David Lifton

A I recall, it was within a minute or two of the shooting. And it was not a "beep" tone. It was simply someone pressing down on their mike button, and then releasing it; i.e., using it as a telegraph key. So the brief sounds transmitted was the "on" and "off" of the unmodulated carrier. (Again: no words were spoken). DSL

The title of one of the "original" Warren Commission "CD's" (Commission Documents) reads ("Tapes of Dallas Radio Broadcasts"). You can find that entry on the NARA Warren Commission "List of Basic Source Materials", and its up in the 800 or 900 area of the list (which has about 1550 items). I requested that tape collection, and spent hours reviewing them--every single one of them. While I played the materials on "their" recorder, I had rented a second SONY 560 (or something); and had a patch chord set-up, so I could record relevant excerpts as I went along. What I remember, most clearly, were the many tapes from KRLD, and--as I recall--WBAP (I think). As stated,, I made an "excerpt tape" (and kept a detailed notebook, as I reviewed the items, one by one). I don't want to rely on recollection too much; but I do remember one that began something like this, as the motorcade left Love Field (don't hold me to every word): Announcer: Well, its a beautiful sunny day here in Dallas! And there's the gun-metal gray limousine, slowly pulling away, with the President and the First Lady and Governor and Mrs. Connally. For those of you lined up to see the President, here's the motorcade route! Lemmon to Cedar Springs, to Turtle Creek, down Harwood to Main, then on Main Street to. . . " And here's where my memory fails, or at least I don't wish to rely on it, in writing this post. But I'm 80% sure that the turn from Main to Houston, and then onto Elm was included, because I am certain that the announcer said that the motorcade would be going to the Trade Mart via Stemmons Freeway, and you can't access Stemmons (directly) from Main. So. . .that's a deduction (more or less); not a recollection. But that's my recollection - - that the announcer (the same one who enthusiastically said, when AF-1 landed, and JFK and Jackie deplaned) "And I can see his tan from here!" (not realizing, of course, that the "tan" was not a sun tan, but from Kennedy taking cortisone, for the Addison's Disease). . So he's the same one that described, as the motorcade started moving, the limo as the "gun metal gray limousine". . and then said, "And for those who weren't here at Love Field, and are waiting on the motorcade route. . :" etc. . And yes, then he described the route. DVP: If you have the KRLD radio tape, I'm pretty sure its right on that tape. DSL 6/10/18 - 4 PM PDT

By the way, and in the spirit of an "Addendum" or Postscript to this thread, I thought I might add the following: As the 3 cycle officers who led the motorcade emerged from the Triple Underpass, a photographer--McIntyre (not sure of spelling)--was standing somewhere on a grassy island just to the west of the TU--and he snapped an important photograph. It shows the 3 cyclists leading the way, with the chaos erupting behind them--i.e., with JFK's car, Curry's vehicle and others, now racing away from Dealey Plaza, and just emerging from under the TU. If you blow up that photograph, one can get a pretty clear image of those 3 cycle cops, and the general impression that I got (and still "get") is that they are smiling broadly. Perhaps its just the sunny weather? Sure, that's possible, and yes, its possible that they are completely unaware of what's just happened; but I think (as the saying goes) a picture is worth a thousand words, and that further study is warranted. Also, on that general subject, and in the spirit of "further study," let me add this fact: if one listens to the audio of the DPD channels (I believe its DPD Channel 1, but possibly Ch. 2), within 30 seconds of the actual shooting of JFK, one of the cycle cops used the transmitter key on his radio to clearly broadcast the following, easily identifiable signal to anyone who (like myself) knows Morse code (which I did, and still do, as a ham radio operator). The signal went: "Di Di Di Daah. . . Di Di Di Daah." That's "dot-dot-dot-dash," Morse code for the letter "V" (for "Victory"), which marks the opening of Beethoven'w Fifth Symphony (FYI: Beethoven didn't know anything about Morse, he simply chose those tones to herald his musical opening). Years later--those same tones were used as the musical theme for the TV series "Victory at Sea," recounting the naval heroics of World War II. Sometime in the last year or so, I came across a document (perhaps it was an HSCA document, not sure) in which this particular audio segment (from the DPD radio) was sent to a lab for analysis, and yes, it certainly was what it sounded like., . ."dot dot dot dash", or V. My own opinion about all of this: In 1963, Dallas was a city where many thousands turned out for the noontime (and very high spirited) motorcade. And whether they agreed with JFK's policies or not, they respected him as a person, and the office of the presidency. BUT. . . there was an element in that city, and notably in the Dallas Police Department, who bought into the idea of "JFK as traitor," an element which was probably recruitable into an assassination scheme, or plot. I think that the McIntyre photograph showing the smiling cycle escort deserves to be enlarged (and the subject of close study); I also believe that that photograph, along with the unmistakable "Morse code telegraphy" should be kept in mind when considering the "atmosphere" in Dallas. Kennedy was warned not to go there; that the atmosphere was "poisonous." But he did, anyway; shrugging off such talk and relying on the Secret Service to "protect him". In doing so, neither JFK (nor Bobby) had any idea that the senior person on his security team--Roy Kellerman--would be looking at him in the rear-view mirror in the seconds leading up to the shooting, or turning around and watching him (as the car slowed) while he was shot, and not making a move to jump into the rear seat and assist. My 1965 Telephone Call to Roy Kellerman: Having studied the Zapruder frames (as published in LIFE) and amazed at Kellerman's non-response, I actually picked up the telephone, found his number via Directory Assistance, and telephoned him (this was in 1965) reaching him at his home in Maryland. At the time, I was relatively "new" to the JFK case (had recently acquired a set of the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, didn't know "who to trust" or "what to trust") and actually wondered whether he was seated in the car (in the right front passenger seat) or whether it might be someone else, because the photograph published in life, and his non-response, was so completely out of whack with my impression of the way a Secret Service agent was trained to behave, and it made me wonder. So I questioned him bluntly, on this issue: Was that really him, sitting on the passenger side of the front seat? Or perhaps someone else? I wasn't sure, I said, because the photo was somewhat indistinct. Yes, he assured me--in his deep voice--that was him. "Mr. Lifton," he drawled, "I take a pretty poor picture." DSL 5/10/18 - 1:25 PM PDT South Orange County, California

Jim: Let me save the readers some time. The late Roger Feinman was an employe of CBS News. He was very smart, but erratic and somewhat unstable. While at CBS, and during the period they were making their famous four-part documentary on the Warren Report (June 1967, approx.) , he stole a number of documents from CBS files, thinking they would be important in "breaking the story" of what he viewed as perfidy on the part of CBS. Feinman was a serious (if not adoring) disciple of Sylvia Meager, and was often telling her that he would write a "definitive" book on the assassination, or on CBS, some day. "Someday" never arrived, and the only book he ever wrote was a privately published bizarre multi-hundred page vituperative diatribe about me But let me not digress. I learned about Feynman's possession of a copy of the White House copy of the CBS transcript of Dr Perry's press 11/22 press conference around 1978/79. I wanted that transcript to complete my reporting on that topic, as spelled out in Chapter 3 of B.E.:"The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?" So I telephoned Feinman, introduced myself, told him I was under contract writing a book, and requested his assistance, making clear that I needed that document. Feinman was vague, and meandering, but essentially refused to help. In a second (or third?) phone call I made clear how serious the situation was--that I didn't want to base my reporting of the Perry press conference, on press reports of what Perry said, when there was an official transcript, and he already had a copy! In the beginning of this dialogue, it was not clear how Feinman got "his copy" of this document, or why he was behaving so secretly; but then, as I questioned him quite directly (which he didn't like one bit), the truth emerged. Roger's copy was not really "his"; rather, he had stolen it from the files of CBS News (!). The impression I got was that he considered it "his", and was not gong to make it available. At some point, I told Feinman that if he didn't cooperate, I was going to go directly to CBS News and demand that they provide me with a copy, too. I had no intention of publishing a book with a chapter on the throat wound, and without that transcript, while he sat on "his" copy in his apartment in Queens. Somewhere along the way, he told me that the document he possessed --although it originally came from a White House file--was actually available at the LBJ Library, and that's how I obtained my copy--from the LBJ Library. FYI: Best Evidence marked the first publication of the critical verbatim excerpts from the official transcripts of the 11/22/63 Clark/Perry press conference (showing that Dr. Perry said, three times, that JFK was struck in the neck, from the front). And the publication of the critical passages from the transcript made clear that Perry's published statements that the throat wound was an entry were not the result of journalistic error--that that's what Dr. Perry actually said. No doubt Feinman was enraged when he saw that I published excerpts from "his" transcript, but. . .welcome to the real world. As to how I obtained the transcript, here's what I wrote in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence, which began with my recounting how CBS anchor Walter Cronkite had quoted from the document, without revealing its source, in one of the broadcasts of their infamous (four -part) June 1967 documentary: "Cronkite's references to "the transcript"seemed to indicate that CBS had a document which no one else seemed to have. I made a fruitless attempt to obtain the transcript from CBS in 1968. In 1976, I learned that an employee of CBS News had located the document, and knew something about its background. I contacted him and was told that CBS had secured its copy from a file at the White House in the course of interviews conducted in the course of preparing the 1967 broadcasts. it was an official White House transcript, and its designation was '1327-C' Eventually I obtained a copy from the Lyndon Jonson library in Texas." What I did not say was that the identity of the person was Roger Feinman; that he stole a copy of the document from the files at CBS News, that he was "hoarding" it; and that I found the whole situation intolerable. Also, I decided that he'd acted in such a hostile, toxic and negative way that it was best that I not mention his name at all. In the years following--and having nothing to do with Best Evidence--Feinman was fired from CBS; and in addition, and because of his outrageous behavior (in matters having nothing to do with his theft of documents from CBS)--was disbarred as a lawyer. The detailed reasons for his disbarment became a matter of public record when he appealed the disbarment, and the panel of judges who heard his case basically said, "No way, Jose. You are hereby dismissed from the legal profession." ( I can provide the Internet link(s) to that very public disbarment proceeding, and perhaps will return to this post, and add the link(s) at a future time.) So much for Roger Feinman, the acolyte of Sylvia Meager, and who subsequently became a "raging bull" when it came to the subject of DSL--making outrageous statements in his privately published manuscript, including the fact that the CIA was paying my bills and implying that I was responsible for a third party's suicide. Anyway, he's not around anymore, DiEugenio, and its interesting to see that you're part of his fan club. One other footnote to the story: Roger Feinman (somehow) arrived at the conclusion that the throat wound was an exit wound. (Yes, that's no typo; after all this fuss, Feinman concluded that the throat wound was an exit!) Which leads me to ask: Since you apparently hold him in such high esteem, Is that what you believe too, Jim DiEugenio? To those reading this post: There's not much further to say. I have no idea what DiEug is talking about when he brings up "Ralph Martin's book" or "Burger King." As I said at the outset of this post, he often brings up non-sequiturs and/or talks in gibberish. DSL; 6/10/18 - 5:30 AM PDT; updated, 12:30 PM PDT

Jim: I find much of your writing gibberish. Its just plain illogical, and this post is a good example. Re Dr. Wecht and what I wrote about him In Best Evidence: I wrote the truth about what I found in dealing with Dr. Wecht (in August 1972, when I was asked to be his "briefer" in connection with his examination of the autopsy X-rays and photos). I spent much of the summer of 1972 --assisted by someone connected with UCLA--writig some excellent briefing books. Upon arriving in Pittsburgh, I found he had not read them. Then we flew from Pittsburgh (his residence) to Washington, D.C., To my considerable surprise (and irritation), I found that Wecht was basically a publicity hound, and, among other things, could not read the X-rays. And so he made his focus, in speaking to Fred Graham of the New York Times (an interview Hecht requested that I arrange, which I did, and most of which took place in my presence, in a taxi-cab ride from NARA back to Washington's National Airport, where he took a flight back home to Pittsburgh), the fact that the National Archives did not have JFK's brain--a fact that was already known. The result: major headlines to the effect that "the President's brain is missing!" In recounting this experience in Chapter 20 of B.E., I recounted all this carefully and accurately. Including the fact that Wecht went on to write an article that the evidence showed President Kennedy was shot twice from behind, that there was--essentially-no indication of any fraud in the evidence, etc. I ended this episode (my chapter, Ch. 20, titled "The X-rays and Photographs (Circa 1971-72)" with this sentence: "He [Wecht] was a sheep in wolf's clothing." You tell readers "Take a look at what he did to Cyril Wecht in his book. . " What did I "do" to Wecht? I'll tell you what I did: I told the truth .Wecht looked at the X-rays and photos, was basically flustered and couldn't do a blessed thing, so he resorted to a publicity stunt. He "asked for" the brain (which was not available); and so then he made a major announcement (which led to major publicity and headlines): "The President's brain is missing!" etc. Then, in the after-glow of his"missing brain" publicity: he then co-authored an article --his "definitive" take on the materials--stating that the President was shot twice from behind, there was--essentially--no evidence indicating "fraud in the evidence" etc. As I recall, it wasn't until some years later, when Dr. David Mantik obtained access to the materials, and brought in a table-top densitometer, and made critical measurements, that he was able to essentially state (re the X-rays, and particularly the head X-rays): "This stuff isn't real. Its fake." So again, that's what I did: I told the truth, as I saw it. I refused to be part of some "Wecht-Adoring" club, and play politics with the issue--especially after, as I recounted, Wecht was so incompetent he couldn't locate the entry wound on the X-rays. On that subject, and as I described in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, I had to stand in the doorway of the examining room and tie a two knots in a piece of thread, and explain to Wecht that in order to locate the wound (on the lateral X-ray), he should place one knot on the thread (that I handed him) at the location of the external occipital protuberance, and then "swing an arc" on the X-rays, to locate the image of the entry wound--because he (at the time) misunderstood and apparently thought the "entry" would actually look like a "hole", rather than a different shading of gray. The whole thing was a farce, and when I got back to Los Angeles, I wrote a detailed report--going to 100 pages single spaced, recounting the entire experience. I never released it at the time, but I recently had it professionally retyped, and am considering different venues for publication, because I think its important, in the service of history, to understand what happened in August 1972. About CD 344, the transcript of a taped interview of Marina Oswald, on or about Sunday 11/24/63: I made the document available to everybody as part of a 300 page book that cost about $20, titled "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." All the JFK researchers bought one, word of mouth spread,and I sold about 300 copies. For reasons I don't completely understand, you come along some 20-30 years later, treat the report as some kind of "find", and perhaps are now embarrassed that I published it, in its entirety, some 50 years ago. So sorry, Jim. Most important to note, however: The two whoppers that I cited have nothing to do with Marina Oswald or that document. As already stated (in a prior post), they concerned the fact that (a) you suggested on Black Ops radio, that the explanation for "two coffins" was that on Friday night, 11/22/63, the naval ambulance stopped when it was carrying Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK (and others) from Andrews to Bethesda (and, you implied, there was a "switch" at that point). Of course that is ridiculous--insane, really--but you told that whopper to the audience as your glib "explanation" for two coffins. And then (b): Second, you told another whopper when--apparently borrowing an idea that you got from you pal, Millicent Cranor--you suggested that the reason Paul O'Connor said JFK arrived in a body bag, was the fact that, on TV, and as a consequence of the Vietnam War, there had been so many stories about people coming home in body bags--so O'Connor mistakenly said JFK arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. And yes, Jim DiEugenio, I (and/or Pat V.) accurately noted that absurdity, and yes, that that's a whopper. DSL 6/10/18 5 AM PDT; updated 12 noon.

Short answer: No, I don't. On the subject of "who was who's spy," you may be aware that it was Marina's opinion, after she married Oswald (4/30/61), that (she came to believe) he was a spy for the U.S. She was questioned on this topic when she appeared before the House Select Committee (See HSCA Vol 2, p. 219). Also (and in connection with certain unusual (in not exceptional) expedited treatment that he received in connection with his June 1962 return to the U.S.), I believe that can be explained by the fact that, when he went to the USSR, he had a US intelligence assignment (CIA denials notwithstanding); that his prolonged stay in the USSR was not part of the original plan, and that there were important people back in the U.S. who wanted to see him back in the US as soon as possible. But no. . I don't think Marina had any secret agenda. It was Lee who had the intelligence connection(s)--and who, on one occasion or another, had a "secret agenda." DSL 6/9/2018 - 11:50 PM PDT

Jim DiEugenio: You're repeating your usual nonsense. When first questioned by the two SS agents (Charles Kunkel and Mike Howard) she told falsehoods in a futile effort to protect her husband. But then, within days (or a few weeks at most), she in effect threw in the towel and told the truth. All this is explained, quite clearly, by Marina herself, when she testified. (That's right. . .she admitted she lied, admitted to it, under oath, to Chief Justice Warren, and then said that she would not do that again--that henceforth, she would tell the truth. And guess what: She did) So it is not Marina, but it is you who is spreading nonsense on this forum, and not paying proper attention to the historical record. And just for the record, and referring to that Secret Service document, which is a transcript of Marina's very first interview with the Secret Service at the Inn of the Six Flags in Dallas. . .: FYI: It was I who first obtained the transcripts of the Executive Sessions of the Warren Commission, plus that specific Secret Service Report to which you refer (CD 344, if memory serves), and privately published that material (in 1968, approx) as "Document Addendum to the Warren Report," selling several hundred copies to all the major researchers (at the time) and to many libraries. Yes, DiEug, some decades before you got involved in this case, I privately published the very document to which you are referring, and distributed it widely to those who were researching the JFK case. And yes, Jim: You do tell whoppers. That's your trademark, in fact. For example: Remember the one that you told on Black Ops radio?. That's when you suggested that the reason there were "two coffins" in this case, was that the naval ambulance which met the Kennedy party at Andrews Air Force Base, and left there with the Dallas coffin, and Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy, stopped en route to Bethesda Naval Hospital? (That's Whopper #1. Spreading nonsensical confusion, for no particular reason, other than to muddy the waters). Here's another (call it Whopper #2): How about your statements, on Black Ops radio, that the reason Paul O'Connor stated that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, was that he was confused by the news coverage of the Vietnam War, where nightly broadcasts sometimes showed U.S. casualties, in body bags. Oh sure, Jim. . So that's why O'Connor remembered the president's body as being delivered to Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket? Because he watched too much TV? (Perhaps you don't know this. . .but O'Connor was a medic in Vietnam. So perhaps you will now cite that as an "explanation" for his account? That he perhaps confused his battlefield experiences with what occurred on the night of 11/22/63 at Bethesda?) Really: Is that your idea of proper analysis and debate? Pardon my wording. . I'm trying to be polite. Yes, your "warning" notwithstanding, these are whoppers--totally false and irresponsible statements, in fact. You own them, and they're "yours"--along with a lot of the other bluster that you disseminate. DSL 6/9/18 - 8 PM PDT

Ron: The evidence is crystal clear that Oswald ordered a rifle (under the name A. Hidell) to his PO Box, the order being dated 3/12/63. He also ordered a pistol (in mid-January 1963; the transaction with the Rose Company, in Los Angeles). Re the rifle: Marina testified that he possessed a rifle, and she certainly talked to me about it, too. (Do you think she made all of that up?) Furthermore, DeMohrenshieldt describes how, when visiting the Oswald apartment, Marina pointed to the rifle--standing upright in the closet-- and said (words to this effect): "We hardly have enough money to eat, and my foolish husband ordered a rifle." Are you aware of this evidence? (Why do you ignore it?) What bothers me is that people who are interested in this case, and who follow this thread, will follow the nonsense of DiEugenio rather than what is plainly shown in the historical record. So it is in that spirit that I ask the following questions: Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the documentary evidence, that Oswald ordered a rifle. Separately: Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the record, that he "possessed" a rifle (i.e., that Marina saw him with it). And finally, and throwing this into the mix "for good measure," please do explain the basis for the assertion in your post that "the whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer." Why do you not understand that Oswald did the various provocative things he did under the guidance of a third party (a "handler") and instead come up with these assorted explanations that are without any evidentiary foundation? DSL 6/9/18 - 7:45 PM PDT

Hello Andrej: Thanks for your post. Its good to see someone attempting to "get beneath the surface" and try to analyze Oswald's psychology. Its not easy. I first embarked on this journey (a serious study of Oswald) around the "summer of 1982" (approx 1-1/2 years after the publication of Best Evidence); and besides studying documents (FBI reports, SS reports, loads of testimony, plus a ton of writing by journalists, and books such as McMillan's Marina and Lee), I was greatly assisted by Marina Porter (nee Marina Oswald) herself. In the aftermath of the publication of B.E.--and its best-seller status (Spring of 1981)--she contacted me, and we spoke frequently. Not once or twice, but dozens of times, over the course of many years (about 13 years). What she was saying on the phone--and the way she stood up for her husband's innocence--was so important (and sometimes, even, poetic) -- that I repeatedly urged her to go on camera and say those same things in that venue. As I recall, it wasn't until the 25th anniversary (Nov 1988, and the publication of an interview with her in the Ladies Home Journal) that the ice broke and she even considered it. Finally, in the summer of 1990, she agreed to a filmed interview. SUMMER OF 1990 - -FILMING MARINA The film maker was a friend of mine who had serious credentials and I believe it was his participation that persuaded her to do it. We met at the Adolphus Hotel, and my friend ordered up sumptuous trays of food, and did everything we could do to make her feel comfortable. The filming was done in 16mm format (quite unlike today, where just about anyone can go to Best Buy, purchase a camera, and try their hand at becoming an "instant historian.") One of the high points of that interview occurred when she volunteered--and I am quoting from memory here--that, in all truth, she wanted to make very clear that Lee "adored" President Kennedy. Some of that interview can be found on YouTube today, because I ("we") used it on 3 sequential episodes of HARDCOPY; (and some of it may have been shown, again, when the show CURRENT AFFAIR, did a full 30 minutes on Marina). THE CLOSING QUESTION OF A MULTI-HOUR INTERVIEW But for me, one of the most memorable moments occurred at the very end. As stated, our filming was done in 16mm and that meant a "reel change" every 11 minutes. When we were on what appeared to be the last film cassette, and the cameraman signaled to me that we had 1 or 2 minutes left, i tried to think of a "final question" to ask. Suddenly, an idea blossomed, and I said (again, from recollection): "Marina: If Lee could come back today, and if you could ask him a single question, what would that question be?" She paused, and thought for a few seconds, and then looked directly at the camera, in what I always thought of as a "Greta Garbo" moment, she replied: "What would I ask him? (long pause). I would ask him, 'Who are you?'" I caught it just in time; just before the film ran out. I am relating this because it captures the essence of Marina Oswald. . . i.e., Marina Oswald Porter. MARINA DIDN"T KNOW WHO LEE OSWALD "REALLY WAS" As a good friend of mine said at the time, "David. . you know her husband better than she does!" And that was--and probably still is--true. I know--without a doubt--that the autopsy was falsified--i.e., based on an altered body (and that this was "planned in advance", the central MO of the crime); but more important, I knew --in great detail--all about Lee Oswald's past, and about his character and psychology. And a most important thing to understand--and which Marina certainly did not know (or if she suspected, was just beginning to think about) --was that Lee Oswald was an actor. As George DeMohrenshildt said, "An actor in real life." Not because he was mentally unstable, or anything like that. But because ---in short--he was "on assignment" and often "in character," in the same way that an undercover agent plays a role, and can be said to be "in character." The difference with Oswald--after his June 1962 return from the U.S.S.R.--is that he was in character "all the time." He didn't go out "in the evening" to play some role. He was "on" 24/7. It was part of his job, an assignment that was explained to him, and which he thought was completely legitimate. He never said to her, "I am going to tell you what I'm doing, but you must never breath a word of it." No, not at all. He just lived his life "in character." Just how did this work? Bottom line: Lee Oswald had a handler, and that explains why he behaved (most of the time) as he did. He lived a life of pretense. But there was a serious negative side to all this: it had a destructive effect on his marriage. LEE OSWALD'S ROLE PLAYING HURT HIS MARRIAGE Marina, who knew Lee as a reasonable, normal healthy male in the USSR, suddenly started to see him in a different light; and the major turning point for Marina was the April 10, 1963 (supposed) attempt to murder Walker (which I believe was a deliberate "missed shot", and possibly involved Walker's cooperation, though on this last point, I'm not completely sure). But he came running into their apartment, breathless with excitement, and stating that he just tried to kill General walker, and--turning on the radio and listening to news reports--stated that he was so "sorry" that he "missed." Following the Walker incident--which [after JFK's assassination] Marina tried to conceal from the FBI (for about 10 days)--there followed another "theatrical performance", what the Warren Report calls the "Richard M. Nixon Incident". And following that, there was still another: the night that Lee talked about hijacking an airplane. All of this was total b.s., a total theatrical act. A serious and well-designed malicious attempt to impeach Oswald's character in the eyes of his wife; someone who would, after JFK's murder, be perhaps the most important living witness to the character of the accused. MARINA'S FRONT ROW SEAT TO LEE'S DRAMATICS Marina had a front row seat to all of this--this theatrical performance--and it had a serious effect on their marriage, and on her appraisal of the psychology and character of the person to whom she was married. In the dozens and dozens of conversations that I had with Marina--starting in the Spring of 1981, but especially in the years following-- I functioned not just as a friend, but (almost) as a "de-programmer." I had to explain--repeatedly, in lengthy conversations--what this or that did not mean what (at first) she might think it did. I kept careful records of all these conversations, and I know they had an effect. If you want to see Marina "at her best," just find the interaction she had with Tom Brokaw, a true believer in the validity of the Warren Report, and how Marina put him down handily, and closed with a statement that she hoped he could "sleep well" at night, or words to that effect. I remember the night of that broadcast: Pat Lambert telephoned afterwards, saying 'Hurray for Marina!" THE 1993 TV MOVIE: Fatal Deception When Marina sold the rights to her life story around 1992, and the producer (Bernard Safronski) and writer (Steve Bello, of "Hillside Blues" fame) were writing a screenplay, they interviewed Marina extensively and asked her who had influenced her in her changing views. Apparently, she replied that I had done so, and that's why they approached me so they could portray me (in a highly synopsized manner) in their film ("Fatal Deception: The Marina Oswald Story"). "You played a unique role," they told me. Based on my experiences, I can say with considerable confidence that DiEugenio, in this area, is peddling pure superficialities--pure garbage. This man who flaunts himself as "a well recognized authority" is spreading b.s. He got involved in all of this decades after the events occurred, was nothing but a Jim Garrison adoring newbie at the time, and continues that role today. MARINA'S AWAKENING AND THE KEY WORD: "Gaslight" Now back to Marina: Her "awakening" didn't occur until years later, it occurred gradually, and she finally "came out" and spoke her mind in a detailed interview with Myrna Blyth, Editor in Chief of the Ladies Home Journal. Titled "Marina Oswald --25 Years later," the piece was published in the November 1988 issue of the LHJ. There is one final point to be made, and it is fairly important--and that concerns the word "gaslight". The word "gaslight" comes from a famous movie film in which a husband tries (psychologically) to manipulate his wife (played by Ingrid Bergman) into thinking she is crazy, that she does not "know" her own mind, that she is imagining things. Unfortunately, in the period following his June 1962 return from Russia--and especially starting in the fall of 1962, and then accelerating in the Spring of 1963--Lee (as part of his "assignment" [he thought]) was gas-lighting his wife. And it led to considerable damage in their marriage. Lee never lived "to explain". And so, because of his behavior, she was left with a host of unresolved issues. When I met with the Director of the film (Robert Dornheim), and the writer (Bello), we discussed much of this, so he could --hopefully--fine tune the performances of the actors, and attempt to communicate, as best as one could, in the space of a TV movie, the complexities of this situation. Those readers who wish to know more about this movie - -Google "Fatal Deception" (and/or look at the IMdb data base). Those who have followed the case for years probably know the basics: Marina was played by Helena Bonham Carter, and I was portrayed by actor Robert Picardo (China Beach, Star Trek Voyager, Stargate). As is described in wikipedia (and elsewhere): It is "the story of the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald. . coming to grips with the fact that she too may have been a pawn in a giant conspiracy." Yes, it was very unusual to open TV Guide in November 1993, and see myself given second billing in a movie that was broadcast nationally via NBC. DSL 6/9/2018 - 5:15 PM PDT South Orange County, California

Regarding the points made in your post, there is important contrary evidence to at least two of the claims you are making. Item # 1: The rifle ordered vs the rifle in evidence. The catalog number for the first is "C20 T750"; for the second: "C - 750" Yes, they are different items, but by catalog number, they are similar, similar enough to possibly account for an error that occurred when the order was processed. (DSL Note: alpha numeric error corrected, per subsequent post by DVP.) So now, go to Waldman Ex 7--to the shipping invoice--and ask: Which item was shipped? The shipping invoice describes the item shipped by its serial number ("C 2766"); and that is the serial number on the rifle in evidence. DSL- 6/9/18 - 3:35 PM PDT

Jim DiEugenio: Your post states: " The rifle Oswald ordered was the wrong length, the wrong weight, and the wrong classification. The rifle in evidence is a 40.2 inch 7.5 lb short rifle. The one allegedly ordered is a 36 inch carbine weighting 5.5 pounds. Somehow Davey cannot do this arithmetic." Waldman was the President of Kleins. He testified before the Warren Commission and brought the original documents (or printouts from microfilm) with him. The shipping invoice was admitted into evidence as "Waldman Exhibit #7." (Volume 21, p. 703). That document clearly demonstrates --by specifying the serial number ("C 2766")-- that the rifle shipped to LHO's PO box is the one in evidence. I often discussed this matter with the late Gary Mack. Going by catalog number, the ordered rifle and the shipped rifle had similar (but not identical) alpha numeric designations. The ordered rifle was "C20 - T750";* the shipped rifle (per the shipping invoice) was "C 750". *Error in original post corrected per subsequent post by DVP I prepared an exhibit to illustrate this, but I do not know how to upload it to this post. In any event, you ought to stop making these exaggerated overstatements--and then asserting, with the wave of your hand-- that the Warren Commission "lied.. .about everything." Pure nonsense. Yes, it would appear that the rifle shipped ("C 2766") is not the same model as the rifle ordered (so take that up with Klein's "Customer Service") , but if you are going to behave like a responsible historian, then please have the integrity to inform your readers that the shipping invoice appears to establish that it is in fact the one in evidence. ALSO: Your statement that Marina "never saw Oswald with a handgun" is another one of your whoppers. What about the fact that Marina described repeatedly---both to Robert Oswald, and also under oath to the WC--how one day in late April, LHO got dressed up in a suit, showed her his pistol, and said that Nixon was in town, and so he (LHO) was going to go out and "take a look". And how that then led to a big fight (with comical overtones) in which she was shoving him and he ended up in the bathroom, where he sat down on the pot, requested that she please hand him some books through the door, and then spent some time reading. And you write that she "never saw Oswald with a handgun"? Do you think she made all that up? And continued telling and re-telling that account to others (including me) over the years? Instead of glibly spouting these broad over statements and generalizations, perhaps you should take a closer look at the record. DSL 6/9/18 - 11:30 AM PDT

Rich: I'm not sure you are aware of this but on the 50th anniversary, there were thousands of these 11/22/63 DMN's published and available, starting weeks before that event. So the "supply" was there, and I'm surprised the cost for this item (unless it was an actual 11/23/63 "original") was that high. DSL

The Dallas Morning News "map" is (more or less) a sketch, and omits much vital detail. To begin with, it showa a 90 degree right turn at Houston, and then (ignoring the details) a route (or ride) directly onto Stemmons. But in fact that's not possible. Once that right turn is executed (onto Houston), one must then travel north on Houston, and then, at Elm, make a left (135 degree) turn onto Elm, and then proceed down Elm and through the Triple Underpass to get to the Stemmons on-ramp. This map, as published, contains no such detail.. Further comment: Of course, you don't have to make a right turn at Houston; yes, you can continue on Main; but then you have to go all the way through the Triple Underass and then on to Industrial Boulevard; turn right there, and then proceed to the Trade Mart. Another point which suggests that this is "just a sketch" (and not an accurate "map," per today's "Mapquest" standard, and omits much detail: You cannot take Stemmons (I35North) "to the Trade Mart." You have to exit at Oaklawn (from recollection) and then drive the rest of the way towards Industrial Boulevard, on a service road, (which runs parallel to Stemmons); and then, at Industrial, turn right. Bottom line: This "map" -- perhaps not a "rough sketch," but certainly not an accurate "map"--doesn't show any of that detail; but, as the saying goes, "the Devil is in the details," and without those details, the stage is set for all kinds of misunderstandings as to what the geometry actually was; when the route was decided, and what--if anything--was (supposedly) changed "at the last minute," etc. One other matter (offered here in the spirit of a 'footnote" and subject to change at a later date): in June/July 1989, when I began my own "film the witnesses" project, I had a 1-2 hour sit down, on camera, with Captain Perdue Lawrence. I found him to be completely credible, and genuinely frank and honest, and I engaged him in some very sharp cross-examination. At no point in that interview did he ever mention any kind of route change, or going down to Dealey Plaza on "the night before" (Thurs., 11/21) to "brief" Sgt. Bellah, or anyone else from the cycle escort. I'm not saying that didn't happen, but I'm saying Captain Lawrence made no mention of it. In other words, he didn't volunteer any such thing. His concern, as i recollect, was that someone might "throw a stick" at JFK (from the Underpass), or something along that line. Certainly no anticipation of sniper fire, or anything having to do with a gun. My transcript of that interview, as well as the film (on 8mm in 'hi -8' [plus copies, on 3/4"]) are in storage. At some point, I'll retrieve that material, but I'm positive he never mentioned any such thing, because such an event would have been a five-star stand-out had he done so. Of all the people I have interviewed (on camera), Captain Lawrence stands out as one of the most credible persons I have ever encountered. Completely honest, and without a trace of guile. If/when I get a chance to retrieve these materials, i'll post an 'addendum' on this thread. DSL 6/8/18 - 2:45 PM PDT; revised 5:30 PM PDT

John Butler: Your post (above) states: "We don't know what is causing Connally,'s expression." I don't believe that to be entirely the case. Indeed, the reason I believe that the New York Herald-Tribune clip I cited is so important is that, if it is true, then it provides us (i.e., "history" et al) with a possible explanation for his "worried" appearance. He's just been on an 8 minute flight from Fort Worth, in which he was told "A" (by Congressman Al Thomas, if memory serves), and then as he deplanes, he sees that he was misinformed (i.e., "lied to") and the situation is "B". IMHO: that explains why he's looking so distressed. I am sure that, at some point in time (and hopefully 'sooner than later') I can locate that NY Herald-Tribune report, because it is highly relevant in evaluating Gov JC's demeanor, as shown on this picture. DSL 6/6/18 - 5 PM PDT

Reply to David Josephs: Thanks for posting these interesting photographs. . of course, they don't really show the exact situation as it existed back in November 1963 (the skyline, with all the recent highway structures, is sure different). But. . Yes, David; the right turn from Main onto Houston was the route that was officially released, in Washington, by Pierre Salinger's office, on November 19, 1963, and which was published in the media on that date. It was also the route, IMHO, that was test-driven by the Dallas Police Department starting around November 14th. But now consider the full implications of what you are proposing: getting some carpenters to build a wooden ramp so that the presidential motorcade---press buses and all (!)--could proceed down Main past the TU, turn right over this "Rube Goldberg" type wooden ramp, and then access Stemmons in that fashion. IMHO: the local press would have had a field day, writing articles about how the Secret Service was so concerned about an assassin lurking in the vicinity of Elm and Houston, that they had gone out of their way to get carpenters to build this sort of "wooden ramp" so as to avoid that area, because--they feared--the President of the United States might be shot at that location. Think about it. It would have been a public relations nightmare. Not to mention the mechanical problem of several of those long greyhound-type press busses attempting the "cross-over" from Main, and then (somehow) onto Stemmons. For me, this is the material that could be used by a late-night comic. . . "And on his recent trip to Dallas, JFK (assuming he had lived, now) was heard to ask: "Why did they build that wooden ramp, modifying the highway down there beyond the Triple Underpass. . and the Secret Service explained. . "Don't worry Mr. Mr. President, we were just worried about the possibility of you being shot while traversing Dealey Plaza." I'm sorry, David; but I think that the "wooden ramp" idea is a non-starter. DSL 6//6/2018 - 3:10 PM PDT

David Josephs. please note: Your post states: "Prior to Nov 19th the route would be MAIN to STEMMONS as shown by the diagram." But "Main to Stemmons" was not (and is not) something that is "do-able." Based on my visit(s)s to Dallas, I believe it to be a fact that--in November 1963] one could not "go" from Main (directly) onto Stemmons. One could go from Main, west through the Triple Underpass, proceed on down to Industrial Blvd., turn right onto Industrial, and proceed (north) on Industrial to the Trade Mart; but. . . if one wished to get there via Stemmons Freeway ["I 35 E", northbound], then one had to enter Stemmons via Elm; which meant (extrapolating "backwards") that if one was on Main, heading west on Main to Dealey Plaza, one had to turn right at Houston (to get to Elm), because the onramp to Stemmons was (and still is) located on Elm, about 100 yards (I think) west of the Triple Underpass. DSL 6/6/2018 - 2:40 PM PDT Postscript to the above (concerning McHugh): I first spoke with McHugh in November 1967, and in that conversation (as I recall) and despite the fact that most of it concerned Bethesda, the business of the two naval ambulances (i.e., the 'decoy' --see Ch 16 of B.E.), etc., McHugh himself brought up the fact that he was asked --in Dallas --not to sit in front, between the driver and the agent in the passenger-side seat (or area). McHugh told me that the request was made not by the Secret Service by someone else, and its my recollection that that individual was Kenneth O'Donnell. I will have to check my transcript to verify what I have just written, but that's my present recollection. DSL

Here (displayed immediately above) is the photo to which I was referring, which I have cropped and enlarged. Pardon the delay. I'm just now learning how to "do" this sort of thing. Also note: I had to reduce the "resolution" to make this otherwise high-quality photo "fit" into a London Forum post. Rich: thanks for your apology. Now back to the subject at hand. . . : I agree that, in the case of the two witnesses you cited (Marina, and James Jarman), LHO appeared not to know of the President's forthcoming visit. FWIW: I believe that was feigned behavior. (Another subject, another time; but this especially applies to LHO's wife, who he kept completely in the dark about most of his "secret" activities; notable exception: Walker, again, another subject, another time). My question to you would be: what do you believe to have been LHO"s state of mind on 11/21-22/63? Do you believe that--when LHO went out to the Paine residence on Thursday evening --he really (as in "honestly") did not know that JFK was visiting Dallas the next day? And/or that President Kennedy's motorcade would be passing directly in front of the building where he worked? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to your view on this question. Thanks. DSL

Yes, this is the photograph to which I was referring. If it blown up, and you see the expression on Governor Connally's face, it is rather obvious how distressed he was. [Scroll forward 3 posts to see the cropped blow-up that I posted.] (The caption I [originally] supplied--from recollection--was incorrect. Jackie was located to JFK's left (and JC's left, as well). . "camera right". Also, thanks for juxtaposing this JC photo, with the one of JC (as he was just exiting the aircraft.) It is most unfortunate that this photograph wasn't shown to Gov. JC, when he testified--either before the Warren Commission in March 1964 (or 13+ later before the HSCA)--and was questioned sharply: e.g., "Governor, what were you so upset about? Please do explain." Also: such questioning would have been particularly effective if joined to the information that I quoted from the NY Herald-Tribune story published on 11/23/63, stating that the Governor had been told, while in flight from Fort Worth, that there would be no "downtown" motorcade; rather, the Kennedy party would proceed "directly" from Love Field to the Dallas Trade Mart. either by chopper or by automobile, but going at normal highway speeds. (I don't remember which the story said.) But wouldn't that have been interesting, especially if such a line of questioning had included both these elements--not only what this photograph appears to show, but also the reporting in the New York Herald-Tribune, about what Governor Connally had been told, while en route from Fort Worth to Dallas? Suggestion to Andrej: Try blowing up the photo of JC (from the neck up) and adding that to your post. That really shows Governor's demeanor, and illustrates how distressed he appears to be. DSL 6/6/2018 - 5:25 AM PDT South Orange County, California

Yes, this is the photograph to which I was referring. If it is enlarged, one can see the expression on Governor Connally's face, and it is rather obvious how distressed he was. (The caption I supplied--from recollection--was incorrect. Jackie was located to JFK's left (and JC's left, as well). . "camera right". Also, thanks for juxtaposing this JC photo, with the one of JC (as he was just exiting the aircraft.) It is most unfortunate that this photograph wasn't shown to Gov. JC, when he testified--either before the Warren Commission in March 1964 (or 13+ later before the HSCA)--and was questioned sharply: e.g., "Governor, what were you so upset about? Please do explain." Also: such questioning would have been particularly effective if joined to the information that I quoted from the NY Herald-Tribune story published on 11/23/63, stating that the Governor had been told, while in flight from Fort Worth, that there would be no "downtown" motorcade; rather, the Kennedy party would proceed "directly" from Love Field to the Dallas Trade Mart. either by chopper or by automobile, but going at normal highway speeds. (I don't remember which the story said.) But wouldn't that have been interesting, especially if such a line of questioning had included both these elements--not only what this photograph appears to show, but also the reporting in the New York Herald-Tribune, about what Governor Connally had been told, while en route from Fort Worth to Dallas? Suggestion to Andrej: Try blowing up the photo of JC (from the neck up) and adding that to your post. That really shows Governor's demeanor, and illustrates how distressed he appears to be. DSL 6/6/2018 - 5:25 AM PDT South Orange County, California

DVP: My source for this statement is brief article published in the New York Herald Tribune ("NYHT") on Saturday, November 23, 1963. It is one of the earliest articles that I "clipped"--decades ago-- and there were no scanners back then. (And when I finally got a scanner, I did not have the clip, readily at hand; so it just remained as an isolated "clip" in a manila folder). It was just 2-3 column inches long, the source was apparently Connally himself (or someone close to him); and the gist of it was that Connally had been assured (or "re-assured," I'm not sure which), on the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas that there would not be a motorcade; and that the President (and Jackie) would go directly from Love Field to the Trade Mart. By "directly," it was made clear that there would be no slow moving ("political") motorcade; just a normal ride at ordinary highway speeds, and I don't today recall whether the article stated he was going in a car, or (alternatively) might be flown by helicopter from Love Field to the Trade Mart. Yes, I fully understand how "reasonable" your question sounds: "If Governor Connally was "planning everything," then how can this be?" Agreed. . . and I tended to think along the same lines; but . . . : I can only respond by saying that this was reported in the New York Herald-Tribune, on 11/23; and that the Herald-Tribune was an important newspaper. It was not a "page 6 rag." My conclusion, when I read the article --and I think the source of the "reassurances" to JC may have been (I stress "may have been") Congressman Al Thomas (of wink photo fame) - - was that Connally was being conned; that he must have continued his objections to a "downtown motorcade" and that this tug-of-war between what he wanted and what was being planned, apparently extended right up to the point when he deplaned from Air Force One in Dallas. And this brings me to a most significant piece of evidence, a photograph which was published on either 11/23 or 11/24/63. THE PHOTOGRAPH OF JC AT LOVE FIELD It shows Connally standing beneath the wing of AF-1, with his wife to his right (camera-left); and you can just see, from the look on his face, that he is clearly distressed (if not frightened). My own reconstruction was something like this: that he (JC) had been "reassured" on the flight, from FW to Dallas (which was just a ten minute flight [as if one were flying from Pasadena to LAX] that everything was going to be just fine; and that, contrary to what he might be hearing, the plans had changed, and there was going to be no motorcade. But then, as he exited the plane, he could immediately see that he had been lied to, and --to be blunt--was not just worried, but scared. None of this was pursued when he was questioned by the Warren Commission. DVP: I went through a serious move recently, and a lot of my research materials were filed, in over 100 boxes, and put in storage. Unfortunately, it is not properly "indexed". In other words, I don't have the proper "Table of contents" of everything I have which would enable me to retrieve (with precision) every item. Often, this is not a problem, because 80% (at least) of my material is digitized and stored on disks. Very likely, your data is more properly indexed than mine (at this date). Nonetheless, I tried--using Google--to locate the "Connally arrives at Love Field" photo" to which I am referring. I may have found it--or something very close to it--on Pinterest, and I an try uploading the image here, as an attachment. Or: I can send it to you via email, and you can upload it. Its very likely that you have a much better and clearer print of the photograph to which I am referring. That's about the best I can do--at this moment--by way of responding to your question. To repeat: The key document is a New York Herald Tribune story published on 11/23/63, the gist of which was that Connally was "re-assured," on the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, that there would be no motorcade. And, secondly, that there is a photo of Connelly, standing there ("under the wing of AF-1", or so it would seem), appearing decidedly unhappy, if not frightened, as he looks on and sees the cars lined up for a motorcade. DSL 6/6/2018 - 2:15 AM PDT South Orange County, California

David Josephs: Your post states: "We need to remember that the route was changed for the single purpose of framing Oswald... cause no one could have made the shot if the limo was over on Main...?" This is incorrect. The route was never "changed". It was designed, from the outset to create (or "incorporate") what I call the "crossed paths" situation between LHO (the preselected patsy) and JFK (the target to be murdered). (And I agree. . had the car been on Main Street, and flashing by at near highway speed, towards Industrial Boulevard, the notion of someone --anyone--hitting the target from the Sixth Floor of the TSBD would not have been particularly credible). But back to my original point. . . : I think the reason some people insist on using the language that the "route was changed" is that they cannot believe (or accept) the notion of so much premeditation in the President's murder. So they they believe that the original route was a "random event" (sort of) and then something "bad" happened and it was "changed." But that's not what the evidence indicates happened. From the outset, the route was designed to create this "crossed-paths"situation"; and that's why I asked, in a previous post, probably addressed to DiEugenio: "Do you have a problem with the assassination being planned two weeks in advance?" Of course, I was being facetious., The assassination--as an event that was "on the drawing boards"--was planned considerably more than "two weeks in advance." Moreover, to those who study these events even more closely, you will find evidence that at one point, when it looked like there might be a chance that the President would speak elsewhere (e.g., at a downtown hotel) Oswald suddenly showed up for a job interview at a downtown hotel, which would have placed him on a different route. The entire subject is worthy of a Master's thesis by someone majoring in history, and perhaps I can provide the essentials in a future wiring. DSL 6/5/2018 - 10:45 PM PDT South Orange County, California

In terms of what DVP calls "dueling photographs," DVP wins hands down. There is simply no question--based on documents, newspaper reports, and radio broadcasts (and the bystander photos)--that the motorcade route (including what has been called the "dog leg") was known in advance. As I mentioned, the White House--meaning Pierre Salinger--released the information to the press on Tuesday, November 19, in Washington, and the motorcade routes (for all five cities on JFK's itinerary) were published in the local press (in each of the five cities) starting on Tuesday, November 19th. Second: the same information was included in radio and TV broadcasts, and repeated (in Dallas) on Friday morning, 11/22. As I recall-and this is from listening to KRLD (CBS), WBAP (NBC) and WFAA (ABC) tapes of radio broadcasts at the National Arhives back in 1970-1972, it was often stated that the motorcade would go through downtown Dallas and then "out Stemmons Freeway" to the Dallas Trade Mart. As any local resident would know, the only way to get onto Stemmons was via Elm Street. I don't recall hearing any broadcast--ever--that the President would go through Dealey Plaza (on Main Street), continue on Main Street through the Triple Underpass and on out to Industrial Boulevard, turn right onto Industrial, and take Industrial to the Trade Mart. Repeatedly it was "Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart" (and the only way to enter Stemmons was via Elm Street). So the notion that once Air Force One landed "no ordinary person knew for sure what the exact route would be" is simply incorrect. Changing the subject a bit, and this is addressed to Rich Pope: I asked what you believed Oswald's state of mind was that morning--say, about 11:40 AM when Air Force One landed at Love Field--but you haven't replied (yet). I offered several possibilities, but I'd be interested in knowing what your view is on this subject: Was he someone preparing to shoot the President? Preparing to watch the motorcade, or what? Just what do you believe his thoughts were as the motorcade left Love Field, proceeded to the downtown area, and then was traveling east-to-west on Main Street? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on that question. DSL 6/5/2018 - 10:25 PM PDT South Orange County, California