Dr. David Mantik's new book

[Vince Palamara]

http://www.amazon.com/JFKs-Head-Wounds-Synthesis--Analysis-ebook/dp/B012HAOK2E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437967032&sr=1-1&keywords=david+mantik

[James DiEugenio]

I think David is correct on this issue about the Harper fragment.

And that is pretty much fatal for the WC zealots.

[Cliff Varnell]

I think David is correct on this issue about the Harper fragment.

And that is pretty much fatal for the WC zealots.

Haven't they already been "dead" for five decades?

All Mantik has done is bounce the rubble.

[James DiEugenio]

Well, that is correct.

Though I don't like quoting Churchill. Even if JFK did like him.

[David Lifton]

I think David is correct on this issue about the Harper fragment.

And that is pretty much fatal for the WC zealots.

Haven't they already been "dead" for five decades?

All Mantik has done is bounce the rubble.

b

Cliff (and to anyone else who follows the issue of the Harper fragment):

In connection with writing Best Evidence, I collected everything there was on the Harper Fragment--A file that ran close to 200 pages, as I recall--and boiled it down to a good writeup of just over 3 pages in Chapter 22 of Best Evidence, with its own breaker titled (of course) "The Harper Fragment."

My own conclusion (and I, too, had to deal with Dr. Angel's incorrect report for the HSCA):

This leaves the following question for history to decide: Whose identification of the Harper fragment is more reliable--that of Dr. A. B. Cairns, who actually held the bone in his hand and examined it, and said it was occipital bone, an opinion concurred in by two other [Dallas] doctors who also saw the bone? Or the memorandum of Dr. Angel?"

If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, then that is deadly for the "official" conclusions in two areas (or, stated differently, for two different reasons):

1) The Harper Fragment is then medico-legal evidence that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front (i.e., 2nd assassin, etc.)

2) If its occipital bone, the Harper Fragment then establishes that the official X-rays in this case have been falsified, because on those X-rays, the occipital bone --at the bottom of the back of the head--is clearly visible on the body. Obviously, the Harper fragment can't be lying in the grass in Dealey Plaza for a day or and also be present on JFK's skull on the night of his autopsy.

As readers of Best evidence know, item one raises the issue of a "second gunman"; but --as far as I'm concerned--its item two that raises the truly most significant issue of all: fraud in the evidence.

DSL

7/28/15 - 7:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Cliff Varnell]

2) If its occipital bone, the Harper Fragment then establishes that the official X-rays in this case have been falsified, because on those X-rays, the occipital bone --at the bottom of the back of the head--is clearly visible on the body. Obviously, the Harper fragment can't be lying in the grass in Dealey Plaza for a day or and also be present on JFK's skull on the night of his autopsy.

As readers of Best evidence know, item one raises the issue of a "second gunman"; but --as far as I'm concerned--its item two that raises the truly most significant issue of all: fraud in the evidence.

DSL

7/28/15 - 7:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

In regards to the murder of JFK the only significant open question relating to the head wound/s is -- how many times was he struck in the head?

Short of digging up Kennedy, that question cannot be answered by the extant evidence.

David, as you point out, the greater significance of the Harper fragment lies in what it tells us about the cover-up.

In fact, a study of the head wound/s is not a study of JFK's murder but a study of the cover-up.

Same thing with Oswald/s -- studying the cover-up, not the murder.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Uhhhh...sorry to be the bearer of bad news, yet again, but Mantik's theories regarding the Harper fragment are out there at best, and seriously loopy at worst. They are also at odds with what most CTs believe, and think Mantik believes.

Few realize that Mantik claims that while the X-rays have been altered in some spots, that the back of the head isn't one of them. He holds, instead, that the A-P X-ray "proves" the MIDDLE of the back of the head was missing. He then claims the Harper fragment fits into this spot. Well, so much for the Parkland witnesses, who uniformly believed the wound towards the back of the head was on the right side. If Mantik's analysis is to be accepted, one must also hold all those believing the wound was on the right were wrong? Now, how many will be willing to do that?

His argument comes down to OD readings. He thinks the optical density measurements he performed on the x-rays are the end-all, be-all. Well, one, there's a serious question as to whether he performed these measurements on the original x-rays or the computer enhanced x-rays. While he now claims he performed his tests on the originals, he has repeatedly shown his audiences the computer-enhanced X-rays while discussing the problem with the measurements. When I pointed this out, moreover, he began claiming the computer-enhanced X-rays in the public domain look more like the original X-rays than the original X-rays published by the HSCA, so this was perfectly okay. (This reminds me of something Dale Myers once told me...that it was okay for him to slide the seat 6 inches in from the door in his SBT re-enactment even though it was only 2 1/2 inches in from the door, because it was done for the "purposes of clarity".) In any event, even if Mantik's readings are all legit. they still don't mean much. You see, the OD apparent on an X-ray is determined by a variety of factors: power, time of exposure, and density of the item being X-rayed. Mantik's controls, on which he bases his argument Kennedy's X-rays are impossible, were all provided him from one source. Well, that's a huge problem. He should have studied a wide variety of X-rays, including those created on a portable machine like that used on 11-22-63, and particularly those performed on badly fractured skulls with over-lapping bone, and missing brain. He did not. His results are therefore apples and oranges.

And, yeah, yeah. I know he's got some letters after his name. But those in attendance at the 2013 Wecht Conference, including Jim, know that in our joint discussion of the Harper fragment Mantik had to eat some major crow, and admit he'd had the Harper fragment x-ray (his supposed area of expertise) incorrectly oriented for the last 4 years, and had incorrectly criticized me for having it the wrong way. I allowed him to go first, in hopes I wouldn't have to slam him on this point. And he did us both a favor, and admitted his mistake.

So, to be clear, while I have come to respect David's integrity, I continue to feel sure his thoughts on the Harper fragment are both wrong and of no help to the research community, as they are likely to be shot down by a stream of credible experts as soon as they reach the level where people are starting to believe him. I mean, there's a reason why none of his colleagues will sign onto them, and there's a reason why the only forensic radiologist to study his findings, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, as I recall, told Doug Horne there was no there there. (Now that's another thing...Fitzpatrick told this to Horne in the mid-90's, and yet Horne held onto this info for more than decade. Hmmm...)

Edited July 28, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Jon G. Tidd]

FOOTNOTE:

If there were to be a trial at which the Harper fragment was offered into evidence, the only expert opinion that would count, based on what I know, would be that of Dr. Cairns (I assume for these purposes Cairns is alive and competent to testify at trial). He was the only pathologist on record as having directly observed the fragment, far as I know.

I go with Cairns.

Persons claiming expertise to opine on a matter who are uncertain of the facts are little better than informed laymen,

Cairns was an expert dealing first-hand with an object to which his expertise applied.

More important than all of what I write here is the fact the Harper fragment disappeared. That speaks volumes.

After all, the Warren Commission had solid documentation of Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Pat Speer]

FOOTNOTE:

If there were to be a trial at which the Harper fragment was offered into evidence, the only expert opinion that would count, based on what I know, would be that of Dr. Cairns (I assume for these purposes Cairns is alive and competent to testify at trial). He was the only pathologist on record as having directly observed the fragment, far as I know.

I go with Cairns.

Persons claiming expertise to opine on a matter who are uncertain of the facts are little better than informed laymen,

Cairns was an expert dealing first-hand with an object to which his expertise applied.

More important than all of what I write here is the fact the Harper fragment disappeared. That speaks volumes.

After all, the Warren Commission had solid documentation of Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters.

As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David Lifton]

On 7/28/2015 at 2:21 PM, Pat Speer said:

On 7/28/2015 at 2:05 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

FOOTNOTE:

If there were to be a trial at which the Harper fragment was offered into evidence, the only expert opinion that would count, based on what I know, would be that of Dr. Cairns (I assume for these purposes Cairns is alive and competent to testify at trial). He was the only pathologist on record as having directly observed the fragment, far as I know.

I go with Cairns.

Persons claiming expertise to opine on a matter who are uncertain of the facts are little better than informed laymen,

Cairns was an expert dealing first-hand with an object to which his expertise applied.

More important than all of what I write here is the fact the Harper fragment disappeared. That speaks volumes.

After all, the Warren Commission had solid documentation of Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters.

As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments.

I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify.

1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone?

2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed.

Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?)

The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963.

*As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error.

Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I [did so] in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw

For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later.

For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false.

Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim.

My Interview with Dr. Kemp Clark in January 1983

You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs.

One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author?

Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned.

Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead).

You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred.

But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above.

I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine.

I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history.

DSL

7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT

Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT; tweaked 4/25/22, 11:55 PM

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 25, 2022 by David Lifton
improve clarity; add emphasis.

[James DiEugenio]

DSL: The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from the front, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1863.

Was the SS agent not Elmer Moore?

Edited July 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Lifton]

Jim DiEugenio:

Yes. The agent was Elmer Moore, and his report—officially designated “SS 633”—was not published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission. (SS 663 was part of either CD 87 or CD 320, the two large SS reports submitted to the Warren Commission).

But there was a serious typo in my original post, which I went back and corrected. The paragraph you quote –when corrected—would read (and I have corrected it, so it does read properly as follows):

The first time these [Dallas] doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings,-- i.e., that JFK was shot twice from behind.  That autopsy document was not sent to the FBI until December 23, 1963, and to the Warren Commission about a month later.  

What follows is a more detailed narrative, dealing with the autopsy conclusions.

December 11, 1963 - the Secret Service visits the Dallas Doctors

What happened was that the Dallas doctors were visited by a Secret Service agent (Elmer Moore) who showed them the Bethesda autopsy report, which recorded two entry wounds on the back of the body, entry wounds which had not been observed or reported by any of the Dallas doctors. One was just above the shoulder blade; the other, at the bottom of the back of the head. The interviewing agent suggested that the Dallas doctors had “missed” these two rear entry wounds because “you hadn’t turned him over.” (my quotes). As far as is known, none of the Dallas doctors had the temerity to say, “Yes, that’s true; we didn’t turn him over; but two of our nurses washed the body, before putting him in the coffin, and they didn’t notice any such entry wounds either”.

The story of the Secret Service visit was told by Dr. McClelland to reporter Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Dudman then published it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of December 18, 1963 under the headline:

Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound.

The wound being referred to as having sustained a “revision” was the wound at the front of Kennedy’s throat. With the official appearance of a small entry wound on the back—more precisely, just above the shoulder blade—that wound was now said to be the entry point for a bullet which entered from the rear, and which traversed JFK’s body on a downward-sloping trajectory, exiting at the front of the throat. It exited via the throat wound which—on the day of the assassination (and in the days following)-- had (originally) been described as an entry wound.

But now, in this official autopsy report that the doctors were shown on December 11, 1963, the throat wound was described as an exit wound. Moreover, the Secret Service agent (or agents) who visited the Dallas doctors on December 11 1963 wanted them to see this autopsy report (for themselves) so they would cease making public statements that the wound at the front of the throat was an entry wound.

"Schematics". . .(i.e., diagrams showing trajectories). . .

In fact, they didn't just show the doctors the Bethesda autopsy report (which was subsequently transmitted to the Warren Commission as CD 77 on December 20, 1963). They also displayed to the doctors certain "schematics"--i.e., drawings, apparently illustrating the back-to-front trajectory with an arrow passing through the neck (similar to, but not identical with, Rydberg drawings).

"Now, look here," the Dallas doctors were (in effect) told. The Bethesda autopsy reports a wound on the back of the body—a wound which you missed—and that explains why the wound at the front of the throat (which you fellows misinterpreted as an entry) was really an exit wound (!).

Essentially, that was the nature of the transaction on December 11, 1963. Remember: it was written that day, and published in the next day's Times-Herald.

Dudman’s article in the 12/18/63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence, which is devoted to the wound at the front of Kennedy's throat, and to the "transaction" described above. This Dudman article was first shown to me in 1965 by Ray Marcus, who was collecting all available information for inclusion in a large scrapbook he was compiling at the time, attempting to keep track of the evolution of the official story of the neck wound. Of course, in the course of writing Best Evidence, I subsequently ordered all of this material on microfilm, via the UCLA Research Library, and gave it very close study.

In that regard, there is one other news story connected with this affair, which is of equal—if not far greater ---importance; and that, too, is discussed in some detail in Best Evidence, also in Chapter 3.

THE “OTHER” NEWS STORY - Dec 12s 1963

4/25/22:  What follows is my investigation of what turns out to be a planted news story about the JFK autopsy conclusions (which was a front page in the Dallas Times- Herald)-- and my discovery of who was the source, an important Dallas doctor.  

** ** ** **

On December 12, 1963, the Dallas Times-Herald—an evening newspaper—published a story (on page one) by its science writer Bill Burrus which ran under the headline:

KENNEDY SHOT

ENTERED BACK

The story was datelined “Bethesda, Md.” and the lead paragraph read:

President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet, which had a hard-metal jacket, exited through his throat, a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital revealed Thursday.

Other key sentences in this account read:

It was a surprising disclosure that President Kennedy had been shot in the back. The wound had not bled externally, and doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital missed it in their 22 minutes of futility—trying to save the President’s life.

Most worldwide press and medical reports have described the neck wound as one which entered there, or one which went tangentially across the President’s throat.

The complete Bethesda [autopsy] report shows that the first bullet fired . . .

(and now came language that was almost identical with the official autopsy report transmitted to the Warren Commission on December 20 1963). . .

. . . entered above President Kennedy’s right scapula—commonly called the shoulder blade.

It did not hit any vital organs and came out just below the “Adam’s apple” in the throat, said the Bethesda report.

The story went on to explain—in some detail—why the bullet that passed through President Kennedy’s throat came out undamaged (i.e., just like bullet 399) and why the Dallas doctors were wrong in initially identifying the throat wound as an entrance:

Unlike an ordinary lead bullet, a jacketed bullet does not spread out upon contact. This explains why the President had no external bleeding from the entrance wound in the back, and why the neck wound was no larger—making it appear to doctors handling it as an emergency case as an entrance wound.

The final paragraph of the Burrus story read:

Investigating officers explained that the trajectory of the bullet from back to front is in line with one that could have been fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald.

This story, published locally in Dallas (again, in the Dallas Times-Herald ), was true remarkable, and yet was never carried by the wire services. What made it special was that whoever provided the information clearly had access to the Bethesda autopsy report (not provided to the FBI until December 20th); and, furthermore, there were phrases and terminology in this account that appeared to be setting the stage for the single bullet theory. (Yes, by that date in December 1963!)

Imagine that: all of that taking place on December 11, 1963 (the day the story was written).  But now let's go back to that point in time.

TIME AND PLACE: March 1978: DSL (yours truly) in Rockaway Beach, New York --  (aka "Belle Harbor, Long Island," to those who prefer the more fancy designation)- - writing the manuscript of B.E.

Specifically, at that time, I was writing the final draft of Chapter 3, "The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?").  Although my "official residence" was West Los Angeles, California, I was --temporarily-- residing at my parents home in Rockaway Beach, (a suburb of New York City). Our family home was located three houses from the beach, and I was occupying two rooms on the second floor, and racing against editorial deadlines.  I had promised my folks that my stay would be temporary, but now this matter of Bill Burrus and his unusual story came up, and it could not be ignored.  It was essential that I get to the source for this news story, in order that it be included in Best Evidence.  The story was datelined “Bethesda, Maryland” and so the implication (as could be inferred by the "Bethesda" dateline) was that the source was "east coast". And that was my initial belief: that the JFK autopsy results were being "leaked" by some Navy official connected with the Bethesda autopsy.  But that was not the case.  Not at all.

Where My Pursuit Led Me 

Battling time deadlines, I set out to find Bill Burrus who, it turned out, was no longer in Dallas and no longer working at the Dallas Times-Herald. Then, a stroke of luck-- and that's what it was: pure luck.  Remarkably, I located him (by phone) in New York City—then working as a free lance. I started to question him in detail about his story; and he started to provide some rather tantalizing answers--but then he stopped. Suddenly.  It was as if he turned off a gushing water faucet.

Nope, he said, he was busy. He was a working writer, and had things to do. He didn't want to discuss it right then; but he would tell me "the whole story" --the whole story of his amazing "scoop"-- but under one condition: if we could meet, later that day, at his favorite bar in downtown Manhattan, and if I would buy him beer.

Really.  That's what he said, and that's what governed what happened next.

We arranged a meeting, a fully on-the-record tape-recorded meeting at a colorful bar and grill in downtown Manhattan. The location was only 13 miles distant, by the way the crow flies. But, being no crow, and carrying a bulky reel-to-reel tape recorder (a SONY TC 800, as I recall), I had to use public transportation. So the trip was closer to 20 miles (or more), and involved taking a bus ride of about 30 minutes from Rockaway Beach to the "last stop" of an IRT subway, located near the Brooklyn College campus.  But I stopped everything I was doing, grabbed my tape recorder, ran to the nearest bus stop for the Green Bus Line (the way to exit Rockaway Beach, and get to Brooklyn), and then take a subway to Manhattan.  I managed to get there by 5 p.m., our agreed upon rendezvous time.

March 1978: My Meeting with Bill Burrus in downtown Manhattan (at the "Portuguese Bar")

The meeting--with Burrus drinking one beer after another, and me grilling him incessantly--lasted several hours.  By the time it was over, I had a full account—to the extent Burrus was willing to share with me—about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963 and certain important information --critically important information-- about the source of the story he had published on December 11, 1963.

A Big Surprise About the Source

DSL Note, 4/25/22 (reviewed and tweaked, for improved clarity)

Bill Burrus never told me the source of this remarkable story (he stressed that it was highly confidential), but he seemed to want me to know it. Consequently, he dropped numerous hints, and basically implied that I should be able to figure it out for myself (which I later did).

Quite to my surprise, the source of the story was not someone in Bethesda, Maryland, even though Burrus had "datelined" his story as if it was.  But that was false. Completely incorrect. Of singular importance was that Burrus had deliberately "false sourced" the story to “Bethesda, Maryland” in order to hide the true source. As Burrus explained to me) back in December 1963,  Burrus would not reveal (i.e., refused to reveal) the true source, even to a high executive at the Associated Press the following day.  Consequently, Burrus's story was never run nationally (as it otherwise would have been).

In other words, because of a stubborn streak, Bill Burrus lost his "scoop".  (As I later came to understand: Burrus attempted to have it both ways --to have a scoop, but also honor a promise he had made not to reveal his source).  To repeat: Burrus's sloppy compromise was to "false source" his story implying to the reader that the source was "Bethesda"(i.e., someone connected with the naval autopsy), but concealing an important truth: that the source was Dallas; and specifically, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead.

Because of his false sourcing, Burrus story created confusion; and was not perceived as a scoop.  He was bitter and never got the recognition he believed he deserved. His story never became the "official leak," of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions, as --apparently--it was intended to be.  Instead, by losing his scoop, the result was that certain incorrect accounts--of a previous version of the Bethesda autopsy--were then unearthed and widely published (e.g., Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post of 12/18/63, etc.)

But now let's return to Burrus and my meeting with him in March 1978: As Burrus drank beer and my tape recorder turned. (FWIW: I don't drink, and anyway, I was listening, and making notes, and making sure my tape recorder was working properly, with the needle appropriately oscillating as Burrus held forth).  At some entered into the most important part of our dialogue. . Who provided this information?  How did it happen?  Would he tell me?

What follows is Burrus's account, as he related it to me.  And it begins with a telephone call to Burrus' residence about three weeks after President Kennedy's murder.  As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead.  Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself.

Now back to Burrus's account.s

THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 11, 1963: AT THE BURRUS RESIDENCE

Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless.

Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK.  There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source.   Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority"  clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right." In a way, it was just as good as the Deep Throat story about Watergate, only better.  Deep Throat was about a burglary; Burrus' story was about murder. A President's murder.

I put a footnote about this in Best Evidence (stating that I had interviewed Burrus in March, 1978, and that the source of the story was not “Bethesda, Maryland” etc.), but I didn’t elaborate, and include the "remaining" details. I did so because a full account would have required hundreds of additional words, and certain additional information; and would have—as a practical matter—added an additional chapter to the book. My focus had to be the covert alteration of the President's body, not who was involved in leaking the autopsy results on Decmber 11, 1963.  Also, there were certain "additional insights" that I myself did not have in March 1978, and which came later, and turned out to be essential to properly deciphering the full implications of the Burrus story.

The result: there were complications to what Burrus (who died in 1993) told me (in March 1978) that prevented me from incorporating his account in Best Evidence. However, I intend to place a full account in Final Charade, and I think (that is, I hope) it will be apparent, to anyone reading that account, that, Burrus's full account implicates one of the Dallas doctors in playing an important "behind the scenes" role in the cover-up.  What role?  This Dallas doctor planted a new version of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions about trajectory, creating a page one story in the Dallas newspaper (the Times-Herald), providing it to the reporter on one condition: that the reporter hide the Dallas source, and create the appearance that the source was a Navy official in Washington.

In addition, the following facts became evident:

(a) the case for the "low" back wound being false (as stated in Best Evidence) is a very strong one; and . .

( b ) the groundwork for the "timing problem" being recognized as a critically important problem, and the Single Bullet Theory being the "solution" was being laid no later than December 11, 1963 and involved some very important people.  Most important, the "timing problem" completely ante-dated the formation of the Warren Commission; i.e., the arrival of WC attorney Arlen Specter on the scene (in Jan. 1964) etc.; and. .

(c ) Arlen Specter, upon arriving at the WC in Washington, D.C., simply assembled the “pieces” of the double-hit SBT trajectory, like a child assembling the components of a leggo toy: the back-to-front downward-sloping trajectory through JFK was the first element. That involved getting Specter to believe that the wound at the front of the throat had been an exit (not an entry).  Then Specter had to “join” that belief with a similar trajectory through Connally. The result ("voila!") was the Single Bullet Theory.

New Information about the "first appearance" of the Single Bullet Theory

From what I can see, Specter apparently thought he came up with the whole concept himself. Based on what I later learned, I do not believe he did.   I think that the pieces (the individual segments) of the Single Bullet Theory were "fed" to Specter (as a hypothesis); and that Specter -- with regard to the result-- honestly believed that he had "thought it up"  all by himself.  On this point:  Of particular importance to me was a discovery that I made (back in the late 1960's) when reviewing microfilmed records of the two Dallas newspapers: the Times-Herald and the Morning News.  Reviewing these microfilmed records, I was startled to find an unnoticed paragraph buried in a December 1963 Dallas news story.  The story published the statement from an unidentified source that speculated that both JFK and Governor Connally had been struck by a single bullet. (That story and that paragraph --or sentence-- must be "re-discovered, because it constitutes published evidence [circa December 1963] that the concept of a one bullet/two victim trajectory preceded the arrival in Washington of the Warren Commission legal staff (mis-Jan., 1964) by at least a month.)

To repeat: the original concept of the Single Bullet Theory was something that went back to mid-December, 1963, and ante-dated Specter's arrival in Washington by at least three weeks).   

ASIDE: If this had happened in the field of physics--which of course it never would--it would be as if Albert Einstein got a phone call one night at his home from someone who said, "Albert: Have I got a theory for you! Now get out your pencils and some paper, and write this down. First, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Got that? Good! Now lets move on. . Second (now write this down carefully, Albert): "E equals M C squared" OK, get some rest. Good night!"   (No. . . I'm just kidding, only this isn't funny. . .We're talking about the birth of one of the critical parts of the "official solution" to the Kennedy assassination. END ASIDE

Bottom line: the whole thing—iMHO-- was contrived. Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front (just as Doctor Malcolm Perry originally stated [3 times, during the news conference on November 22, 1963—see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence for exact quotes from the White House transcript, which I obtained from the LBJ Library and published for the first time.] But then, the "medical facts" were physically changed.  They were changed via (1) the creation of a false back wound, (2) the covert extraction of that bullet (prior to the official autopsy), and then (3) from a combination of pressure on Humes (the chief autopsy doctor) plus careful management of public information.

From all this, the appearance was created that (a) the throat wound was an exit and (b ) the bullet that (supposedly) traversed Kennedy’s body back-to-front and which exited at that front of the throat went on to hit Connally. (And, supposedly, was the practically undamaged missile found on the stretcher!).

This was the essence of the "final version" of Bethesda autopsy report, which was sent to the Warren Commission on December 20, 1963 (where it was logged in as "Commission Document 77", and then became Warren Commission Exhibit 397) and was then sent to the FBI three days later.

I will elaborate on all of this in Final Charade.

DSL Note, 4/25/22): Re additional words below: Can be deleted.

P.S. And no, no one calls me up in the middle of the night with secret answers to the many puzzles connected with the Kennedy assassination. I have had to do all the work myself.

DSL

7/29/15 – 5:45 A.M. PDT (Tweaked w/minor revisions, 4/25/22)

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 25, 2022 by David Lifton
Improve clarity.

[David Lifton]

2) If its occipital bone, the Harper Fragment then establishes that the official X-rays in this case have been falsified, because on those X-rays, the occipital bone --at the bottom of the back of the head--is clearly visible on the body. Obviously, the Harper fragment can't be lying in the grass in Dealey Plaza for a day or and also be present on JFK's skull on the night of his autopsy.

As readers of Best evidence know, item one raises the issue of a "second gunman"; but --as far as I'm concerned--its item two that raises the truly most significant issue of all: fraud in the evidence.

DSL

7/28/15 - 7:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

In regards to the murder of JFK the only significant open question relating to the head wound/s is -- how many times was he struck in the head?

Short of digging up Kennedy, that question cannot be answered by the extant evidence.

David, as you point out, the greater significance of the Harper fragment lies in what it tells us about the cover-up.

In fact, a study of the head wound/s is not a study of JFK's murder but a study of the cover-up.

Same thing with Oswald/s -- studying the cover-up, not the murder.

Cliff,

These are interesting points you make, and I won't debate (or dispute) the one about the head wounds, because that leads into various complexities concerning time lines, and questions of intent.

As to Oswald, I will plant my flag in what I believe to be solid earth.

If one draws a time-line representing Oswald's life, one finds that it consists of--essentially--four segments (and this is reflected in the FBI filing system, and the Warren Commission's, too):

Youth (birth [10/18/39] through 10/24/56 when, at age 17, he enters the Marines)

Marine Period (10/24/56 - 9/11/59, when he exits the USMC with honorable discharge)

Russian Period (9/11/59 [approx] through June 13, 1962, the date of his return to NYC on the SS Maasdam

Post Russian: June 13, 1962 - 11/22/63 (actually, 11/24/63, the date of LHO's death)

Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation; and to provide a false narrative for the Kennedy assassination).

What it comes down--with regards to the events of Oswald's life--is whether (or not) LHO had a handler.

In either case, when Oswald does something that is plot-related and intended (when viewed retrospectively) to falsely implicate him in the crime (or --in some way--to mislead any future investigation), then that is not a "cover-up" because--by definition--a "cover-up occurs "after the fact."

For example, if he orders the rifle from Kleins--and I certainly believe he did--then he is purchasing, for about $20, the rifle that will --in the future, and after JFK's death--be (falsely) alleged to have been the murder weapon. That rifle (ordered months before the assassination) will end up --in this case--in the U.S. National Archives as the murder weapon in the Kennedy homicide.

Did Oswald order the rifle because he was knowingly part of a plot to murder President Kennedy --someone he much admired? (Certainly not, imho). Or did he order the rifle because he was credulous and manipulated and given some cock and bull story as to why a rifle was needed for his "assignment" or "mission"?

Whatever the precise reason, all of that (the rifle order) occured "before the fact" and so --imho--the rifle order can not and should not be thought of as part of a coverup, but rather just how far back in time the plot to kill JFK extends. In short, the Klein's rifle order is not part of an after-the-fact coverup; rather, it is "Exhibit A" of the camouflage that was employed (or deployed, is perhaps a better verb) as part of this crime.

I could provide other examples. "Coverup" does not accurately explain what is going on here.

Because "coverup" germinates after-the-fact.

The Klein's rifle order--if my analysis is correct--is strictly "before-the-fact".

Consequently, if Oswald actually ordered the rifle (and I personally believe he did), then--however the manipulation worked-- he was an unwitting participant in his own frame-up.

Oswald got conned--and it went on for months: he was not (imho) some randomly selected person who showed up on the radar "after-the-fact."

Anyway, what I have just explained (immediately above) is why I prefer the vocabulary and terminology of "camouflage" or "strategic deception" to the far more restrictive terminology of "coverup."

A cover-up germinates (and is deployed) after-the -fact.

Things that occur "before-the fact" are not "coverup". They are integral to the design of Kennedy's murder.

They are part and parcel of the strategic deception that was used to camouflage the crime by (a) manipulating the event itself (and that included the manipulation of Oswald) and then ( b ) altering critical facts, and then assembling the result in such a way that it concealed what actually happened and provided a false (historical) narrative.

DSL

7/29/15 - 8:15 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited July 30, 2015 by David Lifton

[James DiEugenio]

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

Edited July 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

1. IMO, the framing of Oswald was key to the conspiracy. There had to be a fall guy, and Oswald was perfect for that role. At least so long as no one looked too closely at either Oswald or the possibility of a conspiracy.

2. IMO, DSL represents the best in JFK researchers. Not to exclude Jim Di, DJ, Greg Parker, Greg Burnham, Pat Speer, or certain others. DSL has great insights and ideas. Yet I think he errs on particular points. For example, that Oswald ordered the rifle now in the national archives. If I were Henry Wade in a trial of Oswald, I couldn't get that rifle admitted into evidence. This is a minor quibble, however, compared to DSL's assertion of body alteration prior to the 8:00 p.m. official autopsy beginning. If one is wedded to conspiracy, one must be open to DSL's assertion. Whether it took place on AF-1 or at Bethesda is a detail, an important detail. The "surgery to the head" comment seals the deal for me.

3. I agree with DSL: the autopsy photos, or at least some of them, are fakes.

4. IMO, Oswald was an odd duck who set himself up and who had no handler.

5. IMO, everyone here should focus on the question, why was JFK killed? IMO, he was killed for a reason. Know that reason and you know who had him killed. Looking at all all the facts, I find many wanted him out of the way; many had the capability to off him. Who had the ability to kill him and get the U.S. Government to cover up the reason for all these years, I don't know. Do you?

Edited July 29, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd