David Lifton

sis I don't believe anyone "mutilated" the governor's body. That is the wrong word. But I do believe that a small (and relatively minor) entry wound was created on the rear surface of Governor Connally's body to create valid medical evidence he was struck from behind. Governor Connally knew that he was struck from the front (and later interviews I have make this clear). But it was imperative --to the official version--that he "agree" (in 1963/64) that he was struck from behind. (I would imagine that it was "explained" to him that the world was teetering on the verge of nuclear war, or some such "national security" cover story). As you may (or may not) know, a motion picture projector was brought to Connally's hospital room on Sunday evening, 11/24, and the film (which, as you may be aware, I believe to have been altered by that time) was repeatedly played for him. Again and again. That film does not show any car stop. None at all. It shows a "six second" assassination; not the actuality (a 20 second shooting, approx). Governor Connally knows what actually happened, and I'll have more to say about this in Final Charade. By the next Wednesday evening (11/27), Governor Connally was prepared to state--for the record--a version of events which was broadcast nationally, and which would become "his" version, and to which he testified in February, 1964.

Quoting Bojzcuk: The paranoid, 'everything is a fake' mindset does more than just legitimise the lone-nut theory. It causes another problem: it gives the general public the impression that everyone who questions the lone-nut theory is a paranoid fantasist. MY RESPONSE: First of all, based on polling data, this country must be loaded with paranoid fantasts.(Is that the right term? Or is "skeptic" a better choice? I prefer the latter). Poor Mr. Bochuk. .he cannot get his mind around the idea that an Oswald frame-up was possible, or in any event even plausible. Let’s review the basic chronology: The Bethesda autopsy began (officially) at 8 PM EST 2. There were no bullets or macroscopic fragments in the body. As the two FBI agents reported, the doctors “were at a loss explain. . why they could find no bullets” 3. At about 9 pm, at the White House, a Secret Service agent turned over the bullet that (he said) was found on a Dallas stretcher at Parkland Hospital (Note the time: The agent (Richard Johnsen) carried the bullet in his pocket for about six hours.) 4. At about 10:30 PM, two Secret Service agents (and/or FBI agents) assigned to search the limo (by then parked in the White House garage) found (in the front seat) the two large ballistically identifiable fragments that matched LHO’s rifle. (Wow! What a find. Proof that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon - -either that, or that someone with an eye for detail was involved in the design of this frame-up. FWIW: The basic draft of the Warren Report was written by late March, 1964; and by June 1964, there were already many revisions. The Warren Commission legal staff didn’t seem to “catch on” to the possibility of fraud in the evidence until June 1964, long after the basic draft of their report (with its “case against Oswald", se Chapter 4) was written. At that time, they had no “chain of possession” on the bullet, the fragments, or lots of other critical evidence. That’s when (approx. June 1964) senior WC attorney Norman Redlich (of considerable academic brilliance, BTW) thought to address this situation. So, at about that time, he requested of FBI Director J. E. Hoover something that most law students learn in their first year: if Director Hoover could please send out his agents and establish a “chain of possession” on all of the basic evidence on which the Warren Commission relied (!)....the rifle, the bullet fragments, etc. (This bizarre situation is documented in the "working papers" of the Warren Commission, which I spent weeks studying at NARA, in the early 1970s). If the FBI were to have proceeded in this fashion in the case of a stolen horse, there would have been a fistful of excellent FBI reports about the situation at the barn, after the horse was stolen, and no information about the missing horse, which —it perhaps would have been concluded— had simply run away. To state it somewhat differently: eighth grade students know, from watching CSI or Law and Order—the necessity of establishing a chain of possession on the key evidence in a murder case. But, unfortunately, this basic precept was ignored by the legal eagles on the Warren Commission until about June 1964. . . when, apparently, someone apparently realized that, without a valid chain of possession, they were vulnerable to the charge of having “played cards” with a stacked deck. OMG. . what then?! (And: Would the public notice?) FWIW: The first public notice that the WC had a "chain of possession" problem (with regards to the President's body) appeared in a legal paper written by attorney Jay Schwartz (from upstate New York) -- a paper published (approx 1966) in an NYU legal journal. Schwartz drily noted that (a) the most important evidence in a murder case was "the body" and (b) there was no chain of possession on JFK's body (!). He added a few words (tongue in cheek, perhaps?) that of course the presumption was (i.e., it was "assumed") that nothing could have happened to JFK's body in the approximate six (6) hour period between the Dallas pronouncement of death (1 PM CST), and the (8 PM EST) start of the official autopsy at Bethesda. However, (in the spirit of "But') he politely noted at least one observation that was different, and raised (in a single sentence, as I recall) the basic question (explored in great detail in B.E.) He did not make any accusation, but he did raise the question. Furthermore. . : This is/was more than a procedural matter. Think about it: If the FBI had done a genuine chain-of-possession investigation (even if they started with the assumption that nothing was amiss, and this was simply a procedural matter of "dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's), and if they (as I did, in 1966/67) had questioned members of the U.S. Multi-Service Casket Team, what would have been the result? What would FBI officials have thought when they learned that, at Bethesda Naval Hospital (and after RFK and JBK exited the vehicle), there had been an "ambulance chase" (per Ch. 16 of B.E.). What would they had thought, if they had questioned Dennis David (as I did on 7/2/1979), and learned that the coffin offloaded from Air Force One was empty? And were told, in effect: "Not to worry, this was only a security measure." Rest assured that if any of this information had been discovered, and made public at the time (1963/1964) there would have been a public outcry, and a demand for explanations. And the Warren Report would have had to include several pages of explanation-- explaining to the general public (and the world) why --in the scene broadcast nationally, and to the world--showing the arrival of the Kennedy party at Andrews Air Force Base, that the coffin next to which Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy were standing, was empty. None of this happened, of course; but I have wondered what the outcome would have been, if this bizarre situation had been discovered at that time.

One other matter, and that concerns Bojckuck's concern about "getting the public on his side" (so there might be a new investigation): Really? In 2020? You’re dreaming.. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds like a public relations strategy. Sorry, but my goal has been to ascertain the truth. And I believe polls show that a significant percentage of the population do not believe the official version of the Kennedy assassination. From my informal monitoring of the situation, much of this derives from a refusal to believe validity of the naval autopsy conclusions about bullet trajectories, an autopsy performed by doctors who were subject to a military “order not to talk,” who burned their original notes, and by the use of artist’s drawings, instead of autopsy photos. Now whether the public agrees with my belief that the body was altered (and was tantamount to a medical forgery), or whether they believe that the doctors simply lied - - that I don’t know. What I do know is (a) that the wounds were altered; (b) that the autopsy doctors knew it; and (c) they wrote a technically accurate autopsy report which (accurately) reported the condition of the body, but which did not explicitly state that there had been post-mortem surgery. But that deadly fact was stated, in plain English, by the two FBI agents who were present, and who reported, based on what the doctors were saying at the time of the autopsy exam, that it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” IMHO: the two naval autopsy doctors were in the position of a bank teller who cashes a check that he knows to be a forgery -- indeed, a sloppy forgery.

DSL RESPONSE: The pathologists were not fooled. (The real issue, I have always believed) is what were the supposed to do about it? (Call the Maryland State Police?" Seriously, they were in an impossible situation). (A) Remember what Dr. Humes said to me, when I questioned him (in Oct/Nov 1966) seeking to determine his level of awareness. And when he finally blurted out: "I'd like to know by whom it was done! And when! and where!" (See Ch. 8 - 10, B.E.) And when I pressed further and questioned him further, he said that he recorded exactly what he saw in the autopsy report. And that report, as I explained in Chapter 18 of B.E., begins with precise description of how the scalp had already been "flapped." Also: Dr Perry testified that he received a call on Friday night, 11/22/63, from Commander Humes (the autopsy pathologist) who asked (this, from memory): “Did you make any wounds in the back?’ (B) The two FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy reported that it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” Tell me, Mr. Bojczuk: Does this fit your idea of a medical situation that was so expertly executed that the result “fool[ed]” the pathologists? (And, again. . What about Humes' outburst to me, when questioned on this very matter: "I'd like to know by whom it was done! . . .and when! And where!". .See Chapters 8-10 of B.E.) As to your assertion: “we know for a fact that Governor Connally was wounded by a shot that was fired from behind," there also, I beg to disagree. Because if so, then please do explain: (1) Why Gov Connally later (some years after his Warren Commission testimony) gave an account that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from the front. Do you think Connally’s memory decayed with time; or is this a situation in which, to quote Josephine Tey, “Truth is the daughter of time”? (2) Regarding the JC rear entry. . . .: please do explain why the JC medical team reported that only the outermost layer of Gov JC’s muscle (the latissimus dorsi) was punctured, shallowly (similar to the shallow wound on JFK's back-- although they did not say that) ) and that this supposed entry went no further; i.e., did not go through the underlying musculature? (3) Why (if JC was struck from behind) was it reported (by the thoracic surgeon [as I recall]) that Gov JC’s ribs were bent inward. (How likely is that?) I offer this info not as conclusions, but as reasons for serious skepticism about JC's testimony, and the conventional conclusion that he was shot once from behind. P.S. If JC had testified to the Warren Commission what he said years later (shot from the front, etc.), that would have spelled “conspiracy” and (IMHO) ended any possibility of Johnson receiving the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency. If the public believed that Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy executed in Dallas, there would have been no Johnson presidency, and no escalatIon of the Vietnam War. Again: IMHO.

Yes, the Secret Service checked out that tunnel (at Parkland), but there is no credible evidence that that tunnel was actually employed to remove the body from Parkland Hospital. Quite aware of this possibility, I questioned Aubrey Rike very carefully on this point. There appeared to me to be no reason to doubt Rike's account that he placed JFK's body --wrapped in sheets-- inside the Dallas coffin (the ceremonial coffin), and then "closed the lid." That coffin was then rolled down the hallway (on a device called a "church truck"), brought outside and placed inside the hearse for the drive to Love Field, and to the port side of Air Force of Air Force One. So (IMHO), there is no reason to doubt that JFK's body was inside the Dallas coffin when it was placed aboard Air Force One. Furthermore: I believe the President's body was in the coffin when it was loaded aboard AF1 for another reason: as evidenced by the image of S. S. Agent Kellerman -- tall and well built -- struggling with the heavy coffin in the Dallas "onload" photos. I invite readers to contrast that with the official USAF photos of the offload at Andrews AFB --published in Best Evidence (and included in the B.E. Research Video) -- which depicts the coffin tilted upwards (and, as noted by William Manchester) practically "bobbing" up and down as it was carried from the mechanical lift (at AF1), and over to the waiting naval ambulance. Bottom line: The Dallas "onload" images appear to depict a coffin that was considerably heavier than the coffin being offloaded at Andrews, some three hours later.

"

Kennedy’s body was not “stolen” (as Bojczuk alleges). The transfer of Kennedy’s body from the Dallas coffin to the forward luggage area was apparently done under the color of authority —specifically, under the authority of senior Secret Service agent in charge, Roy Kellerman. There is nothing “laughable” about that. Had there been a proper investigation (in 1963/64, by the FBI), the removal of Kennedy’s body from the ceremonial (Dallas) casket (and its subsequent transfer to a body bag) would have been properly investigated in the course of the Warren Commission investigation. Instead, O’Connor—and the other Bethesda medical technicians—were ordered to sign military “orders not to talk,” agreeing that if they talked, they could be court martialed. Only because of the inadequate investigation, someone like Bojczuk can come along years later and— through ignorance—proclaim that the body was not put in a body bag, which (in fact) is the way it arrived at the morgue of Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the autopsy was performed. Furthermore, the fact that it arrived in a body bag is a fact reported in the report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (July 1979) reported there by Bethesda Medical Tech Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag, and helped place JFK's body on the autopsy table). Upon reading that —again, summer of 1979—I telephoned O’Connor, conducted a detailed interview (Aug. 1979, see Chapter 26 of B.E.) and then —two months later, in October 1980) -- conducted the filmed interview of O’Connor that anyone can view via the Best Evidence Research Video. (Please use Google, to locate its web address). Anyone who has read Chapter 26 of B.E. or viewed my filmed interview of the late Paul O’Connor (Oct., 1980) understands that this was a serious matter, and not a “laughable notion.” Shame on you, Jeremy Bojczuk, for your arrogance and sneering dismissal of important evidence establishing that President Kennedy’s body was covertly intercepted prior to autopsy. Your foolish (and absurdly biased) reaction, however, does not constitute evidence of impeachment. Rather, it goes to the question of whether you (and your so-called “criticism”) is valid, and deserves to be taken seriously.

Lee had been in the Soviet Union since October 1959, and living in Minsk, USSR since January 1960. Now he was returning home, knew that his return would be publicized, and was asking his brother to provide him information about what was being said about him in the media. Why should that be suspicious? (As far as "on the draw". . the two brothers both liked westerns, and so LHO was using an innocent metaphor, from the movies). IMHO.

When I have precise information, I will gladly address your question. Hopefully will soon have a web address. One other matter, and that concerns your apparent concern about "other" conspiracy theories. Please name some of the conspiracy theories to which you subscribe (or are partial), and which you believe have been damaged, or become less credible, simply because of the publication of Best Evidence (1981) or the release of the Best Evidence Research Video (1989), which documents the fact that the Presidents body was covertly intercepted somewhere between the pronouncement of death, in Dallas, circa 2 pm CST; and the commencement of the official autopsy at 8 PM EST at Bethesda Naval Hospital. For example, has anyone claimed that shots could not have been fired from the front, because the body was altered? (Not particularly logical, but has anyone made such a claim?) Alternatively (or similarly): Has anyone claimed that Oswald could not have been a USG agent because the body was altered? I would be interested in learning some of the details of your hypothetical "damage assessment." Please do let me know.

Matt: You're supposed to have graduated from Brown University. Is this the best you can do, when you want to express yourself--to show us that you can insert a computer graphic of a trash container? Just imagine you're out on a date, with a lovely coed. And you're overcome with desire. Do you take out your iphone and show her porno flicks? I'm sure you were taught how to paste a graphic into an Internet post, but. . . can't you do better than that?

Radiologist Ebersole's account is the strongest evidence concerning stitches -- and if he is correct, that shows that (at some point that evening) an attempt was made to hide the existence of the throat wound (entirely), and just pass off that frontal defect as a tracheotomy which had been "sewn up." If there was any such stitching in the area of the head (and I think it was Adm. Galloway who told me that he wan't sure, and then sloughed it off as a possibility, but 'so what'? etc). But if that occurred, it sheds additional light on why FBI Agents Sibert and O'neill stated that it was "apparent that that [there had been] surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." I have always wondered about this because of the way Humes so carefully described the four scalp flaps (at the beginning of the autopsy), delineating them as "a", "b", "c" and "d." (Per Ch 13 of Best Evidence). Humes testified that when he parted the scalp, the skullcap was completely fragmented and simply fell apart in his hands. Stitching would explain how this grotesque mess was (mechanically) kept together, until the body was actually examined by Humes. We have no time machine, but if the WC counsel had been aware of this, Humes could have been asked, quite directly, whether there was any post-mortem stitching on the body, and specifically, either in the area of the throat wound or the head wound. And if the answer --in either case-- was in the affirmative, the next question would have been: Why didn't you include this in the autopsy report? And, of course, the same question (about their awareness of stitches) could have been directed at the three key naval officers who were present, and who constituted Humes' chain of command: Capt. Stover, the CO of the Naval Medical School; Adm. Galloway, the CO of the National Naval Medical Centr; and Admiral Edward Kenney, the Navy Surgeon General. (And then, of course,there was Adm. George Burkley, the President's Physician). If there were stitches on any of the wounds--- as Dr. Ebersole reported--are we supposed to believe that none of these individuals --all naval doctors---knew about that?

The “found rifle” (on the sixth floor) was brought to Love Field, and flown to Washington, where it was immediately brought to the FBI Lab, where it was test fired to obtain test bullets to be used for ballistics tests. That’s how it was quickly established that there was a “match” between the found rifle and the 3 pieces of ammunition recovered on11/22/63. This was proper FBI procedure; It was not something that occurred “only because of Oswald's arrest.”

Within 24 hours, the FBI Lab was reporting to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry that (all) the bullets recovered in the assassination (the stretcher bullet [Exh 399] and the two fragments found in the presidential limousine [WCE 567 and WCE 569) were from Oswald’s rifle. You can read that ballistic report (see an actual facsimile of it) in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, or in Chief Curry’s book. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion as to the (supposed) unimportance of “non-Oswald” bullets, but I think that my analysis is backed up by the actual facts in this case. Neither of us have the benefit of a time-machine, but its my firm opinion that if the FBI had announced that bullets--any bullets --had been received at its Laboratory were from "other" (i.e., non-Oswald) guns, that would have led to political action that would have prevented LBJ from remaining in the presidency for very long. Also keep in mind: Robert Kennedy was Attorney General at the time, and I do not believe he would have permitted such a clear (and provable) usurpation of his brother's legacy--- especially if "conspiracy" could have been so easily proven --i.e., as a consequence of non-Oswald bullets being received at the FBI Laboratory.

Humes (neither in the Bethesda autopsy report, nor in his March 1964 WC testimony) reported finding any stitches (and I stress the words "did not report"). As I recall, the account of stitches first arose when Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist (who was not called by the WC) testified before the HSCA in March 1978. I have studied Dr. Ebersole's account carefully (starting with its first appearance in Lancaster [PA] newspapers). Had there been a proper investigation, the question (to Humes) ought to have been: "Why didn't you tell us about these stitches"?

IMHO: Whether the number of bullets were 1,3,5 or 8, the original plan for JFK's murder must have included a plan for bullet removal--by which I mean "pre-autopsy bullet removal." If any non-Oswald bullets had reached the FBI Laboratory, that fact alone --in November 1963 terms-- would have signified "conspiracy". And that would have made it impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have a smooth transition to the Presidency; and --certainly--precluded his nomination as a viable candidate at the Democratic Convention (in Atlantic City) the next summer. For these reasons, if this was a high level plot --the purpose of which was to operate the U.S. presidential line of succession (and advance LBJ to the Oval Office) -- then pre-autopsy bullet removal would have been a necessary part of the original plan. Without it, such a plot could certainly have achieved the death of JFK, but not the political survival of LBJ. Another way of stating this: what assured LBJ's smooth succession to the Oval Office, was not just the death of JFK (and the operation of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution for a stable succession), but the credible appearance of Oswald as "the lone assassin." That combination of factors insured that the assassination of JFK would have the appearance of its being a "quirk of fate," i.e., an "accident of history." Such an appearance would have been seriously damaged--if not destroyed--if the FBI Lab were to announce that the bullets it received were from some "other" gun --i.e., a rifle other than the one mail ordered by Oswald, the previous March. Bottom line: pre-autopsy bullet removal was essential to the successful operation of this plot.

Sandy, we have not been in touch for many years, and my position has evolved. Although there's no question in my mind that President Kenned's wounds were altered (which explains the autopsy report and testimony, upon which the Warren Commission, as well as the Bethesda accounts of those who knew that the cranium was empty), I long ago realized the likelihood that some of the autopsy photos were altered, which would explain the "back of the head photos"; and the same may well be the case with the X-rays. also note: If the photos and X-rays were altered, that was certainly done by the time the autopsy doctors were called to the National Archives to examine these materials in January 1967. DSL ADDENDUM (6/28/20): Perhaps I should spell this out with additional detail. When it comes to the medical evidence, the plotters faced two challenges: (1) to remove bullets and alter wounds so as to create the basis for a false autopsy; (2) To create X-rays and photos that would support (i.e., be the basis for) that false autopsy. Had the President's body been altered in Dallas (and had the autopsy been conducted in Dallas), all of that would have been one "seamless" operation. A Dallas pronouncement of death, immediately followed by a Dallas autopsy. Only because the Secret Service --on LBJ's orders--took possession of the body and brought it back to Washington, do we have these problems of "political interference" in the autopsy.

Jim DiEugenio falsely claimed that I did not originate the theory of body alteration. That is just plain false, and absurd. Its worse than that: its a malicious falsehood, and an attempt to muddy the public record. Best Evidence was published in January 1981, when it was a Book of the Month Club Selection and a national best seller. Those facts alone render DiEugenio's statement absurd. Then (after the original hardcover publication) my book was republished by three additional publishers--with updates as necessary: Dell (paperback, 1982); Caroll and Graf (1988) and Signet (paperback, 1993). After reading DiEugenio's false statement, I replied, defending my work. And now, your response is to say that "Jim D[ieugenio] and M[ilicent] Cranor deserve better than this?" Get real, Matt Allison. DiEugenio's false statements deserved a response, and that's exactly what I wrote. The problem is not --or should not be-- my defending the originality and integrity of my work. The problem is with DiEugenio making false statements about my authorship, and that has always been troubling. I have never understood whether its the result of ignorance or malice. In either case, its irresponsible, and ought to stop. (Revised and amended, 6/28/20)

N In any deception operation, a most important question is understanding where the line is located between the deceiver and the deceived. Addressing that question is vital to understanding what happened in the Kennedy case, and why we still don't know the truth about Dealey Plaza. Breaking your question into two parts: (1) I do not believe that FBI Director Hoover conspired with anyone to alter evidence or to withhold evidence. To the contrary, the FBI (through its 50-plus Field Offices throughout the U.S.) collected (and provided to the Warren Commission) thousands of pages of detailed FBI reports. Just peruse the Warren Commission's LBSM ("List of Basic Source Materials") --over 1500 detailed FBI reports from FBI Field Offices around the U.S. --and you will see the extent of the FBI investigation. The simple and direct answer to your accusatory question is that the FBI investigation was apparently deceived by its focus on "the sniper's nest." At this late date, I can state that such an incorrect focus is a matter of record. Could the FBI have performed a more competent investigation? Yes, absolutely. But they didn't. (2) Regarding the CIA, my answer is similar, but my sources are different. If you read Best Evidence, you know (for example) that I had a detailed interaction with Allen Dulles at UCLA in December 1965. FWIW: Dulles (then 69, I believe) was not in a position (re the medical evidence) to either "withhold evidence" to to "alter evidence". Furthermore, Dulles (a Wall Street lawyer) didn't seem to understand -- until I showed him the Zapruder frames -- that it was very significant that JFK's head and shoulders were slammed "backwards and to the left" by the impact of the fatal shot. (See Chapter 2 of B.E. for a detailed description of Dulles's argument with me; at UCLA, circa Dec. 1965); and, in general, his reaction to the head-snap.) You raise the issue of whether Dulles and Hoover "conspire[d] to alter and withhold evidence." In fact, its not at all clear just what you have in mind, because you don't spell it out. Generalities won't work. Just how would Allen Dulles "alter" any evidence? Or "withhold" evidence? (Would you care to elaborate?) As a writing teacher of mine used to say, "Be specific!" If you follow that dictum, you will find that the path always goes back to "the body" --i.e., JFK's body-- which is what Best Evidence is all about. The false autopsy is nothing more than a "word picture" of what was on the body. Alter the wounds and you have altered the trajectories (i.e., the conclusions re trajectory). Alter the trajectories and you have, in effect, altered history. INFORMATION FLOW From the standpoint of information flow, the President's body can be viewed (metaphorically) as being situated at the mouth of a river. If the wounds were altered--and the trajectories falsified --that is a polluted source, i.e., a source of false information (or "dis-information.") Should anyone wish to pursue this further, then please follow this dictum: "be specific." Unfortunately, you seem to be looking for individuals to blame; but the problem is more fundamental, it is "systemic", and goes back to falsified evidence -- specifically, an altered body (or more specifically, altered wounds); along with a pathetically weak investigative methodology --largely the result of the Commission's key attorney (in the medical area) not recognizing that JFK's wounds, as observed at Parkland Hospital, were decidedly different from what was observed at Bethesda (i.e., at autopsy). About your "blame game": The individuals you seem to want to blame are, for the most part, simply "transmitting" (via their reports and testimony) false data from an altered body. Did they know? Yes, I think that Dr. Humes (the Bethesda autopsy doctor), certainly did know. And that's why, in responding to my "cross examination", and my forcefully stressing (to Humes) that the two FBI agents reported there had been "surgery of the head area," he was (initially) evasive, but then seemed to concede the point when-- apparently exasperated-- he blurted out: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where!" (See Best Evidence, Chapters 7-9). Mr. Niederhut: If this were a financial crime. I'm sure you'd have no trouble understanding the importance of forgery of financial records. Such forgeries would be the means for stealing money. By analogy, and applying the same concept to this murder: An autopsy based on an altered body (a body that was tantamount to a medical forgery) enabled those who committed this murder to hide the truth. If Detective Columbo were investigating this crime, I think he'd understand that immediately. I do not understand your difficulty in comprehending the importance of falsifying the autopsy. DSL (4/25/22, 7 PM PDT)

Re: "Thank you for the reply, i have read Best Evidence a couple of times several years apart. The closeness of your relationship with Prof. Leibeler and his encouragement of your early investigations intrigued me. With the new information you discovered from your interviews as you progressed it seemed to me from reading your book, that in his mind he always thought someday someone would come along to tear down the warren report and bring light to its many failings. I think he may of taken some pride from the fact that you were the one to get the bolder rolling in 1965/66." My response: "Yes and no." Without question, Prof. Liebeler took seriously my discovery that the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report stated that, prior to autopsy, there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." The fact that he would feature my discovery in his memorandum that went out to all seven members of the Warren Commission, plus the entire staff, with--in addition-- a copy to Attorney General Robert Kennedy speaks for itself. Furthermore, in a prior draft of the memo, he actually included the entire matter of the back-to-front "parasagittal laceration" (through the brain) which I had discovered and brought to his attention in that same (initial meeting) on 10/24/66. Remember: on that day, he called up a neurosurgeon and--without telling him who was the victim--read to him that description, and asked him what was the cause of death, to which the neurosurgeon responded: "Sounds like he was hit with an axe!" -- (to which Liebeler then responded, to me, when he hung up the phone, "I guess we'll have to get the FBI to jimmy up some evidence that Oswald ordered an axe!" I think Prof. Liebeler knew the Report was seriously flawed--but, prior to the time I met him, I think he what struck him the most was (a) the Odio incident and (b) LHO's trip to Mexico City. But Liebeler had a very curious mind; and, at some point, his focus shifted to the autopsy. Certainly, that had occurred by October 1966, a few weeks after the fall term began at UCLA. FWIW: I don't believe he ever subscribed to the proposition that Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon) would outright lie. Because Liebeler understood the implications of that, in terms of Humes' future career. But when I showed him the demonstrable evidence that the body had been altered, and I demonstrated that Humes could "tell the truth" (in a fashion, without making explicit that the body was a medical forgery), there's no question that that marked a major turning point. See B.E., Ch. 8, I think, where Liebeler went into a private office and called Arlen Specter, to relate to him my discovery. When he returned, and I asked, "What did he say?". . . Liebeler responded (as I wrote in B.E.): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." As to his personal beliefs, I cannot say. . and keep in mind that there was a period of over a decade where I left Southern California, returned to the family home (in Rockaway Beach, New York, "aka" Belle Harbor, Long Island); and while there-- under Peter Shepherd's guidance--wrote Best Evidence. My parents initially expected my stay there would be a few weeks, perhaps a month or two; but then my stay there kept getting longer and longer. Also, during that period, my father had a near-fatal heart attack. The book was published in January 1981, both my parents were well enough to attend the major press conference my publisher (Macmillan) held in Washington, D.C., as well as a social event that evening. Now back to Professor Liebeler: when I was in Los Angeles on my book tour, and --unannounced, and accompanied by Pat Valentino --went up to his office at UCLA, he was most surprised. I don't remember that he wrote any comprehensive rebuttal to B.E., but --rest assured--he never endorsed it. That's important to keep in mind. It seemed to me that Prof. Liebeler always walked that "in-between" line. Now, having said that, I can also assure you that had his memo resulted in a re-opening of the JFK investigation, he would have taken considerable pride in that. And yet, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conducted its investigation (1976 - 1979), I don't believe Liebeler ever told them about his memo, or any concerns he had about the autopsy, and so he would have first learned about the extent of my (completed) work when the book (Best Evidence) was actually published (Jan. 1981). I really don't know the answers to the rest of your questions. Liebeler was a very complicated guy. And I personally believe that he saw his future as someone who would become important in anti-trust law, and not as someone who would take part in solving the Kennedy assassination. In view of the (Nov 1966) memo he wrote about the autopsy, that may be hard to believe, but . . I think that's close to the truth. As you know, he died in an airplane crash in September, 2002, so we can only speculate about what "might have happened" if he lived another decade (or more).

Your question: "Dear Mr.Lifton,. . . Did Professor Liebeler ever reveal to you his thoughts on what he believed really happened on Nov 22nd 1963 after his work for the Warren Commission?" Reply: short answer, "No." As described in B.E. (see Ch. 9, of B.E.), WJL was very excited by my discovery of the body alteration evidence. . .remember what he said to me (when he first saw the blowup photos of the Moorman Polaroid; Spring 1965. See Ch. 1 of B.E., where he made that remark about Lyndon Johnson.) All of that was Spring 1965 . but then came October 1966, and my discovery of the statement in the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report that --at the time of the Bethesda autopsy-- there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." That's when Prof. Liebeler wrote the memo he did (mid Nov., 1966, see Chapter 9 of B.E.) All of that persisted through the time he sent out the Liebeler Memo in mid-November, 1966.-- a memo that went to every member of the WC and its legal staff, plus Attorney General RFK. A change in Liebeler's attitude occurred when his memo was rejected by General Counsel J Lee Rankin (12/1/66). Also note: The focus was never on LBJ as an individual, but rather on my discovery of body alteration as the M.O. --the M.O. that was at the heart of a disguise to operate the presidential line of succession of the U.S. Government (which is exactly what happened on 11/22/63).

To David Healey: Thanks. But you sure contributed in those "early" conferences. Unfortunately, too many of the "early" researchers could not cross the Rubicon, and enter the world of optical printers. That's like trying to solve a gunshot homicide without understanding the basics how a firearm works (!). But you sure understood all of that. Civilian film alteration was fundamental to the manipulation of the media in the case of the Kennedy assassination. Stay safe. DSL

AFAIK: He wrote it himself, but at the behest of (and invitation from) a top Random House executive. DSL

Decades ago, I met Gerald Posner and had a long talk with him. I think he genuinely believed what he wrote.

Very liKely. Many knew JFK would be passing through Dealey Plaza, and wanted to get a glimpse. DSL

Very well done. You are a true poet! DSL