reverse: if the witnesses disagreed with the official view, it was assumed that they were in error or even lying. On the other hand, the photographs (and the X-rays, too) were assumed to be immutable monuments to truth. In a real trial, no competent judge would have permitted this illegal approach. In view of the astonishing absence of elementary record keeping for possession of the film, it is likely that no data obtained from the film could have been used in a trial. The paradoxes of the first two reenactments raise tangible concerns about the validity of the Zapruder film as evidence (timing issues, specifically). An attorney for either side could have emphasized that point in addition to the lack of custody if he (or she) wanted to keep the film out of court." David W. Mantik, How the Film of the Century was Edited, included in Assassination Science (1998) THE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTROVERSY [PDF] By David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. The Mantik View [Editor’s note: In this essay, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who has undertaken the most extensive and detailed studies of its internal content and other properties, including comparisons of the film to other copies, of the film to other photographs and films, and of the film to eyewitness reports, in the history of the study of the assassination of JFK, provides a framework for understanding and exploring the questions raised by the lack of authenticity of the film, which has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques. Those who wish to pursue this issue in greater detail should see the studies on this topic in Assassination Science (1998), including Mantik's transformational work.] "It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can cause all photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photos that once were considered genuine have ‘recently been determined to be faked. The authenticity of some is still being debated…" - Dino Brugioni. https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy?uc-sb-sw=69890835

Something was unquestionably removed from the original Zapruder film before the limo appears; the absence of the overexposure evidence is dispositive proof that the limo's appearance could not possibly have been captured at the start of the camera mechanism -- the film had to have been moving at "operating speed" by the time the limo appeared, for the overexposure evidence to be absent. Haven't seen this evidence before but it certainly seems that the truth is becoming more apparent (incontrovertibly) as time passes. The truth is the only thing that will let us escape the downward spiral that America has been traveling on, ever since JFK was killed.

Finally, here's John Simkin on Dorothy Kilgallen's "aide" Florence Pritchett Smith - it turns out she was one of JFK's most passionate lovers and the wife of Cuban ambassador Earl Smith who was involved with the machinations that put Castro in power! Furthermore - Kilgallen entrusted her notes to Florence Pritchett Smith because of what happened to Koethe and Hunter! Florence Pritchett was born in 1920. After leaving school she worked as a model for John Robert Powers and appeared in Life Magazine. In 1940 she met and married Richard Canning. Soon afterwards she became fashion editor of New York Journal American, a journal owned by William Randolph Hearst. In 1943 Florence divorced Canning. The following year she met John F. Kennedy. The couple spent a lot of time together. Betty Spalding said that for Kennedy, "Over a long period of time, it was probably the closest relationship with a woman I know of." However, because Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, marriage was out of the question. In 1947 Florence married Earl E. T. Smith, member of the New York Stock Exchange. The couple had three children. In June, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Smith as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Cuba. FBI files reveal that over the next two years John F. Kennedy made more than a dozen visits to Cuba in order to meet Florence. Florence also met Kennedy in Miami and Palm Beach, where their homes were conveniently adjoined. According to one account: "JFK would elude the Secret Service on occasion in order to have trysts with women. He did this in Palm Beach when he hopped a fence to swim with Flo Smith. The Secret Service agents couldn't find him and called in the FBI. They finally turned to Palm Beach Police Chief Homer Large, a trusted Kennedy family associate. The Police Chief knew exactly where to find Jack - next door in Earl E. T. Smith's swimming pool. Jack and Flo were alone, and as Homer put it, "They weren't doing the Australian crawl." John Kennedy and Florence Pritchett at the Stork Club (Feburary 1944) Earl E. T. Smith remained Ambassador to Cuba until 20th January, 1959. Afterwards he wrote about his experiences in his book, The Fourth Floor (1962). This included an account of the Fidel Castro revolution in Cuba. Florence continued working as a journalist. She also became a television personality and appeared on programmes such as What's My Line? It was during this time she became friendly with the journalist Dorothy Kilgallen. Florence Pritchett In 1965 Dorothy Kilgallen managed to obtain a private interview with Jack Ruby. She told friends that she had information that would "break the case wide open". Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, Kilgallen handed her interview notes to Florence Smith. She told friends that she had obtained information that Ruby and J. D. Tippit were friends and that David Ferrie was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On 8th November, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, was found dead in her New York apartment. She was fully dressed and sitting upright in her bed. The police reported that she had died from taking a cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates. The notes of her interview with Jack Ruby and the article she was writing on the case had disappeared. Florence Smith, died two days later of a cerebral hemorrhage. Her son, Earl Smith III, said that she had been suffering from leukemia.

My suggestion would be to study the deaths less (seemingly) obviously related, as sometimes working around a subject can lead to a greater understanding of the place in the jigsaw puzzle that you are focused on. For example: Harold Talbott's wife., Margaret Talbott (d. 1962). He had been Secretary of the Air Force who gave away some say responsibility for overhead reconnaissance to CIA in the 50s. (U-2 and CORONA.) A target of RFK and the McClellan committee. William Cotter's wife, Virginia Alicia McMahon (d. 1962). He ran the mail-opening program; she had been a VENONA code-breaker in the 40s. Her brother became Deputy Director of CIA in 1982, having been in the U-2 program in the 50s, then CORONA, then brought in Nosenko as Stan Turner's DDO in the 70s when the CI staff was gutted and CIA went even more heavy into satellite recon. He had also debriefed Powers after his U-2 shoot-down as well as Golitsyn and Nosenko. Phil Graham, owner/publisher of the Washington Post, d. 1963. He had been read into VENONA during the Truman years and was becoming pro-McCarthy evidently in the 50s. Kennedy appointed him to COMSAT the privatization of CORONA, and had Clark Clifford allegedly spying on him to make sure he didn't spill secrets he learned. John Paisley, CIA (d. 1979) He had been tied up in the Nosenko affair, Team B, and The Hart Report on Angleton's Monster Plot. That's a gold mine. J.D. Tippit's son, the J.D. Tippit of Connecticut (d. 1980), whose son married another Air Force family (Kendrick), with ties to the Jupiter missiles at issue during Cuban Missile Crisis and NASA and the Paperclip Nazis. Killed by shots fired from distance at a Texas gas station. Anybody wants his name, just ask. Don't have it handy at the moment. William Colby ... Game developer for Activision when he dies, along with Oleg Kalugin. Something there? If there's foul play to be found in these, it will give a much better bird's eye perspective than most others.

All you know about this book is what you've read on an Amazon review page and you are out trumpeting claims from the rooftops that Dr. Mantik has retreated from his long-held scientific findings about the Harper Fragment, fraud in the X-ray evidence and the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head? Dr. Mantik's findings are all completely consistent with all of the evidence I have presented for you which you have admitted you are too lazy to even read. As with all of your other rantings, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Dr. Mantik's books...

You'd be laughed out of court regurgitating that mantra...

Sorry Keven! You can say what ever you want but: Narrative is Narrative, Gibberish is Gibberish, and Fact is Fact.

I know that Mantik's book completely destroys your long lengthy narratives, that by the way, I will never read. It is all gibberish to me. Read the book title in Amazon, I know you will be in disbelieve, but try to accept fact, it won't hurt you any. Facts over narrative, always! https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OSSD8OIODJU3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kEFknrS7GKRmvDrwf88iSMPrN9dDnphPzgrJOVcyh0GLPv14r8SXEmIEIZ0pjn5wB_j5S8Lzs9s-JN4mZUuvmlyi85nI_tjZ8FDAvvNwriyeKqsMsT2ybVCh-EaFLGVaaCoUrM25WnDxu-UO1yxZgKqfQHZ87zpwipNP4RWRRtSmuYasfJ-KfqiW9ZWBXcw4RJotmsUjDeHk7t6fe7tUw-eYnUp-ctNbNW8MsowOv54.Gh72b770Lqx4iphdqp_qmriOCED8jcflpXP_6WdHBus&dib_tag=se&keywords=book+mantik&qid=1713567986&sprefix=book+mantik%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

So my suggestion is that we focus on the deaths and injuries heaped on the journalists - Dorothy Kilgallen and her aide Florence Smith, Jim Koethe, Bill Hunter, Thayer Waldo (whose career was sabotage, not killed) - and other investigators who were initially trying to solve the JFK case, like Jim Garrison, whose career as a DA was sabotaged by the government repeatedly between 1967-1973. What happened to early truth-tellers like the authors Joachim Joesten and Thomas Buchanan? I know that Joesten feared for his life. I think there is a powerful story to be told about the people who tried to solve this case in the first few years of the case, especially the first couple of years. Even Jim Garrison came to the case pretty late, after his initial decision not to pursue it in late November-December 1963.

And here's some sources on the murder of Jim Koethe, including new information about an Ed Johnson working with Koethe and Waldo - obtained at https://jfk.boards.net/thread/121/erasing-past-protect-fairytale?page=22&scrollTo=2039 The body of the young Dallas reporter was found swathed in a blanket on the floor of his bachelor apartment on September 21, 1964. Police said the cause of death was asphyxiation from a broken bone at the base of the neck - apparently the result of a karate chop. Robbery appeared to be the motive, although Koethe's parents believe he was killed for other reasons. Whoever ransacked his apartment, they point out, was careful to remove his notes for a book he was preparing, in collaboration with two other journalists, on the Kennedy assassination. (David Welsh, Ramparts November, 1966) KOETHE, JAMES F., suspicious death; staff writer, Dallas Times Herald. Along with two other reporters, Koethe attended a meeting in Ruby's apartment with Ruby roommate George Senator during the evening of November 24. All three of the journalists died soon after the meeting. Koethe was murdered in his Dallas apartment on September 21, 1964, reportedly just as he had stepped out of the shower. According to A. L. Goodhart in the Law Quarterly Review (January 1967), " ... Koethe was a beer-drinking bully who liked to hang out with thugs; he had been strangled, not 'karate chopped,' (as some reports have said) and police suggested that homosexuality may have been a motive." (Who's who in the JFK assassination) There is another strange coincidence. Ruby's roommate, George Senator, when he heard Ruby had shot Oswald, immediately went to see an attorney friend, James Martin. Martin turns up again as Marina Oswald's manager, chosen for her by the Secret Service. In a city of one million people, we are to believe that a friend of Ruby is accidentally picked by the Secret Service to aid the wife of Ruby's victim*. Martin didn't act as Ruby's lawyer. The first man who took that job was Constine Alfred Droby, President of the Criminal Bar Association of Dallas who was interviewed by Jean Campbell for the London Evening Standard of October 7, 1964: "I said I would defend Jack," he told me . . . "but I had to give it up before I really started, as my wife's life was threatened by anonymous phone calls and we were told our house was to be blown up by dynamite." However Droby told me that as Ruby's attorney he had rushed around to Ruby's apartment soon after the shooting with Jim Koethe, a Dallas news reporter. "The place was in chaos. I think we were the first people to see it." "You remember anything especially?" I said. "No, just chaos and newspapers," Droby answered. "I wonder if Jim Koethe saw anything?" I asked. Mr. Droby folded his hands and leaned forward: "Koethe's murdered," he said. "He was choked to death the Monday before last." (Joachim Joesten, Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy, 1964) * Joesten here mixes up two different James / Jim Martin's. The lawyer is Wilford James Martin. The Marina-manager is James Herbert Martin. (Thank you Gerald Campeau for clearing this up.) Both of them are not to be confused with Guy Banister-associate Jack Martin or General Walker-associate John 'Jack' Martin. (More on John Martin: click HERE) Waldo told the Warren Commission that he had an important informant in the Dallas Police. His name was Lieutenant George Butler. According to Michael Benson, Butler was an associate of Haroldson L. Hunt. Butler was also the man in charge of Oswald's transfer when he was killed by Jack Ruby. (Spartacus Education) Also since Vol. I, we have discovered that Jim Koethe, a Dallas Times Herald reporter, was working on a book about the assassination in conjunction with two other writers. In view of what happened to his two associates, we now feel that his specific assignment on the book was at the root of his murder. Koethe's associates on the book were Thayer Waldo and Ed Johnson, both men working for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram at that time. All three men covered the Presidential visit for their papers, and all three covered the assassination and the Ruby trial. Koethe's task for the book was an in depth study of the leaders in Dallas. This, in our opinion, was what caused his murder. Thayer Waldo, a newsman o f 23 years experience, was the first of the three to find himself in trouble. Although he was not fired by the StarTelegram, it was convenient for him to seek employment elsewhere after his big scoop turned out to be false. At the request of Mark Lane, Waldo had accompanied Mrs. Marguerite Oswald and two officers, Pat and Mike Howard, to Love Field. Mrs. Oswald had requested of Lane that she have someone in addition to the officers escort her to the airport. Mrs. Oswald was going to Washington to testify before the Warren Commission, and of course, to say that her son was innocent. Mike Howard was a Secret Service Agent, while his brother was a Tarrant County Deputy Sheriff. After the trio saw Mrs. Oswald on her plane, the two officers and the reporter went for a cup of coffee. Both officers told newsman Waldo that they felt pity for Mrs. Oswald, but said there was a prisoner in jail who saw her son kill President Kennedy. If such was the case and the story was printed, Mrs. Oswald's testimony w o u I d be completely buried by the new development. At the conclusion of their story, however, the lawmen added: "But we are not supposed to talk about the prisoner." On the way back to Fort Worth, the lawmen repeated their report of the prisoner, but again added the information was top secret. Waldo begged to be allowed to use the news without giving the source of the information. This was agreed to by the brothers Howard. Why repeat such a tale to a newsman twice, if you do not want him to use it? Waldo reported the news to his editor and the circumstances surrounding it. The editors and the top brass of the Star-Telegram had a conference and decided to run the news which became an 8 column banner on page one. Next day, however, things were different. The Dallas District Attorney denied the story. The Sheriff and Police Chief and the FBI denied that there was such a prisoner. Only the Secret Service remained quiet - of course they had not been involved. In print, anyway. The pressure on Thayer Waldo for his false lead continued and he soon found a job with the University of the Americas in Mexico City. Ed Johnson also left the Fort Worth paper for a better position with the Carpenter News Agency of Washington, D.C. which is owned by Leslie Carpenter of Texas-the husband of Elizabeth Carpenter, who is Press Secretary to Mrs. Lyndon Johnson. (Penn Jones, Forgive my Grief II) Within a week a 22-year-old ex-con from Alabama named Larry Earl Reno was picked up selling Koethe's personal effects and held on suspicion of murder. Reno's lawyers were Mike Barclay and the ubiquitous Jim Martin, both friends of Ruby roomie George Senator. Martin and Senator, one recalls, were with Koethe at that enigmatic meeting on November 24, 1963. When the Reno case came before the grand jury, District Attorney Henry Wade secretly instructed the jurors not to indict - an extraordinary move for a chief prosecuting officer with as strong a case as he had. The grand jury returned a no-bill. Reno, however, remained in jail on a previous charge. When they finally sprang him, in January 1965, he was re-arrested within a month for the robbery of a hotel. This time the prosecution, led by a one-time law partner of Martin's had no qualms about getting an indictment, and a conviction. Reno was sentenced to life for the hotel robbery. At the trial his lawyers called no witnesses in his defense. (David Welsh, Ramparts, November, 1966)

Here's Jim D. on the Kilgallen case Prior to Shaw’s book, there had been three major sources about Kilgallen’s life and (quite) puzzling death. The first was Lee Israel’s biography titled Kilgallen. Published in hardcover in 1979, it went on to be a New York Times bestseller in paperback. As we shall later see, although Israel raised some questions about Kilgallen’s death in regards to the JFK case, she held back on some important details she discovered. In 2007, Sara Jordan wrote a long, fascinating essay for the publication Midwest Today Magazine. Entitled “Who Killed Dorothy Kilgallen?”, Jordan built upon some of Israel’s work, but was much more explicit about certain sources, and much more descriptive about the very odd crime scene. For instance, the autopsy report on Kilgallen says she died of acute ethanol and barbiturate intoxication. But it also says that the circumstances of that intoxication were “undetermined”. Jordan appropriately adds, “for some reason the police never bothered to determine them. They closed the case without talking to crucial witnesses.” (Jordan, p. 22) A year later, in the fall of 2008, prolific author and journalist Paul Alexander had his book on the subject optioned for film rights. The manuscript was entitled Good Night, Dorothy Kilgallen. Reportedly, one focus of Alexander’s volume was how the JFK details Kilgallen wrote about in her upcoming book, Murder One, were cut from the version posthumously published by Random House. Neither Alexander’s book, nor the film, has yet to be produced. Which is a shame, since the available facts would produce an intriguing film. (Jim DiEugenio, Was Dorothy Kilgallen Murdered over the JFK Case?, 30 January 2017)

Here's the bottom line... The two witnesses (Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt) who said the eventual killer placed his hands on the car were in questionable positions while viewing the goings-on. It's possible they were both right, but at the same time they should not be relied upon to show as a fact that the killer indeed touched the car. Jack Tatum drove by at this same moment in time and said the killer had his hands in his jacket as he was leaning forward talking to the officer. Pete Barnes of the crime lab said the prints lifted were of no value. They were partial. He stated that no legible prints were found. The fact is, whether anyone likes it or not, these prints could have belonged to anyone who happened upon the crime scene before police secured the area. Anyone could have touched the car (Callaway left with Tippit's service revolver, for crying out loud). These partial prints could have belonged to anyone who had occasion to touch that car earlier that day, unrelated to Tenth & Patton. Using the prints to try to determine who the killer was is simply a non-starter. Some of you seem to enjoy grasping at straws.

Here is Part 3 which takes us to the actual assassination, plus the death of Ruby. Again, its quite a mixed bag. No mention of Jolly West. And man, first Tosh Plumlee and now Curington? There are some good parts, like the ending quoting DeGaulle. https://substack.com/home/post/p-143763031?source=queue

This photo appears on Facebook as ''Frank-Sturgis and Jose-Sanjenis-Perdomo'' So what's the deep dive? anyone have a clue?