Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Lifton

  1. Joe: I'd be very careful -- and cultivate a very skeptical attitude towards --what the autopsy photos show (or "appear to show"). To begin with, the exit wound at the right rear of the skull has disappeared. Second: in Dallas, there was no "entry" wound four or five inches above the external occipital protuberance. All of this is discussed --at length --in Chapter 20 of B.E. Bottom line: It is generally known that the photos do not accurately depict what Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon) described. As an astute investigator --whether in the case of a financial crime, or (in the JFK case) the alteration of JFK's wounds (which I have referred to as creating a "medical forgery" -- you have to decide whether you are dealing with genuine data, or a forgery. Its pretty clear, from the medico-legal data presented in B.E., that we are dealing with what is tantamount to a forgery. That's my opinion. But we have to distinguish between what the Bethesda autopsy doctors reported, in plain English, and what the pictures show. THE BETHESDA AUTOPSY PHOTOS The autopsy photographs were supposedly created after midnight on 11/22/63. But there is circumstantial evidence that they were created by mid-December 1963 (as I recall); and were kept under lock and key at the National Archives, and under the control of Robert Kennedy for many years.. These photos were first examined by Dr. John Lattimer (in 1991, as I recall); and then by Dr. Cyril Wecht, in August 1972. (As you may know, I was present at the Wecht exam, but not actually permitted to be "inside the room where it occurred." (to paraphrase the title of a current book, about national security). Here's the problem facing Wecht, or anyone else attempting to make sense of this visual data: First, you want to interpret the evidence "at face value"; i.e., what is photo trying to portray. But then, in addition, you have to be aware of data that bears on the question of authenticity. Putting aside "intended interpretation," is this or that photo a forgery? And what evidence exists to support such a proposition? (Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not remember Dr. Wecht focusing on the anomalies you have discovered). Let me return to the situation as it was first observed back in August 1972, when Dr. Wecht visited NARA and viewed the photos. THE BACK PHOTO(S) AND THE RULER A good example: remember the photo of JFK's back, with the vertical ruler --which (as placed) would hide the area described by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill who reported an entry wound about 6 inches the top of JFK's suit collar? We can't "see" what is deliberately hidden; on the other hand, we can note the placement of the ruler, and conjecture about what was probably hidden by that ruler. THE THROAT WOUND (and your insights) Turning to the throat wound --described by Dr. Perry as an entry wound: you have pointed out that, upon enlarging the photo, what appears to have been "trace evidence" (what you call "a round notch") of what was once there (an entry wound, along with the trash incision); and how -- by someone using a black marker (or some other writing instrument)-- the image was altered. What I like about your presentation is that, by enlarging the photo, you seem to have identified actual "artwork" done on the photo itself. Now perhaps I am wrong. But I would like to see further analysis of your discovery. Don't assume that something is "obvious" simply because you "see" it. It must be explained, and in detail. DISCUSSION AND DEBATE I hope that your analysis is discussed and debated on this forum; and, if you feel that it "stands up" in such a debate, that you consider writing an article for a forensic science journal. The London Forum is a fine place "to start," and to debate the matter; but if you can iron out any kinks in the photo research, and/or your argument, you then should try to get it published in a legitimate journal of forensic science. If I can help, please contact me. What I have learned (re the JFK case), is that for any proposition, there is always a "pro" and then a "con" response. BTW: I first published these autopsy pictures about October 1988, and I'm curious if you have considered writing a narrative about your discovery --how you pursued your own investigation, when you discovered the various elements of your argument. Again, you're going to have to prepare a good draft of your thinking, and analysis. Just publishing a photo enlargement is not enough. Good luck! DSL dlifton@gmail.com 10/27/21 - 1 AM PDT
  2. Hello Micah: Many years have passed, but the bottom line has not changed: 1. Incision length. When I called Dr. Perry (inquiring as a UCLA grad student -- taking a course at the UCLA Law School, on the Warren Commission Report) -- and explaining to Dr. Perry that the professor (Prof. Wesley J. Liebeler, named in news accounts at the time) wanted each of us to pursue some particular "fact," in order to get some "real world experience" (my quotes) in "fact finding," I explained to Perry that my particular area was the tracheotomy incision. Everyone knew, of course, that he had performed a tracheotomy, but the Warren Report, for all its detail, was silent as to the length of that incision. And so, I asked, would he please oblige me by giving me his best recollection as to the length of the incision that he had made? Perry's answer was prompt -- he really didn't have to think about it: "2 - 3 cm" he responded. I was well aware that the Bethesda autopsy report stated the incision was "6.5 cm.", and that -- under oath -- Commander Humes said it was "7 - 8 cm." (I'm going by recollection here; and will correct this post if necessary.) I continued my questioning of Perry, inquiring if the incision length might have been "3.5 cm."; and then "4 cm.", and then "4.5 cm." etc. At some point, Perry got rather "gun shy" at the thrust of my questioning, and perhaps realized that something was terribly wrong. I don't "know" that; but that's my speculation. (Also note: when I called Dr. Carrico, either that same day, or within 24 hours -- see B.E. for the details -- he also responded "2 - 3 cm." 2. Incision "edges". I don't think I asked Perry about "the edges" -- I was on a steep learning curve, and it took me a day (or two? not sure) to ask that. But I sure did ask it (within one or two days) after I took a closer line-by-line look at the Bethesda autopsy report. Why? Because I noted that, with regard to the edges of the throat wound, the Bethesda autopsy reported that when the body arrived at Bethesda, the "defect" at the front of the throat had -- or "exhibited"--I don't recall he exact word -- "widely gaping irregular edges." So the answer as to whether --incision length notwithstanding -- the wound's "edges" had changed had changed was crystal clear: the Dallas answer was: "smooth, of course" (again, the Parkland description) -- had to be contrasted with the Bethesda description: "widely gaping irregular edges." (And I remember one of the Dallas doctors adding, in the spirit of "pointing out the obvious": "It (the Dallas incision) was made with a knife." (Again, all quotes based on recollection; I defer to what is reported in Best Evidence.) Basic Conclusion: The wound at the front of President Kennedy's throat --whether judged by "incision length" or by "wound edges" -- had clearly changed between the time JFK's body was in ER-1, at Parkland Hospital, and the time the body was examined ( at autopsy) at Bethesda Naval Hospital, an autopsy that (officially) began at "8 PM" (per Warren Commission attorney Specter) or 8:15 PM, per FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill. PERSONAL NOTE: Very shortly after getting off the phone with Perry, I had the uncomfortable realization that the only record I had --of what Perry had just told me, about incision length-- were my own recollections, along with any notes of my phone conversation with him. And that, I realized, was simply not good enough for historical purposes. Dr. Perry might rethink what he told me, and change (i.e., "revise") his account at any time. I knew that I must acquire a recorder, and do so ASAP. Today, everyone has an iphone, and that can suffice. But there were no iphones in 1966. So I very quickly went to Adray's," an L.A. store devoted to TV's and electronics that was the equivalent of (or precursor to) Best Buy. There, I purchased a decent reel-to-reel recorder. It had two speeds -- 1-7/8 ips; and 3-3/4 ips. From that point on, I made sure to record any of these medical interviews that I deemed to be historically significant. Also note: The data that I have set forth in this London Forum post appears -- in detail --in chapter 11 of Best Evidence (1981); the title: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda." PERSONAL NOTE #2: The events that I have described above occurred in the fall of 1966, when I had just turned 24 years old, and most of it was included in B.E., which was published in Jan. 1981, when I was 41. To provide some perspective: Jim DiEugenio, who writes frequently about the JFK case (and who pretends that I don't exist, and whose writing is relied upon by Oliver Stone, in his new movie), was 14 years old at the time. His DOB, according to pubic records, is 9/28/52.) PERSONAL NOTE #3: When JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, the wound (or "defect") at the front of the throat had been "stitched" up, the purpose being (apparently) to create the false impression that this was nothing more than a tracheotomy, and the stitching had occurred at Parkland. If one believes that the stitching occurred in the Bethesda morgue, that immediately would suggest, (or implicate) Dr. Humes in a medical cover-up, unless it was done by a third party, and just prior to his arrival; or perhaps done by Humes himself, but under the orders of some "higher authority"). In other words, the stitching of this "front throat" wound is subject to interpretation. It provided the basis for the appearance that the throat "defect" was nothing more than a trach, and not a trach that was made either through a pre-existing bullet wound, or just beneath it. (See Chapter 23 of B.E. "Allegations of Dr. Ebersole" for a further discussion of these details.) (Date/Time: 10/26/21, 5:20 PM PDT)
  3. To Jim DiEugenio (and others on the London Forum): The concept of "chain of possession" is something that I believe is (now) widely understood because -- for example -- of a TV program like "Law and Order." So its now part of the culture (i.e., our culture) -- by which I mean "popular culture." But back in the spring of 1967, it was not. And when I was first encountering the subject for the first time, I did not even have the basic vocabulary. Fortunately (for me), UCLA Law Professor Liebeler's office offered a reasonable place to begin, so I went up there, to the second floor of the UCLA Law School, intended to see him. Unfortunately, his door was closed; he was not in. But just one or two doors down the same hallway was the office of Professor Leon Letwin (who died in September 2015). His door was partially open, and --as I recall --I knocked lightly, pushed the door open, and there was Professor Letwin, sitting at his desk. I identified myself as a UCLA grad student, from the Engineering School, and told him I had a question about the law. As I recall, he waved me into his office, and asked me what it was I wanted to know. To this day, I am impressed --in fact, truly amazed --that i had this kind of access to this level of legal talent, right there at UCLA. Just walk in and ask -- our job is to educate. That seemed to be the attitude, if not the policy. Anyway, I walked into Prof. Letwin's office, and described my own puzzlement at the problem I was having, because --I now realized --I did not have the proper vocabulary. So what happened next? My narrative now picks up just as described in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, which is titled "Chain of Possession: The Missing Link." As I wrote, "Every item of evidence must have a "chain of possession," a demonstrable record of custody. From crime scene to court room. That is why an officer scratches his initials on a bullet before he delivers it to the crime lab.. . .The chain of possession (offers) a legal safeguard against the mishandling of evidence, by accident or design." And then I wrote: "The same rules apply to the 400 pound coffin containing the body of a President as to a bullet. The Warren Commission had committed a glaring error. They had failed to establish the chain of possession on John Kennedy's body." Chapter 16 of my book, Best Evidence, spells all this out, in detail. B.E was published in January 1981; then, a paperback edition was published in 1982; then, in 1988 (on the 25th anniversary of JFK's murder), Best Evidence was published again --in "trade paper" format (a perfect replica of the original hardcover edition, but with a new Foreword); and then (finally) there was still one more edition: the 1993 "mass paperback" edition published by Signet. Now changing the focus, just a bit, to Oliver Stone. OLIVER STONE AND BEST EVIDENCE Of course, I'm very proud to be able to cite all these different editions, and the multiple printings of each. The question that I have now is this: will Oliver Stone, in his "Reclaiming History" film, be dealing with the concept of "chain of possession"? Certainly I dealt with it--as enumerated above --in Best Evidence. What is Oliver Stone going to do, when it comes to this subject area? Stone has been very careful in dealing with me, possibly because he remembers what happened some decades ago, when --in producing "JFK" (Dec 1991) --he tried to pretend I did not exist; forcing me to get a lawyer to insure that my rights (and I'm referring here to "literary rights") were protected. Back then, meetings ensued; I met with Alex Ho (Stone's "number two"); and Stone made a reasonable settlement. So what is going to happen this time around? Now, Stone is revisiting the subject --which I think is excellent--but several questions are sure to come up when (for example) he encounters the matter of issues first raised when he made "JFK," back in 1991, and which may appear in his new film. Here is the question: Is Stone going to "give credit where credit is due?". Or is he going to treat concepts developed in B.E., and the detailed narrative that I wrote, as his natural right to utilize-- sort of like someone who approaches life from the standpoint that life is akin to a public buffet, and so he can treat himself to whatever he wants? (Sort of like: trees exist, and "money grows on trees", so what is the problem?) Let me make something clear: if it wasn't for Oliver Stone, there would not be a "JFK Records Act". I am well aware of that, and so is Oliver Stone. He has every reason to be proud of that. Not only is he aware -- he is well aware of many of the details of the JFK case. (I recently watched him on TV, quoting from the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, and carefully sticking to issues related to the Single Bullet Theory, and avoiding the passage, in the same FBI report, noting that when the body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital, it was noted that there had been --as in '"already had been" --"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.") Again, let me be clear: Stone was very careful about which sentence of the S & O report he quoted; and that was very obvious. Stone knows the details. As Jim DiEugenio has noted, "The idea of chain of custody is something that will be in Oliver's film." So now (and for me) the question becomes: when it comes to a number of key issues (and certain original discoveries) that are thoroughly developed in B.E., how will Stone conduct himself? Will he do what he did back in 1991, forcing me to seek legal assistance? Or will he behave as someone who has a more mature, and ethical understanding of his responsibilities, in 2021? I'm more than a little proud of the record I created, in Best Evidence, and the role it may have played in educating the public, when it came to certain legal issues. And I would assume that Stone realizes that too. Years ago, he was a relative novice. Now, according to financial websites, he is worth between $30 million and $70 million. I'm still around, the issue of "Chain of Possession" hasn't changed at all; and on a personal level, I'm interested in seeing how Oliver Stone will be dealing with these matters. DSL - 10/20/21 (3 AM PDT) (David S. Lifton)
  4. Sorry, but too much time has passed. I do recall that NOVA was in touch with Dr. Perry; and possibly the producer, Robert Richter would remember. It would be helpful if you could perhaps post exactly what I said. Keep in mind that Perry caught a lot of flack for --supposedly -- saying what he did at that 11/22/63 press conference, at 2:18 PM: 3 times, Perry either said -- or indicated (using hand motions) --that the throat wound was one of entry. (I write about this in B.E.) Another point: years later, during the HSCA investigation when Dr. Perry was in New York City, Robert Groden showed him the key ("face up") autopsy photo, and sought his comment. Perry was surprised, even aghast, at what the photo showed. Shaking his head from side to side, he made very clear that that did not depict the trach incision that he had made. (I defer to Groden on this point but that's what I remember Groden telling me.) Also note: Dr. Perry, when I called him, was quite specific about the incision that he had made: His incision, he (Perry) told me (Oct. 1966) was "2 - 3 centimeters". (1 inch = 2.54 cm.) Again: see B.E. for my account of calling Dr. Perry.
  5. ADDENDUM: Remember what Humes said to me when I got him on the phone (in Nov. 1966) and read to him excerpts from the Sibert - O'Neill FBI Report (i.e., that, when he received the body, there had (already) been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull": Humes: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where!" (See B.E., Chapters 7 - 10)
  6. I forgot to add. . . #3: From the Jan 1967 "Military Review": Humes was instructed to "determine" the cause of death: (as I recall). As I recall, it was Paul Hoch --then a UCB grad student -- who focused on (and pointed out to me) the evident peculiarity of Humes being instructed -- by higher authority -- to determine the cause of death. Especially if, as Bethesda Medical tech Paul O'Connor told me, that when the body arrived, "the cranium was empty." (See Chapter 26, Best Evidence). (Re cause of death: pardon my cynicism, but it was obviously not food poisoning; esp. considering the fact that (in Dallas) JFK had not yet reached the Trade Mart, and it was there that lunch would be served.) DSL
  7. Too many years have passed. I'll have to recheck what I wrote.
  8. Re #1: IMHO: Humes was not "instructed" as to what to do. He was simply presented with a body that had "already" had a crude autopsy. Re #2: Humes describes a body that -- per Boswell (per HSCA) had already been "flapped". The flaps are plainly described in the beginning of the autopsy report (per Ch. 18 of B.E.) DSL
  9. Agreed. But logic is not a bad guide in a situation such as this. DSL, 10/8/21; 1 AM PDT
  10. .Even better --and more prescient--were the writings of M.S. Arnoni, published in the Minority of One ("TMO"). The incremental escalation of the Vietnam conflict (Spring 1965), and then the Americanization of that conflict, was discerned --and commented upon --by Arnoni. DSL (10/7/21)
  11. I was either quoting from a document, or offering my own opinion. (Nothing about any movie.)
  12. DSL: Didn't he write -- that the body was removed "from the casket in which it had been transported"?
  13. O'Neill had an almost visceral dislike of me, and my book. To maneuver around this, I accepted the offer of a graduate student who, for some reason, had "good chemistry" with O'Neill. So this student was my proxy, when it came to questioning FXO. Re Agent Frank O'Neill at the George Michael Evica event: No, I didn't learn about that event until some time later. FWIW: I did not know Evica. One reason, I suppose, was that I was located in Los Angeles; he, in Connecticut. I wish I had visited him, on one of my trips "east," to visit my folks. (I ordered his book, but "very late in the game.")
  14. DSL Note, 10/4/21- 5 p.m. Sibert was always straightforward with me. He lived up to my image of an honorable FBI agent. He told the truth, as he perceived it. O'Neill offered quite a contrast. Resentful (of both me, and my book). Wearing the "image of the FBI" on his sleeve. Sibert was a witness to history; O'Neill seemed concerned about his own ego, and reputation.
  15. DSL Note: Spell check: Its "diagraph", not "digraph"; therefore, correct usage would be "diagraph code" (but which I believe would be redundant," since "diagraph"--in most contexts --implies its already been encoded). Not sure. DSL
  16. DSL Response, 10/02/2021 6:30 PM PDT: Outside of the HSCA, I believe I was the first person to interview the late Paul O'Connor, a Bethesda medical technician present at JFK's autopsy, on the night of 11/22/21. The date of my interview --a phone interview --was late August, 1979. I concealed from O'Connor the tremendous legal significance of his observations, because I did not want my questions to frighten him, or effect his responses. O'Connor told me that --when the body bag in which KFK's body arrived was opened, "the cranium was empty." This information was so critical that my publisher --Macmillan -- agreed to finance a re-interview, this time (October 1980) a professionally filmed interview with O'Connor. The film was to be utilized when my book was published (Jan. 1981) . The result was a 37 minute documentary film, now available on the Internet. (See: "Best Evidence: The Research Video.") A cautionary note: Some years after Best Evidence was published (in January 1981) --O'Connor was invited to a number of JFK research conferences; by which point he had transformed himself from an important -- but rather shy - witness, to an important "researcher" in his own right. The result: when asked to comment, he was no longer the "naive witness" that I had interviewed . He now was a "media star" of sorts. He had his own views, and was not shy about expressing them. Of course, I would have preferred if O'Connor remained the "naive witness" that he was when I first met him. but life moves on. Paul O'Connor died in August 2006.
  17. REVISED, 10/2/21 -4:20 AM): Hi Greg: Let me relate my own experience(s), based on recollection. Sometime around 1970 - 1971, I went to Washington, and spent a good month at the National Archives. (As I recall, I stayed at the home of Bernard ("Bud") Fensterwald.) As those familiar with my background know my primary education was in math and physics. After I began attending Prof. Liebeler's UCLA law School seminar on the Warren Commission, i went to the UCLA Library and checked out several books on evidence (e.g., "McCormack on Evidence," a standard text used at the time.) Of course, a good course on "evidence" is basic to any legal education. What i learned was that in any criminal case, the evidence --every item of evidence --could not be "entered into evidence" -- unless assessed to be "officially legitimate" -- i.e., until its "chain of possession" was established. The legal jargon for this fell under the purview of "relevance," a legal term which has a specific meaning in the law. Bottom line: If there was no "chain of possession," a rifle could not be "admitted into evidence". Why? Because it wasn't "relevant." The same for bullets removed at autopsy;and, going to the macroscopic, the body itself was evidence, and it--too --was required to have a chain of possession. From the "found" body to the autopsy table. Much of this is familiar to those who watch the TV program "Law and Order." Now let's apply these rules (and insights) to the "case against Oswald." As everyone knows, the key "evidence against Oswald" consisted such items as "the rifle", "fingerprints at the sniper' nest", bullet fragments removed from JFK's body. And of course, thee was the body itself. The President's body was critical evidence in "the case against Oswald. So it, too, had to have a "chain of possession," (All of this is discussed in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence.") Had Oswald lived--and the case against him gone to trial--many of the key items could not have been "admitted into evidence" without a valid "chain of possession." Oswald was murdered on Sunday 11/24/63, so the case being built against him began with the Dallas Police file, and then the FBI file, and --finally--the Warren Commission investigation. So... faced with these legal requirements, how did the Warren Commission legal staff behave? Basically, they accepted all the basic evidence --the "found rifle," the "found bullets" (or bullet fragments) etc. --as evidence, without paying sufficient attention to the "chain of possession." Accepting the validity of these items of evidence, the Warren Commission legal staff then set out to write their "report". But note: Just as when a high school or college student writes a term paper, the Warren Commission's legal staff first wrote an "outline" -- an "Oswald was guilty" outline as the basic structure for the Warren Report. These outlines --in the "office files" at the National Archives (and designated the "REP" files) --were dated between January and March, 1964. Once these outlines were approved by Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, the work for the individual chapters was parceled out to individual staff lawyers, who then proceeded to write their 'preliminary drafts" for the document which, when completed, would emerge as the Warren Commission Report (the WCR). (All of this-- what I have just described here -- is documented in the "Office Files" of the Warren Commission -- abbreviated as the "REP" files in the "office files" of the Warren Commission. (I examined this material -- the REP files -- back around 1970. (Arlen Specter, for example, wrote the "original drafts" for the section of the Warren Report about the autopsy. Wesley Liebeler --and Albert Jenner -- were in charge of the chapters on Oswald's biography.) What I found-- again, back around 1970, when I first examined the Warren Commission's "working paper's" at the National Archives-- was simply this: : The Warren Commission legal staff wrote their "first drafts" of the "Oswald-did-it" Warren Report in mid-January 1964! Just consider what this means: President Kennedy was murdered on 11/22/63; the Warren Commission was created by 11/29/63; several weeks passed while staff was hired, the nation was told that the Warren Commission was hard work. Meanwhile, by January 1964, the earliest "Oswald did it" outlines were already created! (This same bizarre situation was addressed by author Howard Roffman, whose book -- appropriately titled "Presumed Guilty" --was published around 1970, Bottom line: the "Oswald did it" fix was in by January 1964. All i can say is: "Wow! What a betrayal of the public trust!" Once this bizarre "preliminary outline" was adopted (i.e., "green lighted") by the WC's General Counsel), what happened next was predictable. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT --i.e., starting in January 1964 Between January and June 1964, when the senior Warren Commission staff lawyers (e.g., Stuart Eisenberg, and Norman Redlich) were already drafting the document that became known as "the Warren Report-- some of the senior legal staff in effect recognized the emerging legal problem. Indeed, the documents show that senior members had a serious "Oops!" moment. Someone apparently realized "Oops! We are constructing this "Oswald did it" narrative based on the "sniper's nest evidence" (e.g the rifle, the bullet fragments, etc.) --but we (the WC legal staff) have neglected to establish a "chain of possession" on the key items of evidence! In other words, it was as if they (the WC legal staff) were building a house that had no proper legal foundation! So now, having conducted their investigation without bothering to establish a chain of possession, senior attorneys Eisenberg and Redlich let out an enormous "OOPS!" exclamation; consulted with Gen. Counsel Rankin, and that's how (and why) it wasn't until May 1964, that the Warren Commission legal staff set out to repair the situation. At this rather "late" date, the FBI was requested (by the Warren Commission) to establish a "chain of possession" on a whole array of "sniper's nest" items of evidence: i.e., the rifle, the bullets, the shells, etc. All I can say is: "Welcome to law school, and the "legal way" of viewing theWarren Commission's view of 11/22/63. This --of course-- was akin to putting the cart before the horse, but the legal eagles of the WC staff behaved as if none of this mattered. It was as if their attitude was: "Oswald killed the President. Here's the official narrative; we can worry about the legal details later." The country deserved better. There was a lot of talk -- back in the mid-sixties --about how the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy. From attending Prof. Liebeler's UCLA seminar, I learned otherwise. Because I watched the law students arrive at the same false conclusions, As i wrote in Best Evidence: a major conspiracy on the Warren Commission legal staff wasn't necessary: just that they went to law school. That was like putting your mind into a straight jacket, when evaluating reality. DSL
  18. FWIW: I pursued the Walter Reed angle in 1982 (approx). I was able to locate people who was there that night, and as a consequence of those conversations, concluded JFK's body never went there. However, and this occurred some years later, it seemed clear that there was some sort of planning to bring JFK's body there --but (again) that never happened.
  19. Please keep in mind what Parkland Nurse Doris Nelson told me in December 1982 (when I met with her, in Dallas): 1. Gov. Connally was shot in the chest, from the front. 2. I wrote about this on the London Forum, decades ago --this based on two pieces of evidence. a. The account of Doris Nelson b. Connally's account, as reported by his good friend --who's last name escapes me, but whose first name was Doug. This was all laid out on the London forum, years ago. 3. Why I used the phrase "system overload": "I used the term "system overload" because I don't believe Connally was an "intentional" target (in the assassination, as planned); but, we can agree, it (the JC shooting) certainly did occur. DSL(10/01/21 - 9:35 PDT; 10/10/21 12:45 PM PDT
  20. Micah: I have no idea what this particular controversy is about. DSL, 9/29/21
  • Create New...