William Bruce Pitzer

[John Simkin]

John:

In my opinion, LCDR Pitzer killed himself.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/opinion.html

Allan

Most of us have had experience of friends who have killed themselves. We are always shocked but at another level we understand why they have carried out this act.

I find the evidence concerning the personality and state of mind of Pitzer put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer very convincing. So with the limited evidence available, I find the suicide story difficult to believe.

At the same time I am also unconvinced by Dan Marvin’s assassination story. However, one does not have to believe Dan in order to think that Pitzer was murdered.

Do you accept the story put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer did have a film of the autopsy? If so, what happened to it? If it had been seized by the FBI what would the reaction have been if Pitzer issued a statement explaining what was on the film and why the FBI had taken it?

[Allan Eaglesham]

John:

In my opinion, LCDR Pitzer killed himself.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/opinion.html

Allan

Most of us have had experience of friends who have killed themselves. We are always shocked but at another level we understand why they have carried out this act.

I find the evidence concerning the personality and state of mind of Pitzer put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer very convincing. So with the limited evidence available, I find the suicide story difficult to believe.

At the same time I am also unconvinced by Dan Marvin’s assassination story. However, one does not have to believe Dan in order to think that Pitzer was murdered.

Do you accept the story put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer did have a film of the autopsy? If so, what happened to it? If it had been seized by the FBI what would the reaction have been if Pitzer issued a statement explaining what was on the film and why the FBI had taken it?

John:

What is your source for Jerrol Custer saying that William Pitzer had a film of the Kennedy autopsy?

If your opinion on how LCDR Pitzer died is based on Dennis David's and Jerrol's Custers views on Pitzer's current state of mind, you are on shaky ground. Dennis had not seen his friend for almost a year before Pitzer's death. Custer may have known who Pitzer was (although "may" is the operative word -- please read the footnote on page 116 of "In the Eye of History" -- but he had no contact with him.) Regarding Pitzer's personality, did you read the article to which I provided a link?

I agree that one does not have to believe Dan Marvin to think that Pitzer was murdered. In fact, Dan Marvin is irrelevant here. Neither is it impossible for Pitzer to have had a copy of a film of the Kennedy autopy and to have committed suicide.

If Pitzer was involved in generating a film of the Kennedy autopsy, it his unlikely that he would have kept a "personal" copy. There is no evidence that such a film was seized by the FBI -- he would have handed it to his commanding officer, or whoever ordered him to generate/edit said movie.

The Pitzer-was-murdered scenario rests on the deceased being left-handed. If Dennis David had not been mistaken in that regard, it is likely that no one beyond his family would have heard of him. The manner of LCDR Pitzer's death should be judged on the physical evidence.

Allan

[Ron Ecker]

If Pitzer filmed the autopsy, he must have done so by the closed circuit TV system, since there is no evidence that he was ever in the room.

How likely is it that an officer in Pitzer's position would have made such a film without being told to do so? Would he feel he could do so at his own discretion, or would he be risking reprimand for doing so without an order? In either case, would he not deliver the film to his superior? And would he not then be given an order of silence about what he saw, like those who had been at the autopsy?

If he dared to make a film and keep it, or a copy, for himself, would he be showing it there on the premises to David or to anyone else?

I would think that the film that David saw was being prepared by Pitzer for his superior, that the film was delivered, and that a military officer such as Pitzer would not keep a copy for himself without permission. He therefore had nothing in his possession later to be murdered for.

As for what he may have seen in the film that might lead to his murder, what could he have seen that those actually present in the autopsy room did not see?

[Antti Hynonen]

Ron Ecker Posted Today, 11:38 AM

If Pitzer filmed the autopsy, he must have done so by the closed circuit TV system, since there is no evidence that he was ever in the room.

How likely is it that an officer in Pitzer's position would have made such a film without being told to do so? Would he feel he could do so at his own discretion, or would he be risking reprimand for doing so without an order? In either case, would he not deliver the film to his superior? And would he not then be given an order of silence about what he saw, like those who had been at the autopsy?

If he dared to make a film and keep it, or a copy, for himself, would he be showing it there on the premises to David or to anyone else?

I would think that the film that David saw was being prepared by Pitzer for his superior, that the film was delivered, and that a military officer such as Pitzer would not keep a copy for himself without permission. He therefore had nothing in his possession later to be murdered for.

As for what he may have seen in the film that might lead to his murder, what could he have seen that those actually present in the autopsy room did not see?

As I recall Mr. Dennis David has told us, the Pitzer photos of Kennedy showed what Mr. David and Mr. Pitzer concluded to be an entry wound in the (right?) temple.

The photos shown by Pitzer to David were not necessarily taken by Pitzer. From what I have read, two sets of photos of the dead President exist (pre-autopsy and after autopsy, if I recall correctly), the ones discussed here could have been from either set, or a combination of the two.

[Dennis D. David]

(1) During the autopsy you were asked by a man in civilian clothes to type up a memorandum. The report concerned “pieces of metallic or lead removed” from JFK’s body. I believe you actually saw these four fragments. Were they fragments of one bullet? Or do you think they were fragments of several bullets?

1) I not only saw them, but held them in the palm of my hand. There were four pieces of grey lead. The sizes of the pieces were to large to have come from on bullet. So the pieces I saw had to have come from at least two bullets.

(2) Were you ever able to identify the man who got you to type up the memo? Do you know which government agency he represented?

(2) I do not recall the name of the man who ask me to type the memo. I believe he was identified to me as a SS agent.

(3) Could you tell us about the time you discovered William Pitzer with photographs and film of the JFK autopsy?

(3) It was on the Monday, after the post-mortem. I had stopped in to see Bill, about another matter, when I walked into his office, he had a hand-operated film editor on his desk. He also had some B&W and Color photos of the autopsy on his desk. There was a 16mm film in the editor. We looked at perhaps the first three feet of the film. I don't remember our exact conversation, but I do remember we both felt that there was a frontal entry wound in the right forehead near the hairline.

(4) Do you believe William Pitzer was murdered?

(4) I have read the autopsy report, the Investigation report of Bills death, and other material. I am not convinced he committed suicide, nor am I convinced he was murdered.

[John Simkin]

What is your source for Jerrol Custer saying that William Pitzer had a film of the Kennedy autopsy?

William Matson Law, In the Eye of History, 2005 (pages 116 and 117)

Law: Who was William Pitzer?

Custer: At that time he was the chief in charge of the photographic department of the National Naval Medical Center. He and Dennis David were buddies, long term friends. Dennis wasn't on duty that night, but Chief Pitzer' was. I remember seeing him that evening and he was all around. I mean everywhere you went, you saw Chief Pitzer. He was there. And it's funny to the fact that the man-he never noticed what was around him. He kind of turned the commotion off and he was doing his job. That's what he was paid to do.

Law: What was he doing exactly?

Custer: Taking movies.

Law: He was taking movie film of the autopsy?

Custer: Absolutely.

Law: And you saw this?

Custer: I saw this.

[John Simkin]

If Pitzer was involved in generating a film of the Kennedy autopsy, it his unlikely that he would have kept a "personal" copy. There is no evidence that such a film was seized by the FBI -- he would have handed it to his commanding officer, or whoever ordered him to generate/edit said movie.

I cannot see the logic of this argument. We have evidence from Dennis David (who I find a convincing witness) and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer filmed the autopsy. According to Dennis David, Pitzer believed the film showed that JFK was shot from the front (page 16):

Law: Now, these are pictures.

David: These were pictures. They were black and whites, and colored.

Law: So he actually had these with him?

David: Yes he did. And he was editing a film, a sixteen-millimeter film. I watched him do several reels. I got the impression that he was pulling some of the frames off of the film to make slides with. I could be wrong. You know, I helped him. And, you know, watched some of these. We were looking at various aspects, and we made some continents. Number one, it was our distinct impression - impression, hell, it was our opinion, actual opinion - that the shot that killed the president had to have come from the front.

Law: And why do you say that?

David: Because we both noted a small entry wound here (points to the right side of his forehead) from another photo, and a large exit wound back in this area (indicates right rear of head). I had seen gunshot wounds before, and so had Bill. I've seen a lot of them since, and I can assure you that it definitely was an entry wound in the forehead.

By this stage Pitzer was probably aware that a cover-up was taking place. I would have thought it highly likely he would have made a copy of the film. However, even if he didn’t, those who were involved in the cover-up would have been frightened that he had. Even if they confiscated Pitzer’s film, they could not be guaranteed that it would not re-emerge later on. This would have been very damaging to the FBI or the organization that had confiscated this film and did not allow it to be shown to the Warren Commission. The fact that he was about to retire would have made him especially dangerous. No doubt he was concerned about his pension. Once he was retired and had his pension, he would have every reason to publish it. Therefore, those who were involved in the cover-up, had every reason in the world to want Pitzer to die at this particular time. Of course, motive does not prove murder took place. However, as far as I am concerned, this seems to point towards murder rather than suicide.

[Allan Eaglesham]

If Pitzer was involved in generating a film of the Kennedy autopsy, it his unlikely that he would have kept a "personal" copy. There is no evidence that such a film was seized by the FBI -- he would have handed it to his commanding officer, or whoever ordered him to generate/edit said movie.

I cannot see the logic of this argument. We have evidence from Dennis David (who I find a convincing witness) and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer filmed the autopsy. According to Dennis David, Pitzer believed the film showed that JFK was shot from the front (page 16):

Law: Now, these are pictures.

David: These were pictures. They were black and whites, and colored.

Law: So he actually had these with him?

David: Yes he did. And he was editing a film, a sixteen-millimeter film. I watched him do several reels. I got the impression that he was pulling some of the frames off of the film to make slides with. I could be wrong. You know, I helped him. And, you know, watched some of these. We were looking at various aspects, and we made some continents. Number one, it was our distinct impression - impression, hell, it was our opinion, actual opinion - that the shot that killed the president had to have come from the front.

Law: And why do you say that?

David: Because we both noted a small entry wound here (points to the right side of his forehead) from another photo, and a large exit wound back in this area (indicates right rear of head). I had seen gunshot wounds before, and so had Bill. I've seen a lot of them since, and I can assure you that it definitely was an entry wound in the forehead.

By this stage Pitzer was probably aware that a cover-up was taking place. I would have thought it highly likely he would have made a copy of the film. However, even if he didn’t, those who were involved in the cover-up would have been frightened that he had. Even if they confiscated Pitzer’s film, they could not be guaranteed that it would not re-emerge later on. This would have been very damaging to the FBI or the organization that had confiscated this film and did not allow it to be shown to the Warren Commission. The fact that he was about to retire would have made him especially dangerous. No doubt he was concerned about his pension. Once he was retired and had his pension, he would have every reason to publish it. Therefore, those who were involved in the cover-up, had every reason in the world to want Pitzer to die at this particular time. Of course, motive does not prove murder took place. However, as far as I am concerned, this seems to point towards murder rather than suicide.

John:

You are confusing your terms of reference. Yes, Jerrol Custer said he saw Pitzer film the autopsy, but he never said he saw a film of the JFK autopsy in Pitzer's possession. Dennis David saw a film of the JFK autopsy in Pitzer's possession, within a few days of the assassination, but never said that Pitzer was present in the autopsy room making that film.

Only Jerrol Custer said that he saw William Pitzer -- or anyone else -- with a movie camera in the autopsy room. In contrast, a few years before the interview with William Law, Custer told Walt Brown that Pitzer was present in the autopsy room taking photographs:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/custer~1.htm

Custer also told Law that Pitzer's right hand was congenitally deformed (nonsense), and although it appeared in his exchange with Law that he knew Pitzer well, his words to the ARRB (October, 1997, pages 40–42), shortly before his interview with Law, reveal something else.

Q: In addition to Floyd Riebe’s taking photographs, did you see anyone else take photographs?

A: There was a chief there that night that was taking movies…he was the gentleman that had committed suicide, supposedly…

Q: …Do you remember the chief’s name?

A: No I don’t.

Q: Does the name Pitzer mean anything to you?

A: Yes. Now, it rings a bell, but I’m not quite sure. But that name “Pitzer” does ring a bell.

I suggest that you read Law's overall impression of Mr. Custor's trusworthiness in "Eye" (pp. 140-142).

"Of course, motive does not prove murder took place." We agree on that. As I said before, how William Pitzer died should be judged on the available physical evidence -- not on the words of a proven embellisher or on speculation on whether or not Pitzer had a film and what he might or might not do with it.

Allan

[John Simkin]

Daniel Marvin died on 19th January, 2012. He is the author of the book, Expendable Elite (2003). He was working on a book about William Pitzer entitled The Smoking Gun: The Conspiracy to Kill LCDR William Bruce Pitzer when he died.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmartinD.htm

[John Simkin]

Daniel Marvin died on 19th January, 2012. He is the author of the book, Expendable Elite (2003). He was working on a book about William Pitzer entitled The Smoking Gun: The Conspiracy to Kill LCDR William Bruce Pitzer when he died.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmartinD.htm

It seems that this book has been published as an e-book by Kent Heiner: Without Smoking Gun: Was the Death of Lt. Cmdr. William Pitzer Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up Conspiracy?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm

Here is a review by Daniel Marvin's old adversery, Allan Eaglesham:

In essence, this book is about three men. The main character is-as the title suggests-William B. Pitzer, who died of a gunshot wound to the head on October 29, 1966, at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. The second character-again as suggested by the title-is John F. Kennedy who died of a gunshot wound to the head on November 22, 1963, in downtown Dallas, Texas. The third character is Daniel Marvin, who is alive in his seventies despite (frequent claims of) having his life threatened. Pitzer is said by one witness to have had, within a few days of the JFK assassination, possession of a movie film of the Kennedy autopsy that showed a bullet entry in the right forehead, hence not inflicted by Lee Oswald. Marvin is said by one witness (himself) to have been solicited by the CIA to murder William Pitzer; it is thought by some that Pitzer had kept possession of a copy of that movie film and was about to spill the beans by making the movie public.

In the preface, Mr. Heiner states, "This book is in large part a result of Marvin's ten-year effort to close a dark chapter in his past by fighting for truth and justice in the Pitzer case." This is an odd statement since, beyond the contribution of obtaining in 1997 FBI documents on the investigation of Pitzer's death then writing an article in the Fourth Decade shortly thereafter, Marvin has contributed little to efforts to understand how William Pitzer died. Hounding local politicians with demands for action and talking in grand terms of congressional investigations is just so much hot air. The fundamental question, "Was William Pitzer murdered?" has not figured in Marvin's vocabulary. Having claimed that he was asked to assassinate Pitzer in August of 1965, he has made up his mind that the lieutenant commander was murdered in October of 1966.

Kent Heiner covers a lot of territory in this short book (120 pages of text). And with a clear and concise writing style, he does it well. Scanning the index turns up the following names, inter alia: Fidel Castro, Edward Cutolo, Edward Jay Epstein, David Ferrie, Pierre Finck, Gaeton Fonzi, Sam Giancana, Bo Gritz, Daniel Hopsicker, James Jenkins, Lyndon Johnson, Khun Sa, Ed Lansdale, David Lifton, John McCarthy, Charles Nicoletti, Thomas Noguchi, Nugan Hand Bank, Paul O'Connor, William Pepper, Fletcher Prouty, Johnny Roselli, Michael Ruppert, Richard Secord, Ted Shackley, Sirhan Sirhan, John Stockwell, Frank Terpil, Bill Tyree and Edwin Wilson. It's an easy and absorbing read, and with one caveat (see below) I recommend it.

A pretty comprehensive description of the historical context of the assassination of President Kennedy and its aftermath is provided. And there is good coverage of the salient aspects of the FBI FOIA-released information on the investigation of William Pitzer's death with the notable exception of the autopsy report, the only reference to which is: "In fact the complete autopsy report shows nothing which would contradict the conclusion that Pitzer had taken his own life with a single pistol shot." Actually the autopsy report describes three defects in the skull-on the face of it rather odd from a "single pistol shot." (And only a passing reference is made to the autopsy photographs on Pitzer's body, released under FOIA in 2002.)

This book's weakness lies in its kid-gloves treatment of Dan Marvin and his claims. Although to some extent Heiner keeps the controversial assertions at arm's length with phrases like "Marvin says," "evidently," "what he saw as," "according to Marvin," etc., any benefit of any doubt is given to Marvin. On the other hand, to be fair, if the author had not treated Marvin as favorably as possible there may have been no reason to write this book, or at least it would have been a different book. Not that it did not evolve during writing; it started out as a Heiner-Marvin jointly authored project titled Smoking Gun: The Conspiracy to Kill LCDR William Bruce Pitzer. Obviously, as shown by the final title, some fundamental rethinking occurred in the mind of Mr. Heiner. It must have troubled him to admit, "Marvin has only been caught in-and has admitted to-only one untruth, that being the number of officers who had volunteered for the assassination training course." (Marvin changed the number from half a dozen to over thirty. Heiner misses the reason for this change. It occurred after "Captain Vance" denied recognizing Marvin, hence Marvin had to bump up the number who took the course to rationalize this lack of recognition.) The operative words in the quote are "and has admitted to," because Marvin has been caught in other "untruths." But that is outside the scope of this review.

I have to take issue also with this sentence: "The grievances Eaglesham has publicly aired regarding Marvin seem less a matter of Marvin's exact truth or falsehood than a failure on Marvin's part to function within Eaglesham's expectations of how a truthful Dan Marvin ought to behave." The word "seem" may be operative here, but I reject the notion that my standards are somehow more stringent than those of others when it comes to judging truthfulness. For example, the back cover of Without Smoking Gun describes Marvin is a "veteran of two wars." Vietnam and Korea presumably. Lieutenant Colonel Marvin served with honor in Vietnam, but in fact he arrived in Korea six months after the armistice was signed. Is it nitpicking on my part to cry foul?

My criticism of Dan Marvin since mid-1997 is characterized by Heiner as a continuation of long-standing difficulties: "The relationship between Dan and Allan Eaglesham had been strained by discord and mutual suspicion from the beginning" and "Always citing the demands of principle, Eaglesham had often found himself at odds with Marvin." Perhaps the implication here is that I was out to get Marvin from the beginning, which would not be true. In early 1995 I withdrew my name from the Fourth Decade version of Marvin's article "Bits and Pieces" because he insisted on discussing his telephone conversations with Mrs. Pitzer although she had made it clear to him that she wanted no association with any reappraisal of the case. The editor of Unclassified agreed with me and deleted that passage from "Bits and Pieces," therefore my name is on the byline of that version of the article. It was an ethical issue, dealt with openly without discord. Later in 1995 I withdrew my support from his efforts to get the case reopened because-having learned of William Pitzer's extramarital affair-I was afraid that we might prove only that he had committed suicide, with sad consequences for Mrs. Pitzer. If Marvin interprets this as undermining his credibility-as is claimed in Without Smoking Gun-he isn't thinking clearly. At that time I wrote letters exhorting him to concentrate on the generic issue of the CIA contracts on US citizens and to leave the specifics of the Pitzer case in abeyance until Mrs. Pitzer's death. Thus, claims of "discord and mutual suspicion" constitute revisionist history, albeit in a tiny teacup. When, as a result of a face-to-face meeting in my kitchen in February 1997, it seemed that Marvin's story was flawed, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and invited a written explanation, to which he provided fudge words; therefore, I terminated our working relationship. Eighteen months later in a public apology to Robin Palmer and me he claimed that his family had been threatened. Funny, he mentioned no threat in February 1997.

I could go on, but enough said for current purposes. This is a worthy primer on the deaths of William Pitzer and John Kennedy.

[Steven Skeen]

So it seems Dan Marvin was discredited. I am at a loss to think of one witness with a profoundly difference making experience related to Nov 23, 63 to convey that would alter what little we've known all along; not Marvin, Craig, Baker, Files, etc, etc, ad nauseum. How irretrievably wrong, pathetic, and mostly what an indictment of the soul of mankind! The darkness within the liars far outweighs that what exists within the murderers.