Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

The soft shoe con is meant to hide the fact that Perry said three times during this press conference that the anterior neck wound appeared to him to be an entrance wound. And no one had a better look at it [than] he did.

The Secret Service then lied to the WC and said they had no record of this conference, when, in fact they did have one.

[...]

But further...it was revealed that...there was evidence the Secret Service did scoop up and then depart with recordings of that conference.

[...]

What this meant was that very early, as early as about 72 hours after the murder, the Secret Service was in on the cover up.

But why would they do such a thing, Jim? What the heck for?

What useful "cover up" purpose would be served by the Secret Service deep-sixing a video or audio recording of the Perry/Clark press conference? From some of the early reports provided by the newsmen who were present at the conference (who were obviously taking notes as the two doctors were answering questions), it was being reported in the press on November 22nd that Dr. Perry had said he thought the throat wound was an "entrance" wound. Here's just one example in the print media (from page 2 of The New York Herald Tribune, dated November 23, 1963):

COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1415

So we know, with or without a complete videotape of the Parkland news conference, that word had already spread around the nation (via newspapers and very likely on television and radio as well) that Dr. Perry had said that JFK's throat wound was possibly an entry wound.

Therefore, the Secret Service wanting to ditch any video or audio recordings of the Perry press conference would be akin to closing the barn door after the horse had already escaped.

In other words, what's the point? The "entry wound" information supplied by Malcolm Perry at his news conference was already out there in the public domain as early as the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

Edited April 9, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

It's amazing how Von Pein tries to make a case that CBS showed the other side and everything was normal.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

CBS did show "the other side" (i.e., the "conspiracy" side). How can anyone possibly deny that they gave conspiracy a voice—and a fairly substantial voice at that—during the four-part 1967 broadcast?

For Pete sake, conspiracy theorists are popping up all over the place during those four hours — Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Edward Epstein, Cyril Wecht, Bill Turner. They all get to spout their conspiracy views.

If that's not showing "the other side", what would be?

Edited April 9, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

If that's not showing "the other side", what would be?

The gaping wound in the back of the head.

The much maligned Gary Mack told me that this wound was why he was not "among the lone nutters."

[David Von Pein]

If that's not showing "the other side", what would be?

The gaping wound in the back of the head.

How can CBS show its audience something that doesn't exist and never did?

There simply is no "BOH" wound.

Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.

You don't have to say any more.

[David Von Pein]

Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.

You don't have to say any more.

Nor do you. We all know where you're going --- straight to the corner of "Everything's Fake Avenue" and "Cover-Up Boulevard".

Edited April 9, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Nor do you. We all know where you're going --- straight to the corner of "Everything's Fake Avenue" and "Cover-Up Boulevard".

No, I live at 112263 Common Sense Street.

[Ray Mitcham]

Double post

Edited April 10, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

If that's not showing "the other side", what would be?

The gaping wound in the back of the head.

How can CBS show its audience something that doesn't exist and never did?

There simply is no "BOH" wound.

Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.

"I can't fully understand WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head."

Easy. You don't want to understand.

Clint Hill (the nearest to the President after the shooting.)

"The right rear of his head was missing. It was lying on the rear seat of the car... there was so much blood you could not tell if there had been another wound or not, except for the one gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Greer "His head was all shot, this whole part (pointing) was a matter of blood like he had been hit."

Spector : " Indicating the top right rear of the head?

Greer "Yes sir, it loose like that was all blown off."

Kellerman. "He had a large wound this size"

Specter "Indicating with your finger the diameter of 5 inches: would that be approximately correct?"

Kellerman " Indicating the rear portion of the head"

Kellerman " Yes"

Specter "More to the right of the head?"

Kellerman "Right. This was removed... the skull part was removed."

Plus the Parkland doctors who almost to a man stated that the wound was to the occipital/parietal area of the head.

And DVP says they are all mistaken and the photo must be right. He hasn't got the sense to realise that both the witnesses above and the photos could be right,i.e the wounds were altered/or the photos were fake.

According to Book of Von Pein, all the witnesses must have been wrong,/lying/or mistaken.

He can't even contemplate that there was any funny business. But then that's the fault with Zealots.

If the Warren Commission said it happened, in DVP's wonderful whacky world, it must have happened.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[James DiEugenio]

Hey, Jim, I noticed that you don't link or show many of the CBS memos uncovered by Feinman in your article. Do you have them? Roger put a power point presentation on his battle with CBS up on the internet at one point. I think around 2006. I screen-grabbed images of some of the memos. So they are fairly blurry. If nobody has the original memos, or even Feinman's images of the memos, I can put them up on my website, and you can link to them or use them however you wish.

Pat, I linked to the interview with Hill.

At the end I link to the script Roger gave me for the first version.

To this day, I do not know why he made me take down that AV version, which pictured the actual memos.

But that first version was in Roger's apartment when he passed away. He was working on a revision that would have included both the 1975 special at length, and the Jennings special in 2003.

Its amazing that he got this stuff from CBS. As I wrote, he must have known just where the bodies were buried to get it.. Which means, there must have been a lot of people at CBS who did not like going along with what they did in 1967.

Edited April 9, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As per Davey's post at 61. This is first and foremost right out of the Bugliosi playbook of Reclaiming History.

​VInce would come up to something that was clearly indicative of a cover up or conspiracy; he would then turn around, place his dunce cap on his head, place a puzzled look on his face, and intone in his most assumed obtuse manner:

But why would they do that?

Well VB/DVP, you can take off the dunce cap now, as well as the greasepaint.

​If you read what I wrote about Elmer Moore, and then read what the ARRB said about the nurse at Parkland who talked to Perry the next day, and then read what Allen Dulles asked Perry during the WC, it becomes pretty obvious why they seeked out the recordings and then hid the transcripts. And also why CBS failed to exhibit the transcript during the show and actually distorted what happened through Cronkite.

Just how much evidence does one need?

1. If such a recording and a transcript did exist--and they did

2. And if the SS then came to town and swept it up--as the Long testimony attests to

3. And if the transcript was then relabeled and disguised to make it difficult to find--which it was

4. And, at the same time, if Elmer Moore is working on Perry to talk him out of this story--which we know he was

5. And if Dulles and Specter then followed up on Moore's work in the WC hearings and even asked Perry to correct the record--which they did

What else is necessary for an objective person to know about this?

I mean, just ask LIfton how hard it was for him to find this evidence.

Edited April 9, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Myra Bronstein]

Hey, Jim, I noticed that you don't link or show many of the CBS memos uncovered by Feinman in your article. Do you have them? Roger put a power point presentation on his battle with CBS up on the internet at one point. I think around 2006. I screen-grabbed images of some of the memos. So they are fairly blurry. If nobody has the original memos, or even Feinman's images of the memos, I can put them up on my website, and you can link to them or use them however you wish.

Pat I just found your 50th Anniversary media Onslaught material:

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught-part2

It's excellent. Thank you!

If you did additional media analysis I'd love to see it.

[James DiEugenio]

By the way, you know what clinches the case against Elmer Moore?

When the Church Committee found out about what Moore had done through Gochenauer, they called in Moore as a witness.

He brought a lawyer with him. Because he said he understood that talking a witness out of his story in a criminal case was a felony. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 144)

This is why I am pretty certain this skullduggery with the recordings and transcripts of that press conference were done with the involvement of Elmer Moore.

And CBS very likely could have discovered this back in 1967 had they actually been conducting an "inquiry" into the Warren Report. Which they were not.

Edited April 9, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

I don't mean to brag, but can I take some credit here for shutting up DVP?

[David Von Pein]

I don't mean to brag, but can I take some credit here for shutting up DVP?

Not really. I just decided to not say anything for a little while.

I'm a regular windbag at the links below, however....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Edited April 10, 2016 by David Von Pein