Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show


Recommended Posts

On 8/27/2018 at 8:24 AM, David Lifton said:

 

Any chance you know if this 11/30/1963 news story has an exclusive source, where it says "Perry decided further help in breathing was needed. The first bullet had opened the windpipe. Dr. Perry inserted a tube through the bullet hole"?

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1963/11/30/Battle-to-save-president-was-futile-doctors-knew/6018385464725/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 702
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Any chance you know if this 11/30/1963 news story has an exclusive source, where it says "Perry decided further help in breathing was needed. The first bullet had opened the windpipe. Dr. Perry inserted a tube through the bullet hole"?

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1963/11/30/Battle-to-save-president-was-futile-doctors-knew/6018385464725/

Hi Micah: I do not understand what you are driving at, when you ask if the Bryce Miller (UPI) story "has an exclusive source". Please clarify; i.e., please reword  and/or provide additional context -- because (as presently worded)  I don't understand  what you're trying to ascertain. Thanks.  DSL  (You might also email me directly at dlifton@earthlink.net, and elaborate as you wish.  Thanks.)

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Hi Micah: I do not understand what you are driving at, when you ask if the Bryce Miller (UPI) story "has an exclusive source". Please clarify; i.e., please reword  and/or provide additional context -- because (as presently worded)  I don't understand  what you're trying to ascertain. Thanks.  DSL  (You might also email me directly at dlifton@earthlink.net, and elaborate as you wish.  Thanks.)

It seems like Bryce Miller had an exclusive interview to base his article on, especially considering the article's mention of Dr. Charles Crenshaw. I don't where where else his information could have come from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/26/2018 at 10:52 PM, David Lifton said:

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not  necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

 

 

Any chance you could share the McClelland statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Re Dr. Stewart  (6/6/20):

Dr. Dave Stewart’s statement was first published in a Tennessee newspaper -- part of a major article about him published a few years after the assassination.  Somehow I learned of it and ordered the original microfilm record of the relevant article (from a Tennessee library, as I recall).  Flash foward now to 1989 (or 1990): When I set out on my trips to Dallas (and other cities) with a film crew, I planned the itinerary divert to Tennessee, and to include a filmed interview with Dr. Stewart, in which he provided a detailed account of his background, and his activities on 11/22/63; and stated all this “on the record.” 

Some Background (for those  perhaps not familiar) with the details: 

As set forth in Best Evidence. . . and now recapping some of the history of how I came to write the book:

When the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Friday evening, 11/22/63, Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon) wrote in the report that the damage at the front of JFK's through was a horizontal gash measuring 6.5 cm. (and when he testified, under oath, he swore that it was "7 - 8 cm"); and further, and as recorded in the autopsy report, the throat wound had "widely gaping irregular edges."  In Dallas, of course --and as verified by my 1966 interviews---the wound (a) was described as a small (1/4" diameter) puncture, and  (b) with "smooth edges." (See Chapter 3, and beyond, in Best Evidence).  

So now flashing back to 1966, when I first pursued this matter: My original discovery of alteration of JFK's wounds (i.e., "body alteration") pertained to the alteration of the head wounds (i.e., "surgery of the head area," as reported in the FBI 302 report of Agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the Bethesda autopsy). As I say, that was my starting point, i.e., my original discovery.  But then, within a few days, I realized that the wound at the front of JFK's throat had (also) been altered, as well; and that discovery was made when I first interviewed Dr. Perry, in detail, about the tracheotomy incision he had made. (Again, see B.E. for details).    These two discoveries-- that there was evidence that  both the head wound(s) and the throat wound had been altered, then led to another discovery --or insight.  That  second "discovery" --or insight --was the (sudden) realization that none of the medical witnesses in the Dallas ER reported any wounds in the president's back.

In other words --not only was there no entry wound observed in the back of JFK's head; there was no entry wound observed in his upper right shoulder (or back).  This was important because not only did the late Dr.  Carrico (at Parkland)  testify that he performed an examination of JFK's back (looking for any such wound); but, more significantly, after the pronouncement of death, the President's body was sponged down by two nurses at Parkland and they didn't report any such back wound (either).  Had they observed any such wound, they (those nurses) would surely have reported it.  And not just "reported it," such a discovery would have been major news.

Rest assured: that the discovery of any entrance wound on JFK's body  (and certainly the discovery of an entrance wound on the rear of the body) at Parkland Hospital would have been major news. The media was hungry every scrap of news, and had any such discovery (or "observation," to use more polite language) been made at Parkland Hospital, it would have been reported in the Dallas media (the Dallas Morning News,and the Dallas Times-Herald); not to mention the two wire services --UPI and AP; plus the New York Times, etc.

But that was not to be.  None of the Dallas doctors reported any entry wound on the back of JFK's body on 11/22/63. That's just a historical fact. Consequently, there were no such reports in the media. And that was the situation on November 22, 1963, and on Sat., 11/23, Sunday 11/24; 11/25 (Monday, the day of the funeral); and this situation persisted  for another two weeks (!)--approx.

THE FIRST REPORTED OBSERVATION OF A DALLAS REAR ENTRY WOUND (on JFK's body)

In fact, the first time any Dallas doctors reported that Kennedy had a rear entry wound on the back of his body occurred on Dec. 10th (or 11th) 1963, in an article  published  in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The article--by journalist Richard Dudman --was written after two Secret Service agents from Washington visited the Dallas doctors, and showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report.  That document reported an entry wound at the top of the shoulder (approx) as a fact, i.e., as a medical reality.  Only then, faced with such irrefutable evidence (i.e., that the wound was on the body at Bethesda, according to the Bethesda autopsy), did the Dallas doctors concede that there might have been such  wound on the body i(in Dallas). They proceeded to speculate that perhaps it wasn't noticed because the president had not been 'turned over." etc.

** ** **

A NEW VIEW (or Concept)  - SET FORTH IN Best Evidence:  "before vs after" on JFK's body ("before" was Dallas; "after" was Bethesda).

To utilize the language normally used in physics (when studying the physics of collisions), there was a 'before" and "after" condition on JFK's body --"before" being its condition at Dallas (as observed at Parkland Hospital); "after," at Bethesda (at the autopsy).  And that is why two groups of doctors who saw the President's body on 11/22 came to diametrically opposite conclusions about trajectory:  the Dallas observers, concluded that JFK was shot from the front; the Bethesda doctors concluded he was shot from the back.

This "difference of opinion" did not result because the President wasn't "turned over" -- a facile explanation provided several weeks after the murder.   In fact, the president was "turned over" -- when his body was washed down before being placed in the expensive Dallas coffin.  The difference (in opinion, between Dallas and Bethesda) resulted from the wounds having been altered.

All of this is laid out, in detail, in Best Evidence, with separate chapters devoted to each of these conflicting wound observations; and then my own conclusions about the results are recapped and summed up in Chapter 14, titled (appropriately): "Trajectory Reversal:  Blueprint for Deception."  In plain English: President Kennedy was ambushed from the front, but then --prior to the autopsy- -bullets were removed and the wounds altered to create the false appearance (at autopsy) that he (JFK) was shot twice from behind.

The alteration of JFK's body --and the resultant false autopsy conclusions-- provided the foundation for the false history of November 22 1963.

Oct.  - Nov 1966: MY OWN INTERACTIONS WITH FORMER WC ATTORNEY LIEBELER

The late UCLA Law Professor Wesley J. Liebeler, to whom I revealed much of this on Oct. 24 1966, understood the implications completely-- that the issue was no longer whether there was a "second assassin," but (rather) whether there was fraud in the evidence; i.e., (autopsy) fraud; and how that led to false conclusions about JFK's murder.  Indeed, that's why Prof. Liebeler  wrote the 13 page memorandum that he then spent several days writing (circa November 1966), and then sent  to Chief Justice Warren (and all the other members of the Commission, and its legal staff) explaining what I had discovered and why it was important. 

"Second assassin" or  "fraud in the evidence"?

Without question, Prof. Liebeler understood the ultimate implications of this discovery: no longer was the issue whether or not there was a "second assassin."  At issue was the legitimacy of the ascendancy of LBJ  to the presidency-- i.e.,  in plain English, the legitimacy of the Johnson government.

I believe I quoted (what follows) in B.E.; specifically, I remember there was one point -- after I had made my presentation (and when I asked "What are we going to do?";)he made this observation: "Sometimes we get involved in things that are bigger than us." (See B.E.)

It took a lot courage for Liebeler to write the memo that he did; the sad part is that he had no "takers."  Can you imagine how different it would have been if other lawyers on the staff --instead of being focused on (and transfixed by) the "sniper's nest evidence"-- had instead recognized that the body had been altered, and that there had been autopsy fraud.  And consequently, that the official story of the assassination (originally presented by the Dallas Police Department) was false, and based on phony evidence.  Furthermore;  that --contrary to the "sniper's nest" evidence first presented by the Dallas Police Department (and taken seriously by the Warren Commission)--the assassination of President Kennedy was an inside job.  Once one goes down that path, not only is the legitimacy of the JFK-to-Johnson transition in doubt, but the subsequent escalation of the war in SE Asia then becomes "part of the same package" and becomes the subject of legitimate historical  inquiry.  On this point: the subsequent release of the Pentagon Papers (summer of 1971) makes clear that the esclation of that war  (in the aftermath of Johnson's inauguration (Jan 1965) was part of "contingency planning' that extended back in time to the earliest days of JFK'S '1000 days."

RETURNING TO THE PERIOD - JULY - NOVEMBER  1966

I co-wrote "The Case for Three Assassins" (with David Welsh, a Ramparts staff writer) in July 1966, and it was first published on November 22, 1963 (in the UCLA Daily Bruin) and then nationally, about a month later, in the January 1967 issue of Ramparts magazine.  I have often wondered what would have happened, if other members of the WC legal staff had joined with Liebeler, and made a public statement to the effect that they had been the victims of fraud in the evidence.  But that was not to be. In early November 1966,  I was at the UCLA Law School Building, and  in an adjoining office when Liebeler called WC attorney Arlen Specter --who had been in charge of the "autopsy area" of the WC's investigation.  After speaking to Specter for a good 15 minutes (maybe more, I defer to whatever I wrote in B.E.), I asked,  "What did he say?"  Liebeler's unforgettable response: "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." And no wonder  Specter had that reaction: the President's body (and not the X-rays and photos, which the WC had not bothered to examine0  was the key evidence in the case;  and not only had Specter failed to establish a legally sound "chain of possession" on JFK's body -- Specter had instead  come up with his own rather unique "explanation" for why this was a two-victim shooting, leaving  trail of nine (count 'em) wounds, with no complete bullets (or reasonable side fragments) in either victim's body.

THE BIG PICTURE

But I digress.  The covert interception of JFK's body (and the alteration of the wounds) is the best evidence that JFK's assassination was an inside job.  That's the importance of Dallas, and it's also why -- IMHO -- its possible to make the jump from the Dallas assassination to the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War.

Yet today -- with the Vietnam War now history (and Saigon now Ho Chi Minh City) -- a number of JFK researchers have lost sight of the "big picture".  So now--decades later -- one can fill the requisite application, and --if approved --visit the National Archives, and examine the JFK X-rays and photos, focusing on this or that piece of evidentiary minutia, arguing (for example) for a "fourth shot" struck.

Evidence of conspiracy. . correct?  

Yes, but. .(as far as I am concerned) that is largely irrelevant; is it not?

A prominent doctor from San Francisco recently (and once again) visited the National Archives.  I remember his reaction when Best Evidence was first published. To say he was interested in the book is a vast understatement. But then something happened; and I'm afraid it was simply this; if the body was intercepted and altered, then all this minutia about the X-rays and photos would be largely irrelevant.  At some point, I think he realized this.  The good doctor has a violent temper -- something quite to behold (if one has the misfortune to provoke the good doctor) -- and some twenty years ago (at least), he called, engaged me in a discussion about the subject-- and- screamed at me, at the top of his lungs.

"The body was not altered!  the body was not altered!" 

The words were not  "spoken", as in normal conversation; but screamed, violently yelled at me, at the top of his lungs.*

*which is why I put the words in red font. 

 

The good doctor can repeat that as many times as he wants; and, when not treating patients for various problems with their vision (which I assume he does when he is calm, and not exposing his violent temperament), he can squeeze in  a flight to Washington ( and perhaps a visit to the National Archives),  and prepare still another inconsequential presentation to students of the JFK  case.  Another tiny metal fragment, perhaps, that he reports that he can now can "see" on the X-Rays that wasn't noticed before.

The good doctor has never written a book -- and probably never will. And aside from his generalized theory about not trusting the government (he's a proud libertarian) I am not sure  what his political views are. (Further: if another fragment was to be found, or if there was a "fourth shot," does that mean we had a coup?  No, it would not.  But covert  body alteration presents an entirely different situation. Because the alteration of the body provides a "historical shortcut" of sorts, between the falsification of the body and the subsequent change of foreign policy, and sharp escalation of the war.   So. . .What about the copious evidence that the President's body was intercepted, and altered?  . 

Returning to my own views: What I do know is that back ion November 22, 1963, President Kennedy's body was intercepted (and the wounds altered) prior to autopsy, in order to promote a false story of how he does.  And if this fact is not recognized (and addressed), then one cannot possibly come up with a proper explanation for what happened in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63, much less a political explanation.  Without recognition of that fundamental fact, one cannot properly decipher what happened in Dealey Plaza; or understand the political motives of the plot that took President Kennedy's life.

President Kennedy had to be brought to Texas --and specifically to Dallas --for his death to occur; and then, some 18 months later-- the focus would shift to Saigon, to see the political result; and I am referring here to the sudden Vietnam escalation (which Kennedy never intended) and  which marked the readily observable foreign policy switch, which began just a few months after the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson.*

DSL

6/06/2020 - 6 PM

*For a close analysis, see "JFK and Vietnam," by John Newman (Warner books)

Edited by David Lifton
To improve presentation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

DSL Response (6/6/20):

Dr Dave Stewart’s statement was first published in a Tennessee newspaper.  Somehow I learned of it and ordered the original microfilm record of the relevant article (from a Tennessee library, as I recall).  Flash foward now to 1989 (or 1990): When I set out on my trips to Dallas (and other cities) with a film crew, I planned the itinerary to include a filmed intrerview with Dr. Stewart, in which he stated all this “on the record.” 

FOOTNOTE TO THE ABOVE: It might be helpful  (and provide addtional corroboration) if you would post the “late 1960s” record to which you are referring.

I sent you a copy of the Nashville Banner story on Stewart, and made a thread about it here.

 

The "late 60's mcclelland statement" was a post from you I was quoting. Any way you can show the late 60's statement McClelland indicated there was no trach incision?

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
On 4/16/2018 at 10:56 AM, David Lifton said:

Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in  accordance with the approval of  'higher authority').

Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed.

One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement.  The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  

His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports".   Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!"  

Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!"  

Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him.  Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory.  During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged.

Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times.  So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966.  Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull."  

 

 

 

Boswell turned "white as a sheet" when Josiah Thompson pulled out the Sibert and O'Neill report? Is there an earlier source on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/14/2020 at 3:56 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Boswell turned "white as a sheet" when Josiah Thompson pulled out the Sibert and O'Neill report? Is there an earlier source on that?

Micah: The source was Thompson himself (as related to me, in the time period November 1966, "plus or minus").   In the fall of 1966, Josiah Thompson ("JT")  visited Boswell. (I assume Thompson has the exact date; but, in general terms, it was when he was employed by LIFE, as a consultant).   Sometime later that month (as I recall), JT was in Los Angeles and related this incident to me. I may have contemporary journal entries on this; but what I clearly remember is Tink personally relating this to me.  As I'm sure you know --and as spelled out in law books on evidence--the demeanor of a witness is important in evaluating his or her credibility.  As I recall, Thompson --at that time--possessed the FBI Sibert and O'Neill Report (because it was discovered by Paul L. Hoch (now Paul Hoch, Ph.D), then a UC Berkely grad student, in the Spring of 1966, and Paul distributed copies to several JFK researchers). But Thompson, even though he possessed that FBI report, was unaware of the presence (and/or significance) of the statement (on page 3) that, at the time of autopsy, it was "apparent" that there had been --i.e., as in "already had been" --"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," the statement which (as described in Best Evidence, I had discovered on Oct 22/Oct 23rd, and which I had already brought to UCLA Prof. Liebeler's attention (on Monday, 10/24/66).  This is the statement which became an important point in Liebeler's November 8, 1966 12-13 page memorandum, which he (Prof. Liebeler) sent to Chief Justice Earl Warren, every member of the WC and its staff, to Senator Robert Kennedy, and to President Johnson (via DOJ Deputy AG Katzenbach.

Also remember: it was during this period --early November 1966 (see B.E., Chapter eight (8)--that I telephoned Commander Humes and confronted him with the "surgery of the head area" statement in the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report.  (See B.E., Chapter 8, etc., for details, and for his reaction).

Bottom line: it was during this period--after my discovery of the "surgery" statement in the S & O   report (and when the Liebeler Memo was, you might say, a "work in progress") -- that  Josiah Thompson met with me.  (Presently, I do not recall the exact date).  So when Josiah Thompson told me that Boswell had turned "white as a sheet" (when Thompson reached into his briefcase and retrieved the S & O report),  I (of course) found that significant, definitely pertinent.   But I said nothing about my recent discovery.  In other words -- in view of  my discovery, and the fact that Liebeler was incorporating what I had found (and much else) into his memorandum of November 8, 1966, to Chief Justice Warren (et al, and that included Katzenback and RFK)--I did not reveal any of that to Josiah Thompson.  However, and this is significant, I distinctly remember what happened after Liebeler's memorandum of Nov. 8, 1966  was competed (or perhaps was in "first draft" form, and after he had a multi-hour meeting with me, and two of his UCLA-paid teaching assistants, one of whom was Stephen Myers).  Liebeler had gone to Washington (perhaps as part of a trip to appear on TV, not sure), and --as he related to me after his return -- it was on that occasion that he (Liebeler) telephoned Boswell, in an attempt to meet with him.  Boswell refused (i.e., refused to meet with Prof. Liebeler).  Now please note: anything I write here is based on "present recollection."  These events were over 50 years ago. I have earlier correspondence that describes all this (and I have voluminous correspondence files, so I would defer to what ever is stated in such writing(s).  (DSL, 10/24/20; 9:10 PM PDT; corrected and very slightly edited, 10/26/20_ 11:55 AM PDT)

P.S. On other thing —offered here in the manner of a “postscript.” Best Evidence will stand the test of time not because I came up with a new fangled idea (re body alteration) and argued it  persuasively in my book, Best Evidence, published in mid-January 1981.  Rather, It will stand the test of time because what I discovered is inherently a fundamental fact of the record —i.e., the historical record —and will be there (i.e., remain there) forever-- just like the Grand Canyon is "there," regardless of whose interpretation of "how it got there" turns out to be true.  Specifically, I discovered —and properly interpreted —  the evidence that there is a serious disparity between the medical observations in Dallas (i.e., at Parkland Hospital) and those at Bethesda.  Best Evidence —i.e., my thesis as published — is built on that foundation, i.e., on that disparity:  specifically (and now to use the language I learned in physics and engineering classes) -- that there was a “before” and “after” condition on JFK’s body; and that the wounds observed at Parkland Hospital (circa 1 PM CST) were fundamentally different than the wounds observed at Bethesda (when the official autopsy began at 8 PM, EST).  That disparity— or bifurcation —is a fundamental part of the historical record, will never go away, and that is why Best Evidence  (and the thesis it propounds) will stand the test of time. (10/26/20 - 1:40 PM PDT)

P.P.S.: Now, adding some additional data: when I first heard about this —back in November 1966, or a few months later— I reconstructed the situation as follows:  Boswell turned “white as a sheet” (when Thompson showed him the S & O report) because he (Boswell) knew about the statement it contained about “surgery of the head area” —possibly because of my early November 1966 conversation with Commander Humes  (and/or perhaps Liebeler’s contact with Boswell, by phone) — whereas Thompson did not know that; i.e., Thompson was not aware of the potency of the statement that it contained.   The result: Thompson had the experience of confronting Boswell with the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, stating that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," but was unaware of this crucial statement it contained.  Nor was he aware of certain other events that were taking place at the time, e.g., Liebeler's call to Boswell.  Consequently, IMHO, Thompson accurately reported that Boswell turned "white as a sheet" (when shown the S & O report); but did not quite (i.e., fully) understand why.  In other words, what was it --about the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report --that caused Cdr. Boswell to turn "white as a sheet"? (DSL 10/26/20, 2 PM PDT)

 

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND COMMENTARY (11/10/2020):

Much of an FBI agent’s work consists of conducting interviews, making notes, and then writing a report. That report—because of the USG “302” form used— is called a “302,” or an “FBI 302.”

It is a Federal offense —a felony —to lie to an FBI agent. So what an interviewee tells an FBI agent, and which is usually summarized in an “FBI 302” has particular legal significance; and can be used as the basis for a perjury prosecution. (People can, and so, go to prison for lying to the FBI.)

One  should understand that statements made by Humes, during the performance of the JFK  autopsy, were considered to be “oral statements” made at time of autopsy, as recorded by the two agents, in handwritten  notes, and then written out, in prose,  in the FBI 302 report that Sibert and O’Neill wrote, on the basis of notes made at the time of autopsy.” (After the FBI report was written, those notes were destroyed —which was standard FBI procedure.)

The statements made by Humes —i.e., the ‘oral statements,’ made by Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon), at the time he performed the autopsy— were viewed as “oral statements” by the two FBI agents (Sibert and O’Neal).  So as Humes spoke, one of the FBI agents made notes of what was said; and then, when their “FBI 302” was written, that report constituted what was, essentially, a chronological narrative of the JFK autopsy. Furthermore, that report  has a narrative quality; e.g. (and what follows are not exact quotes, but written to demonstrate the style; 'Here are the wounds we observed.  Then Commander Humes made such and such incision on the body. .The doctors couldn’t find any bullets  (specifically, the doctors were “at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets”) etc.

When--in the summer of 1966--this report was first published, and I found the "surgery of the head area"  statement, I telephoned Commander Humes --in a recorded call --and confronted him what the S & O report stated (i.e., that, at the time he performed the autopsy,  there had [already] been “surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull.”) His initial response was: “I’m not responsible for their reports!”.  In the second of the two calls, when I pressed for an explanation, quoting the passage that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” Humes blurted out, “I’d like to know by whom it was done!  (pause) And when! (pause)  And where!”  (See Best Evidence, Ch 8 -9, for details).  When I said that I too, was puzzled, and had shared this information with a UCLA Law Professor, and told Humes that he (Professor Liebeler) might be making a public statement about the situation, and calling for a new investigation, and asked Humes what he might say, in that event, Humes responded (saying, among other things — i.e., “inter alia”, in Latin)  “I don’t know what I’m gonna say.” adding that he examined the body, performed the autopsy, wrote a report, and as far as he was concerned, “That was the end of it.”  (See Chapter 8 and 9 of  Best Evidence), for what happened next; and, in general, for the rest of the investigation and research I performed, and how all of that led to Best Evidence, published in January 1981).-- DSL, 11/10/20)

Edited by David Lifton
To clarify.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 9:23 PM, David Lifton said:

DSL Note: 10/26/20 -- This version of the post has been revised.  See prior version on this thread.  

 

See also prior discussion. (There may be some repetition. Will try to further revise later). DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

 

Thank you so much for clarifying! I saw BEST EVIDENCE in my small local library the other day. I'm glad you're still around, and I'm thrilled that someone like you can acknowledge my existence, let alone type such long comment responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 

1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?

 

2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 

1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?

 

2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? 

If the back wound was somehow physically faked, perhaps A. it was done by somebody who didn't know the surgical defect in the throat was made over a bullet hole, B. they originally intended to fake a frontal exit wound but ended up not doing so for whatever reason, C. they thought the fake back wound looked high enough, or D. they were incompetent in faking a low back wound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 

1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?

 

2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? 

Re Question #1:  Answer: Because the Single Bullet Theory was the creation of the Warren Commission staff, and wasn't advanced until mid January 1964. (It was first advanced, as a 'suggestion' in a Dallas Morning News story in late December 1963. The autopsy occurred (in real time) on the night of 11/22; and the trajectories posited were unrelated to the timing problem was not apparent on Friday night, 11/22, at the time of autopsy.  As far as the hole "matching" the downward trajectory: the original 'downward' trajectory was "in" the back of the head, and then an "out" (or exit) caused by a fragment exiting at the front of the throat. FYI: All this is discussed in B.E.  Re #2: If you look carefully at the "early" Z film frames -according to Groden --one can see the body being thrust slightly forward--this, according to Groden.  I believe there is merit to this argument, but I haven't analyzed it in detail.  DSL

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 

1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?

 

2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? 

Re Question #1:  Answer: Because the Single Bullet Theory was the creation of the Warren Commission staff, and wasn't advanced until mid January 1964. (It was first advanced, as a 'suggestion' in a Dallas Morning News story in late December 1963. The autopsy occurred (in real time) on the night of 11/22; and the trajectories posited were unrelated to the timing problem was not apparent on Friday night, 11/22, at the time of autopsy.  As far as the hole "matching" the downward trajectory: the original 'downward' trajectory was "in" the back of the head, and then an "out" (or exit) caused by a fragment exiting at the front of the throat. FYI: All this is discussed in B.E.  Re #2: If you look carefully at the "early" Z film frames -according to Groden --one can see the body being thrust slightly forward--this, according to Groden.  I believe there is merit to this argument, but I haven't analyzed it in detail.  DSL

If we are to suspect the rear back and scalp wounds were faked, what about the "coagulation necrosis" descriptions in the autopsy protocol? Would that information be exaggerated or outright false, or maybe the tissue samples were substituted with samples from real cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...