David Lifton

Rich: The parade route was published on Tuesday, November 19th; and thousands lined the published route. So I don't understand why Roffman would state that "Neither Oswald nor any Dallas resident could have known the exact motorcade route, for conflicting accounts were published." The multiple thousands who lined the route (including the short distance--on Houston--between Main and Elm) show that this statement is incorrect. There was no mystery, after Tuesday evening, November 19th, what the Dallas motorcade route was. Its true that in her narrative (Commission Exhibit 994) Marina stated that the night before (Thursday night, 11/21) when LHO was back at the Paine residence, she brought up the fact that JFK would be visiting Dallas the next day, "and asked how I could see him--on television of course-- he answered that he did not know." (CE 994, p.42). But. . .so what? IMHO: Oswald simply did not want to let his wife know that JFK would be passing directly in front of the building where he worked. I don't find that to be particular sinister. (Do you?) But let's consider the alternative. . . : Do you really believe that Lee Oswald, who we know (from testimony) read both Dallas newspapers (and loved to compare them) --and was intensely interested in all things political--did not know that JFK was visiting Dallas? Or that the planned parade would be coming down Main Street and passing in front of the building where he worked? Even though LHO was extremely interested in current affairs, read two newspapers, and liked President Kennedy? If so, then I've got to ask: On what planet are you living? Why not share your ideas, and your profound wisdom, right here on this forum, because it would be interesting to know just what you believe LHO's "state of mind" was as JFK's motorcade left Love Field and headed towards the downtown area. Do you think he was thinking, "Gee, I'd better fill these book orders quickly, so I'll get my assigned work done, and have a chance to watch the president?" Or. . do you think he was getting prepared to shoot the President? Or do you think he was somehow unaware of what was going on, and just going about his business, filling book orders, and wondering, "Gee, I wonder why the building is so empty? And why are all those crowds gathering outside, on Houston Street?" Or maybe he was thinking, "Oh, now I realize why Marina asked me that question last night! Little did I realize how well informed she was!" Please do share your expertise. Inquiring minds want to know! DSL 6/4/2018 - 7 PM PDT

Byrd was the owner of the building, but. . . he didn't "do" anything. Cason was (more or less) directly "on site" and was involved (as Truly's boss) in the hiring of Oswald. DSL

Byrd was the owner of the building, but. . . he didn't "do" anything. Cason was (more or less) directly "on site" and was involved (as Truly's boss) in the hiring of Oswald. DSL

Rick: Quick answers without detail; will return and expand later, when time permits: Epileptic seizure: Completely genuine. SS contrast between Kellerman and agents guarding LBJ...: Agreed. Absurdly different. A very stark contrast between the two. Umbrella man: Genuine.Not part of any plot. (Will explain later. Can't take the time just now). DC man: Don't know. Yellow painted curb: Extraordinarily important. The rest (man, woman etc): no opinion. Later. . . DSL

Tom: Thanks so much for unscrambling my post. DSL

Its my understanding that Governor JC "definitely" wanted to ride with JFK; and that, in terms of attempting to "re-arrange" any of this, it was LBJ who had attempted (or was attempting) to get Jackie to ride in his car. (I think this is in either Manchester or Bishop; but I'm not sure).

DSL NOTE: Re typographical confusion at the end of the previous page: I DO NOT understand why this post has "overlapped" with what I had written, previously; nor do I know how to "fix it."

Gene: No, I don't think so. And here's why: To execute a plot of this nature, one has to have the cooperation of local law enforcement. They certainly don't "all" have to be corrupt, but there has to be "an element" that is (i.e., that is "recruitable"). So the places that would be most amenable to "recruitment" in such a scheme, would be locations where civil rights was a hot button (and where JFK (and RFK, as AG) were deeply resented). So the Deep South would be the preferred location. For anyone who wants to educate themselves on how "plot recruitment" (and the "political environment") works, I highly recommend Luttwak's "Coup d'Etat," first published in 1969, still in print, and which has become a classic in the field. From the Amazon writeup, QUOTE: Editorial Reviews This short book is…wicked, truthful, and entertaining. The author, after outlining a step-by-step procedure for bringing about a coup, analyzes modern (post–Second World War) coups, and points out why some succeeded and others failed. (New Yorker) An extraordinarily competent and well-written work, displaying very wide knowledge of the ways in which coups, both successful and unsuccessful, have actually been organized. (Times Literary Supplement) Coup d'État demonstrates that scholarly analysis can be good social science and at the same time fun to read. It is nontechnical in approach and informal in style… Moreover, Edward Luttwak's familiarity with the basic concepts and problems of political science is evident throughout. He is seldom superficial and never trivial in his treatment of his subject. The result is a book of value to everyone interested in the sudden changes of government that occur so frequently in many parts of the world and also curious as to why they so often seem to result in more of the same… We can all have the satisfaction of understanding the strategies and techniques employed, and we can enjoy learning them from this lucid and witty book. (Virginia Quarterly Review) UNQUOTE I read this book--indeed, studied it--back in 1969, when it was first published, and it was a real "eye-opening" experience. A must read. Bottom line: the plot that took Kennedy's life could not have been synthesized in an "ordinary" political environment. There had to be an undercurrent of prejudice and hostility. This was plainly apparent when I first started reading the Dallas Morning News on microfilm, and happened to order films from the summer of 1960, because I wanted to explore how the "locals" reacted to LBJ getting on the 1960 ticket. To my considerable surprise, (when I first read these microfilms) the entire tone was as if the Civil War had ended "yesterday." Anyway, that was Dallas politics, and I'm sure the same was true in other cities in the deep south. However: you could not tell JFK "Oh Mr. President, you absolutely must make this trip to Okeephenokee, Mississippi," whereas one could (and did) make that sort of argument about going to Texas, and visiting the major cities there (which is exactly how the Dallas trip was sold--not by itself, and in isolation, but by a broader "pitch.". And so it was under the guise of "political necessity" (my phrase) that JFK was "lured" (Jackie's phrase) to make the Texas trip. The final result: Five cities, 10 motorcades. Dallas was the seventh motorcade, in a two day trip. If JFK was more prudent, I don't think he would ever have made the trip, but --as RFK himself later admitted--if he (RFK) had tried to veto the trip, JFK would simply have laughed and gone ahead with it, anyway. As is well known, JFK had this thing about "courage," and he also had a thing about fate. And, I'm sorry to say this, he was a bit of a gambler. So this was a situation in which, IMHO, he gambled and lost. Also, and I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, he never realized (or even suspected) that elements of the Secret Service were disloyal, and that was a key factor. There were people connected with his security that were a part of this plot, and from the time they were recruited, JFK was a "dead man walking." Also note: JFK's (and RFK's concerns) centered around a General Walker type "screwball,: and not around the more "establishment type" plot that was (more or less) an "inside job" and was the plot that actually took his life. But that's another story. Again: read Luttwak. DSL 6/4/2018 - 10 AM PDT South Orange County, California

DVP: Either I didn't word my post carefully enough, or you are misunderstanding what I intended to say. In any event, you are attributing to me beliefs which I do not hold. Let's go over this once again. . . : I completely agree that Governor Connally wanted the Trade Mart. He didn't have to be persuaded or "manipulated" to want the Trade Mart. As he himself said, that building (or that facility) was modern and "magnificent" (his word) etc. The "manipulation"--or manipulative quality--to this transaction (and to which I was referring)--was that Governor Connally had no idea, when he pushed the Trade Mart as his choice, that it was (i.e., would be) the terminus for a motorcade. To repeat: Governor Connally did not know there would be a motorcade at the time he made the Trade Mart decision. Indeed, he had been assured there would be no motorcade--just a normal trip from Love Field to the Trade Mart, a luncheon, a quick trip back to Love Field, and then the flight to the last stop, Austin, Texas. (And, by the way, this same deceitfulness occurred on 11/22/63, on the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, when Gov JC was, once again, assured--while the plane was in flight (from FW to Dallas)-- that there would be "no motorcade," only to see the opposite, when he deplaned, and could see the cars all lined up for a motorcade.) But let's go back to the period of 11/15-16/1963. . : Please review what you have posted and modify (or remove) all this stuff which miss-states my position and belief, and is the basis for your misguided suggestion that I believed that Gov JC was "lying through his teeth" or anything of the sort. I never said any such thing nor do I believe any such thing. (And I have no idea why you wrote that). Let me repeat my basic belief, which I thought I had stated quite clearly: When Gov. Connally selected the Trade Mart as the luncheon site (11/14)--and by that I mean when he "lobbied" for it, because technically, the final decision was made in Washington, by Kenny O'Donnell et al)--he [JC} had no idea that there would be a political motorcade from Love Field, through the downtown area, and out to the Trade Mart. He was just selecting a luncheon site, period, and was quite proud that the "magnificent" Dallas Trade Mart would be the location for that speech. That's what he wanted; that's what he got. (For a brief period, he was pleased; a happy camper). That's my belief, and I stand by that statement. Furthermore, when he (then) found out--and this occurred within the first 24 hours after the "official announcement" was made, by the White House, that there would be a "downtown motorcade" and that JFK would be delivering a "luncheon speech" at the Trade Mart after that motorcade--he was quite unnerved, if not downright upset. Because, IMHO, it was then that he realized that a motorcade had been tacked on to the itinerary (a motorcade he definitely did not want); and that's when he must have realized that his "best efforts" to select what he believed to be an appropriate "presidential" luncheon site had been used (or "utilized") to determine the terminus of a motorcade route. DVP: This is not "rocket science} and Governor Connally did not have to be a chess grand master to "see" and to understand what had happened. He "got it" and he "got it" rather quickly. And (may I ask). . . What is so difficult to understand about this situation? It has all the overtones of "bait and switch." The terminus of the motorcade was the luncheon site. Connelly believed --quite honestly, and in good faith--that he was picking a luncheon site, not a motorcade terminus. At no point did I ever say that Governor Connally was "lying through his teeth" --about anything! And I do not understand why you are making any such claim. DVP: You are so hyper-vigilante in attempting to detect (and refute) anything that has the slightest hint of conspiracy that you (falsely) attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold; apparently, you have twisted my position into something entirely different than what I believe. Read again, carefully, what I have written, so that you will understand the (somewhat subtle) nature of what was going on here: What nobody told Governor Connally was that there was a covert agenda in play; and that the Trade Mart "selection" (which he no doubt sincerely wanted) would be the (or "a") determining factor in selecting a motorcade route; i. e., in determining the "geometry" (if you will) of the Dallas parade route. Only after it was announced that there would be a Dallas motorcade did he realize that he had been "played," and that his selection of the luncheon site (and the geometry of the Dallas parade route) were intertwined, i.e., were closely related. DVP please note: I was not present when Gov. JC had his "Oh -_ _ _!" moment; his epiphany; I can only tell you that he was--without a doubt--quite upset; and that Bill Moyers then had to be sent, from Washington, D.C. to Austin, to meet with the Governor and his wife at an early morning breakfast at JC's home (on the morning of either 11/15 or 11/16), in order to calm him down. And it didn't quite work, because, within 36 hours, Gov JC was attempting to "reach out" to JFK to inform him about what had happened, and--apparently--to get him to cancel the trip. If you don't misread my sentences, what I have attempted to communicate is pretty elementary. Governor JC did not lie about anything; he was quite plain spoken about what he wanted--and what he did not want. And he did not want a "political" (slow moving) motorcade through the downtown area of Dallas, a political extravaganza with tens of thousands of people cheering on the President. He probably also had "security" concerns about such a motorcade. Governor JC made his views very clear, and tried (but failed) to achieve his political goals. Instead, JFK got his "political" motorcade, and Governor Connally's "worst fears" (from a security standpoint) suddenly materialized, when he heard shots ring out. And, btw, that's when he spontaneously exclaimed (according to his own [and his wife's] WC testimony), "Oh no no no, they're going to kill us all!"--or, if one goes with the Manchester version (which undoubtedly came from his exclusive interview(s) with Jacqueline Kennedy)- - - "Oh no no no! They are going to kill (or "shoot") us both!" DSL 6/4/2018 - 12:25 AM PDT; modified, 6:40 AM

I was just thinking in more "general" terms, and the earlier stages of the planning. Also, fyi, San Antonio (originally, or at least, in a prior format) was on Friday morning. Another factor: if there was really terrible weather in Dallas. . but you're correct, by 11/21, all of that was irrelevant. didn't mean to confuse. DSL

DVP: That's a very fine article that you have posted (above); and it occupies a special place in my own filing system. Unfortunately, it only tells "half of the story," and in writing this, I'm wondering whether you are aware of that--i.e., unaware of the "other half." Let me lay it out here, in highly synopsized form; and in writing this, I'm "giving away" a small (but important) piece of research I was going to delay until the final release in Final Charade, but--candidly--I'd rather see the "gen pub" (as my old associate, Jones Harris, used to say) properly informed, than hang on to certain insights and experiences the value of which declines with the passage of time. So. . in that spirit, here goes: 1. Premise: Governor Connally was not involved --as a conspirator (i.e., "before the fact")-- in the murder of President Kennedy. He did, however, choose the luncheon site. . . and the luncheon site (being the terminus of the Dallas motorcade) ...was a critical factor in determining the route of that motorcade. So. . how to explain this situation? Was all this the result of coincidence? If not, what is the explanation? Specifically: what was Gov JC's state of mind--what was his intent--when he behaved in this manner, and played such a crucial role in lobbying for (and getting his way) in choosing the Trade Mart as the luncheon site? 2. The answer is to be found by carefully reconstructing the chronology, and the article you have posted only tells part of that story--i.e., the "first half." 3. Governor Connally was --essentially--in charge of the Texas trip (and this situation prevailed starting on November 8, 1963); but. . he was very much against "slow moving" (or "political") motorcades. 4. You will find his position--and his attitude, in general--spelled out in great detail in the November 22 1967 issue of LIFE, in which he appears on the cover, along with the title of the very detailed essay that he wrote inside, bearing the title "Why Kennedy Went To Texas" (from recollection). 5. Read that article and you will understand how Gov JC viewed a slow moving ("political") motorcade--the chance for a political figure (and especially a charismatic President as Kennedy) to make momentary eye contact with thousands of people along a motorcade route. Governor Connally is quite explicit in describing the power of a political motorcade--delving (almost at a "micro" level) about how this "eye contact" process works, and why it can be (and was, in the case of JFK, who had an almost "celebrity status") so effective. 6. Now to the bottom line: Governor JC was willing to "play the good host" on this five-city Texas trip; but he did not wish to increase JFK's political power, in his own state. And he certainly didn't want JFK to be "picking up support" (my quotes) in what was "his" (JC's) political base. 7. Consequently, for that reason--and, in general, because of security considerations--Governor JC was against such slow moving (read: "political") motorcades. Now, on to the "luncheon site decision." 8. Governor Connally--as the key honcho organizing this trip--wanted the Trade Mart as his preferred venue, and he spells out why, in detail, in that LIFE Magazine article. It was an "upper class" venue (again, my quotes), and --in his view--he was giving JFK the opportunity to make a political pitch to the businessmen of Dallas, a group that contained some people that saw him as some sort of ogre, an enemy of business, a view with which he (JFK) certainly did not agree. (Remember: he was JFK's Secretary of the Navy, and the two had a perfectly reasonable relationship). And so where does all this lead? What is the point I am now going to make? Simply this: 9. Governor Connally fully intended to have his cake and eat it too. He was given assurances that, on this Dallas visit, there would be no--I stress "no"--political motorcade; no "slow moving" downtown motorcade. Consequently, when he was lobbied--almost certainly by LBJ (via Bill Moyers, who was JFK's Deputy Director of the Peace Corps) --and very possibly, also, by Eugene Locke, of the Locke law firm)-- to select the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, that was (a) perfectly fine with him; and (b) he was quite satisfied that the luncheon site decision he was making had nothing --absolutely nothing--to do with it being the terminus for a motorcade. Because, in terms of the information available to Gov. JC (and completely aside from anything that might appear in some newspaper article, there was not going to be a motorcade. Period. 10. So. . the word was leaked to the press, and the result was the Dallas Morning News story that you have cited, and reproduced: "Tight Schedule/ JFK Motorcade Seems Unlikely." All of that must have been quite reassuring to Connally, because a "motorcade" (i.e., a "political motorcade") is exactly what he did not want. This brings us to the events of November 14 and November 15, when the Dallas Police Department was "test driving" the motorcade route; while the press was being told there would "be no motorcade" (!). 11. It was in this context that Connally made the luncheon site decision--completely out -of-context of there being a motorcade. I cannot overstate the importance of this point, so let me repeat it: Governor Connalliy's selection of the Trade Mart as "the luncheon site" was completely out of context of there being a motorcade. It was just a luncheon site, to which JFK was to go --in whatever vehicle--and at ordinary highway speed (and, BTW, which would certainly not involve the 12 mile loop to downtown Dallas, Main Street, out Stemmons etc.). It would have followed whatever the simplest route would be from Love Field to the Trade Mart. But then. . within 12-24 hours . . everything changed. So. . . what happened? 12. The very "next day"--i.e., the day after the DMN article you published above--there appeared a second article, again, in the Dallas Morning News, and this one bore the headline which (in effect), read: "Oops. . Change of Plans. . there will be a motorcade after all!" That ("second") article, from what I can tell, was the first time Connally would have realized that something weird was going on, and that there would in fact be a motorcade ("after all"") and that--in fact--the decision that he had made vis-a-vis the luncheon site had something to do with determining the route of that motorcade. So. . what did Connally do? 13. In Final Charade, I will present "the rest of the story." He got very upset and tried to call off the trip. Specifically, he tried to reach out to Kennedy through someone he knew, and who he believed JFK trusted, and convey his own belief that he not come to Dallas. That attempt proved unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Lyndon Johnson stepped in and attempted to influence JFK in the opposite direction--sending Bill Moyers to Austin, on a late night/early morning flight, to meet with Gov JC and Nellie, while they were having breakfast (this is on Friday, 11/15 or Sat., 11/16) to reassure JC, and to get him to "back off" (my quotes) and to go along with the plan. I know quite a bit about the details, but here's the key point I want to make . . 14. The DMN exhibit which you so proudly published, in your post, is only "one half" of the story. If you will "move forward" (in your clipping file), you will find the story that follows, just 24 hours later. In my files--which are either in storage right now, or on another computer--I have both stories, spaced 24 hours apart. The first says "No, there will be no motorcade" (and that's the one that you have posted); the second one says "Yes, there will be a motorcade (after all)" --and that's the one that is needed, to complete the picture; i.e., to lay the foundation for the complete picture. FYI: I prepared an exhibit of these two stories, and I call the situation the "no motorcade"/"yes motorcade" situation. Its historical significance, I believe, is that it reveals the manner in which Governor Connally was manipulated (i.e., lobbied) to use his very considerable influence to choose the Dallas Trade Mart as the luncheon site, without realizing that he was choosing the terminus for a slow-moving "political" motorcade, one which would traverse the downtown area --east-to-west--along Main Street. (And when he realized this was, in fact, the case, he surely felt a sense of betrayal, and attempted to call off the Dallas trip. I have considerably more information about this situation, and there is one final point I wish to make, and that concerns the HSCA. 15. The HSCA and their investigation of the "trip planning" behind the Dallas trip. Much of what I have described above I knew "decades ago" (by 1975), and I had a pretty clear picture of what was going on. So when Congress voted--in the fall of 1976--to have this "second investigation" of the JFK assassination, I wanted to make darned sure that I shared these insights with the appropriate person who had responsibility for that part of the investigation, so that they would not accept as fact some superficial nonsense published in the Warren Report, and miss the opportunity to investigate what I (now) viewed as "the underlying reality." I spoke with someone knowledgeable on the HSCA staff, and determined who was in charge of the area of whatI called 'trip planning." That person was Attorney Belford V. Lawson, III. Some background: Lawson was the son of a famous black civil rights attorney, and he had a most unusual background and education. He went to Groton, and then to Harvard (for his BA) and to Univ of PA for his law degree. I met with Lawson in January 1977 (approx., I'm writing this from memory) and the meeting lasted for several hours. I didn't just talk about "the Dallas parade route decision"; rather, I urged him (and the HSCA) to view JFK's Texas trip in in a more "global" fashion; i.e.., its entirety--pointing out that it was a five-city trip, with two motorcades in each city (an inbound motorcade, and an outbound). Focusing on the concept of "redundancy," I pointed out that there was a considerable amount of "redundancy" built into this "five city/10 motorcade" two-day Texas trip, and urged the HSCA (besides examining the Dallas trip planning very carefully) to also take a more "global" view, and view it from that perspective--a five-city trip with ten motorcades, in the space of about 2 days. I referred to this as deliberate "Quintiplication" and specifically, focused on one of the "other" cities--San Antonio--as being a site which may have served as a "backup" for Dallas. Lawson made notes, appeared to take seriously what i was saying, and subsequently wrote a multipage memo to the file. But, . when it came to the actual language in the HSCA Report, and the volume which dealt with trip planning, he proved to be a complete cop-out. He pushed aside many of the details that I provided (and believe me, I provided plenty) and wrote that everything connected with Trip Planning, no matter what, could be explained as the result of ordinary "political" considerations. Lawson was plenty smart. He surely understood the implications of what I was saying (and, for the record, I tied it into my then unpublished autopsy research, without getting too specific). But he just wasn't going to "go there." He wasn't going to do it. The whole experience with Lawson was somewhat irritating because I sensed, from the outset, that what I was proposing--in effect, a political murder that was designed to look like a quirk of fate -- was simply too radical for him to take seriously. Lawson subsequently wrote an elaborate and detailed "trip planning" memo (for the files) which did include much of my information; but he used dismissive language in dealing with it. Lawson's internal memo was released, along with thousands of other documents, in the aftermath of the 1992 JFK Records Act, and one quote that I remember him using in that memo was that the Dallas motorcade was "uniquely insecure." I believe that Doug Horne, to whom I explained this entire situation (and in considerable detail) quotes liberally from Lawson's memo in his five volume work IARRB. PERSONAL CONCLUSION: I bring up this whole business--and everything I have written here (under my point number 15) --because, in my opinion, one cannot truly understand the JFK assassination, and how the motorcade route was coordinated with LHO's location, without first understanding that this was a five-city trip with 10 motorcades; and secondly, the manner in which Governor Connally was manipulated so as to choose the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, without having any idea that he was choosing the terminus for a motorcade. CORRECTION. . (6/4/18; 10:20 AM PDT): I did not mean that Governor Connally was "manipulated so as to choose the Trade Mart as the luncheon site." What I meant to convey was that Governor Connally, who definitely wanted the JFK luncheon site to be the Trade Mart, had no idea, when he lobbied for that choice, that he was (in fact) choosing the terminus for a Dallas motorcade Sorry for my poor choice of words. DSL As I told Lawson when we met in January 1977. . .: IMHO, given the fact that JFK was in ten motorcades in two days, he was like a duck in a shooting gallery, and I didn't believe that was an accident. Rather, a considerable amount of (what in reliability engineering is called) redundancy was "built into the system." And that was no accident. DSL 6/3/2018 - 5:10 PM PDT Slightly edited, 7:30 PM PDT South Orange County, California

I don't know the details, but I feel certain that the family could get much --if not all--of this changed. I think the "hot spot" is Jacqueline Kennedy's interviews with Manchester in the Spring of 1964; but there are many other interviews that I would like to see, and at some point, I was thinking of writing a letter to the proper appropriate authority. DSL

Hi Vince: A few hours ago, I completed a very careful reading of your entire write-up of Floyd Boring. I don't know how you manage to keep track of all these different details. Quite an accomplishment. And I really liked the video where you countered Clint Hill's statement(s) that he never received, or didn't bother to read, your letter, with you holding up a copy of the "return receipt" (which he signed). Hill deserves credit for racing to the limo on 11/22/63, but a lot of his behavior since then has not been particularly admirable. Also, and as I'm sure you remember, Clint Hill apparently made a series of notes about 11/22/63; and during the period when he was seeing a psychiatrist, he was apparently advised that for sake of his mental health, he should destroy those notes; and so, he said (to Brian Lamb's considerable astonishment, as I recall) that he destroyed his notes! (Shades of Dr. Humes!) Wouldn't it have been great had there been a serious Grand Jury investigation of all these issues and not the shallow and superficial questioning done by the Warren Commission? And had there been such an event, you would ave been ideal as an informal "advisor." What I found most interesting--and truly shocking--was your reporting about the Manchester materials at Wesleyan. And their statement that some of these key interviews won't be released until "2067". FYI: Around 1985, I attended the "Hofstra Conference" on the JFK Presidency. Dave Powers and others were there, and so was William Manchester. I vividly recall a scene in one of the reception areas, where William Manchester stood, surrounded by a circle of eager listeners (mostly students) and stating, quite forcefully, words to the effect that "I had so much information "against" Lyndon Johnson that, had it been released at the time, it could have prevented him from being re-nominated for the presidency in Atlantic City (referring to the August 1964 Democratic National Convention held in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Manchester never spelled out the specific of what his "information" was--just that it would ave prevented LBJ from being re-nominated. DSL 6/3/2018 - 5:25 AM PDT South Orange County, California

Sorry, Rich Pope, but its you who is wrong. You write: “We have the newspaper clippings showing the parade route kept changing many different times in the Dallas Times Herald and the Dallas Morning News.” Really. . . you do? (Or rather. . “we do”. . as you wrote). All very well, Rich, then lets see your clippings. (Really, I do look forward to see a story perhaps bearing a headline: “The Parade Route Has Changed. . . once again!”) And by the way, in San Antonio, there was such a kerfuffle. There was such a public relations mess—in that city—and whether the motorcade woud go this way or that way through the area called “Alamo Plaza” (sound familiar?); that the headline in one of the major San Antonio papers actually read: “The JFK Parade. . a route, or a rout?” (from memory) But that was San Antonio; now back to Dallas where, as i recall, there was no such level of confusion. As far as I know, and contrary to your asertion, the Dallas parade route did not “ [keep] changing” ; and your statement that it did (that it “kept changing many different times in the Dallas Times Herald and Dallas Morning News") is flat out incorrect. SOME DEFINITIONS. . . Let’s start with the basics, your ue of the word “many.” The dictionary defines many as “numerous, a great good deal of, a lot of, countless, innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, multitude…” etc etc. Rich, let’s set asid the word “many”. Can you produce “any”?? Can you produce a single news dispatch from the Dallas Times-Herald or Dallas Morning News that supports your claim? Back around 1969 —plus or minus—I spent months in front of a Bell and Howell microfilm reader at the UCLA Research Library and created complete newspaper files from each of the two newspapers in each of the five cities JFK was schedule to visit, so I know what the underlying record looks like. Perhaps you can produce one story that says —for example—that the motorcade would (or “might”) proceed down Main Street en route to the Trade Mart. Something vague or imprecise like that. But the only authoritative stories were the ones produced starting on Tuesday, November 19, 1963, when—in Washington, D.C.—the White House press office (i.e., Pierre Salinger) released detailed information about the parade routes for all five cities that JFK was to visit on his upcoming two-day five-city Texas trip. This information was released simultaneously for all five cities, and in each case, the routes were published in the relevant cities to be visited—i.e., San Antonio, Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin. If you believe you’ve found evidence that contradicts what I’ve just said, I invite you to produce it right here, on this forum. Conceivably, I missed a particular news clipping, and should that be the case, I’d like to know it. SOME RULES FOR DEBATING THIS ISSUE. . . . You know, Rich, legitimate debate about a historial issue is not some kind of poker game where you can make assertions about what you believe to be some truth, but then say, “This is what I believe, but I’m just not going to waste the time to show you the cards that I’m holding.” Yet you write as if it was. Rather than provide evidence to support your assertions, you write: “I'm not going to waste time re-typing what has already been published.” Well, I have news for you: if you wish to be believed, then you’re going to have to take the time and show us your evidence. ABOUT “PRESUMED GUILTY” One other matter. You cite Howard Roffman’s book 1976 book “Presumed Guilty.” FYI: Roffman used to correspond with me when he was a high school student, was absolutely transfixed by the assassination, and went on to write “Presumed Guilty.” All very well, but Roffman’s highly analytic book, as I recall, was largely devoted to establishing (his view that) LHO couldn’t have been at the sixth floor window and then downstairs at the coke machine, some 90 seconds (or less) later. Now that’s a debatable proposition, but here’s my point; if you are so enamoured of his book, please do retrieve it from your book shelf, and either type into a post those passages in which you believe he argues that the parade route changed “many” times (and, presumably, presents evidence for that assertion); or just use your iphone and take a picture of the page. Frankly, I don’t recall Roffman arguing that point, but perhaps I’m incorrect. So again, show us your evidence. THE REAL FOCUS OF ROFFMAN’S BOOK For those reading this post and interested in the subject: what Roffman does do is present evidence from the Warren Commission’s internal “office files” (which I examined in great detail at NARA around 1970), that within a month or two of the creation of the WC, the staff was working off a series of official “outlines” (just like a student who writes a term paper starts by creating an outline). Roffman shows that their starting point, as established by these outlines, reeked with the presumption that the assassin was LHO, firing from the 6th floor SE corner window. From whence comes the title of his book. . . The listing at Amazon for this book, has some half-dozen very interesting reviews. Most of them positive. Back in 1970, when I was in Washington studying these WC “office files,” It was sobering to see outlines written by David Belin dated January 1964, which outlined the work to be done, and which assumed that Oswald was “the assassin.” So the title of the book was certainly justified, but that doesn’t mean that the parade route was changed multiple times prior to the official announcement(s) that were released in all five cities of the Texas tour on November 19, 1963, and I doubt very much that there are newspaper clippings that would prove that to be so. DSL 6/2/2018 - 5 PM PDT South Orange County, California

Jim: Where have you been? If you followed Palamara's blog. or read his book, you would know that he established these facts years ago. There was no "misconception" about the case. All of this was laid out quite clearly years ago. (Maybe you were under a misconception?) You should watch his video of what happened when Clint Hill was on C-Span, with Brian Lamb, and Lamb forced Hill to comment on Palamara's work. DSL

"I mean Lifton's book is built upon that idea". . . so says James DiEugenio, as he casually spouts falsehoods and nonsense (about me) on the London Forum. Does DiEugenio not remember that the reason I interviewed some of the key witnesses "years later" (e.g., in 1979)? That these key morgue witnesses had been under a military order not to talk? Does he not remember what happened in the days following 11/22/63? That each was called into an Admiral's office (at the Naval Medical Center at Bethesda) and personally issued that gag order, and then provided a written copy (which they had to counter-sign)? That this was a fact established by the HSCA, and repeated in Best Evidence (see Chapter 27), and then repeated on camera in my filmed interviews? DiEugenio: are you really ignorant of the fact that this written military order existed, that each person who signed was informed that they could be court martialed if they talked, and that the order was not rescinded until the HSCA arranged for that to happen, about 1978? And that is why these interviews did not occur until that late date? Followed by my filmed interviews a year or more later (1980)? How can you pretend ignorance of all this and then write, as if you just awoke from a long slumber, "I mean LIfton's book is built upon that idea." That is just plain nonsense, and you ought to know better. Please pay attention to the relevant facts, before you articulate such tripe, spread such codswallop, and mislead readers of this forum as to what really took place on November 22 1963. To begin with (and as just explained), there was a very important reason why some of my witnesses were unable to talk until 1979. But now setting all of that aside, and changing the subject from your vacuous commentary to the geometry of this crime. . .: Of course the "dog leg turn" is important--highly significant in fact--but the proper way to interpret the situation is to realize that it was present from the outset, and was part of the original design of this motorcade route, a route deliberately created to manufacture a seemingly coincidental "crossed paths situation" between the president to be murdered and the (pre-selected) patsy to be framed. Do you think that Oswald and Kennedy "crossed paths" by accident? Please don't tell me that you are incapable of comprehending this simple matter of probability, and of geometry. TO REPEAT: As the chronology plainly reveals, the motorcade route was deliberately designed to create this "crossed paths" situation. K apish? What is it that you don't "get"? Spell out your concerns, Jim, and I'll try to explain it in very simple language. Is it too difficult for you to believe that this crime was planned at least two weeks in advance? What I have just described is in no way comparable to the situation of a cycle cop like Sam Belllah, when he's in his mid-80's (and on the 25th anniversary of JFK's assassination) suddenly coming up with the absurd story that the motorcade route he drove was changed on the morning of 11/22/63, when he reported for duty at Love Field (!). That is simply not credible. Think about it: were that truly the case, that would also mean that the entire group of cyclists gathered at Love Field, would also be aware of this; and if that were so (which it clearly is not), then its highly likely that such explosive information would have leaked to the media at that time. ("OMG! The President was murdered and we drove a changed motorcade route!" etc.) That's right: Kennedy was murdered, and they all knew they had driven a "changed route", and no one said a word about it? That's just not credible. And of course, nothing of the sort occurred. There was no such leak, another indication that there was no such "last minute change." The route driven was part of the original plan, a plan that must have included some careful "site selection." Is that beyond your ability to comprehend? Moreover, it was a route that had been selected and agreed upon days before, starting around November 14th, and even "test driven" once or twice between that date and 11/22/63, and --furthermore (and as I wrote previously on this thread) -- even published in the Dalas newspapers starting on Tuesday, November 19th. I don't see how this data--clearly the "best evidence"-- can be denied or "explained away" as not representing the truth. What we have here is important evidence of premeditation in terms of the design of this crime, and recognize it for what it is. Of course, one is free to believe Sam Bellah's story (if you wish), but IMHO this is a good example of how an urban legend is born. A poor (and shallow) substitute for the genuine conspiracy that was responsible for the death of President Kennedy. DSL 6/2/18 - 8 AM PDT South Orange County, California

DVP: Let me clarify, because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. When I read microfilm editions of the Dallas Morning News, I became quickly aware that there were different editions of the DMN, delineated by the number of stars at the top of the page. I think that those microfilming the DMN tried to make sure that they always had "the latest" edition for each day, but sometimes there were multiple "page one's," each with a different number of stars (at the top). I do not believe that the "entire newspaper" changed in terms of its layout and content, and assume that many--if not most--of the stories in the single star edition were probably carried to the final edition (which was five star, as I recall). I happen to touch-type at 120-140 wpm, and when I would make notes on these microfilms (and I have big 3 ring binders of the work that I did), I would always note the number of stars at the top of the page, just for the sake of reference. Also, and this is just a recollection, I believe that where this was most obvious was on the first page or two (or three) for each day. So when you'd turn the microfilm reel to start a "new day," there were, as i recall, often one or two different "page one's", each with a different number of stars. But once "inside" the paper, I am sure that most of it was the same. This technique simply afforded the editors the ability to "update" the front page, I think, as the day unfolded. I'm assuming (but am not certain) that the "one-star" is what was "home delivered" early each morning, and then updates followed, as necessary, during the day. And I can't resist adding the following: unlike DiEugenio, I learned all of this back in 1969, when I spent many hours at microfilm readers in the "Microfilm Room" of the UCLA Research Library, "micro-examining" the DMN (and many other papers that I ordered via "Interlibrary Loan.") I did not "learn it" in 2018, from a mysterious "lurker" and then pass on the information, as if I had just been informed of an important "secret," to those following this thread on the Education Forum. DSL 5/31/2018 - 11:20 AM PDT South Orange County, CA POSTSCRIPT: There is one point I wanted to add to my post, written to advise those who research the JFK assassination. Most people's journey into this record starts with the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report, then "expands" into documents that are at the National Archives, starting with the WC docs, and then going to the entire JFK Records Collection (of which the WC' 26 volumes is now just one element). Early on, I realized that all the reporters who were with the presidential entourage were critically important witnesses, and there was no reason to rely on simply the New York Times (and its marvelous NYT Index) for input. So I made lists of those who were on the press bus (for example), and in general of all the major U.S. newspapers, and then began ordering them, one at a time, via the Interlibrary Loan facility at the UCLA Research Library. For many months, in the period 1969-1972, a postcard would arrive in my mailbox informing me that the such-and-so newspaper had "arrived", was available at the circulation desk, and that I would have ten days to read it, and then the microfilm reels would have to be returned to the lending library. Occasionally, the terms of the "interlibrary loan" permitted the microfilm to be brought off the premises, in which case I could go to a local facility, and have the entire reel duped. Examining these various newspaper accounts permitted me to get a very good idea of how this entire event was "seen" -i.e., perceived--by multiple (professional) observers (and I'm not referring just to the shooting at Dealey Plaza). Moreover, and often this depended on the talent and capabilities of the individual journalist, sometimes a newspaper would contain some really new and startling information. Bottom line: the Dallas "press bus" contained a load of highly qualified professional observers, and I have sometimes found their published accounts to be as valuable as anything published by the Warren Commission in its "26 volumes." DSL 5/31/2018 - 7:55 AM PDT

Jim DiEugenio: Let me address some of your points very briefly, starting with the last (i.e., the third) one: You state that you "don't know if this has been acknowledged yet," but, from "a lurker," you have been "alerted that there were three editions of the DMN that day (i.e., on 11/22). All denoted by a different amount of stars." From the way you write about this, it would appear that this is truly very significant information, Jim, and I'm wondering what kind of award you might have earned, from such an important observation--one that you have been informed of, by "a lurker." Here's some background for you to consider, before you add it to your list of accomplishments. THE MATTER OF THE ONE STAR, TWO-STAR and THREE-STAR (etc.) EDITIONS 1) The Dallas Morning News routinely ran multiple editions every single day, each one bearing a different number of stars. (So there was a "one-star", a "two-star," etc. up to about "5 stars"). This has been true for decades. 2) Unlike you, I didn't learn this from "a lurker." To the contrary: around 1969--about 45 year ago-- I realized the importance of the accounts of all the reporters who were in Dallas, and were important eyewitnesses to the the event. Consequently, I spent months, at the UCLA Library, ordering these newspapers via Interlibrary Loan, and examining the newspapers from all the Texas cities (5 of them, 2 papers in each city) that JFK visited, plus other major newspapers around the U.s. (St Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, etc). 3) As soon as one puts up a roll of the Dallas Morning News on the microfilm reader, it is plainly obvious, because of the multiple star designation, that there were multiple editions of the Dallas Morning News each and every day. This is something i learned in 1969, when I went through all these newspapers. Its not hidden or concealed in any way; and sometimes the information differed from one edition to the next. Sometimes. All these factors considered, its rather amazing to watch you today --in the year 2018--attempt to dramatize this very obvious fact, by announcing that "a lurker" has just informed you that there are multiple editions of the Dallas Morning News. Yes, Jim. . there are multiple editions, as was plainly evident when I embarked on the project of reading all the editions of the Dallas Morning News (and many other newspapers) from the period Nov/Dec. 1963, and even back to 1959, when LHO first defected to the USSR. Anyway, I'm so pleased to see that in 2018, you have discovered the obvious. (Perhaps you'll tell us, in a future post, that you have learned from "a lurker" that 3 times 2 = 6? Or perhaps that the value of Pi = 3.1416? Who knows what wonders you are finding now, in 2018. Congratulations! i'm so pleased to see you are advancing at your own pace on what --apparently--is the James DiEugenio "learning curve." Now let's turn to your first point--the one you designate as number 1 -- that there are "later stories" that contradict the dog-leg route: Here, in your own words, is what you said: "The later stories on the 20th and 22nd in the DMN which contradict the dogleg route." Jim, I don't know what "later stories" you are referring to; but what seems more important to me, is that you don't seem to comprehend the basic point: there was no "dog leg" route according to Commission Document 3, which was sent to the Warren Commission in mid-December 1963, and which is based on multiple internal interviews with those involved. The notion that the "dog-leg" was "added" is--as far as I can see--an addition that occurred decades later. Pardon me for bringing this up, but there is such a thing as a "best evidence concept" as applied to the description of the motorcade route. The multiple references in CD 3/Appendix A, make clear that only one route was ever "test driven" by the Dallas Police officials (accompanied by a Secret Service agent, Lawson) and that was the route followed on 11/22/63. In my previous post on this matter, I quoted the Dallas Times Herald, which was getting its information from the White house, as stating on 11/19 or 11/20, that the motorcade would go down Main, turn right onto Houston, and then left (the 135 degree left hand turn) onto Elm. In other words, what you call the "dog leg" was their from the outset. It wasn't "added" at the last minute. That printed record, in a Dallas newspaper as published on Tuesday, 11/19, plus the multiple test drives, make clear that from the outset, the route incorporated what you call "the dog-leg turn." and that it was not added "later." Your final point--numbered "2"--is that "Palamara's four witnesses who say (that) the route was changed 24 hours before the motorcade." FWIW: I've always believed that Palamara did very good work, but people can make mistakes, or place reliance on witnesses who don't deserve such trust. First of all it would be helpful if you would state, in some reasonably organized fashion, the names of the four witnesses, exactly what they said, and when they said it. i know of one, motorcyclist Sam Bellah. MORE ABOUT SAM BELLAH When I spent some time using Google, I found that Bellah never said any such thing, until 1988! As someone who was a history teacher, do you not understand that a cycle cop cannot come up with some brand new version of reality, some 25 years after the fact, and expect to be taken seriously? Honestly, i just do not understand how you can spend so much time carefully reviewing the details of the post-assassination policy switch on Vietnam, but then--when it comes to what a cycle office says--believe something he says, for the first time, 25 years after the event. There's another point here, which you seem to ignore, and that is the question of the possible involvement of the cycle escort in the murder of Kennedy. A POSSIBLE RATIONALE FOR THESE POSSIBLE "LATE ARRIVING" STORIES I'm not prepared to make any specific accusations (yet), but do you not realize that if any of them were involved, it would be to their advantage to claim, at some point in time, that "no, we didn't have knowledge of the dangers of that particular route. . in fact, the 'original route' went right down Main Street, and so the one we rode on 11/22/63, was purely the result of a last-minute change of plans." Some of these cycle cops (you may remember) are weird. Within minutes, one states that he has "a witness" who says the shots came from the building. And then another chimes in, and says that he has one too; and then a third one specifies the actual window on the sixth floor! But not one of them took down the name of their witness; or did any one of them do anything that came near normal procedure. When questioned, one said, "He was a white man. . . he was there." Oh really? He "was there"? Well. . who the heck was he? Three officers approached by a witness, and no one takes down a name? Oh pleez! FWIW: I've just ordered a fresh copy of Palamara's book, because I want to re-read these passages, and check out the documentation. As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news. But not 25 years later. Sorry, but hat's way too late to be taken seriously. As a history teacher, DiEugenio, you should know better. DSL 5/30/2018 - 8:40 PM PDT South Orange County, California

Hi Paul, Short answer: "No but. . " I understand the temptation to look for some specific organization that might prove to be the "key" to finding out the answer to "who". In that regard, and in the spirit of "FYI," I telephoned, and had a rather good conversation with, Jack Crichton, back around 1970 (!), as I recall. That was back in the days when I thought he might be "important" because he was connected with a reserve military unit, and also learned that he had something to do with arranging for an interpreter (on Friday night , 11/22) for Marina. Contrary to any "expectations" that I might have had, he came off as a reasonably normal and energetic and friendly fellow. To "cut to the chase": It is an enduring mystery (for me) attempting to understand how those who were involved in this plot were recruited, by which I mean: who was "pitched," when did that occur, and by whom was it done? I can easily imagine the pitch: President Kennedy is a traitor; he's selling out the country to Russia; its of the highest national importance that he be removed from office, etc etc. All of it total baloney, but delivered with great pomposity by a group of second rate characters out of film like "Seven Days in May." What I'd like to someday learn is: who (on earth) delivered this pitch, and when? But if you are familiar with the information coming from the (grad student?) Gochenaur, who had conversations with that SS agent (who "leaned" on the Dallas doctors), you'll get the idea of the way Kennedy was viewed, in some quarters. The question still remains: Who delivered the pitch, and when? Because someone had to do it. In the final analysis, if you'll put your thumb against your index finger, and rub. ., and rub again. . that just about represents my (current) belief about how all this "worked." In the final analysis, and regardless of any "pitch," its all about money. People who were approached, and who listened, probably said. . "Yes, I can help . . but. . how much is it worth to you?" And then out comes the money. . and then finally, after this kind of (absurd) conversation, and after financial arrangements are made, one of them says to the other "We never had this conversation." So. . . : This is not like solving a problem in algebra or geometry or physics. This is a historical puzzle which, by its very nature, is almost impossible to resolve with any finality. Everything I have written here (above) is speculative, but based on my own general reading, that's how I think this worked. WHAT MIGHT HAVE WORKED. . . The way to crack into this would have been to conducted a proper "counter-intelligence" investigation, but to do that, one would have to have done what I am sure the FBI does all the time, when they need to test a hypothesis they might have about some security matter: they look at banking records, and try to detect who (suddenly) is "living beyond their means", or appears to have some sort of hidden income. Unfortunately, this never occurred--as far as we know--in the Kennedy case. Since, as the saying goes, the fish rots "from the top", it is my personal opinion that key figures in this whole mess were DPD Chief Curry and Asst Chief Batchelor. I also believe that the Deputy Chiefs, including Lumpkin and Stevenson were involved. I base what I have written above largely on my understanding of how the assassination was actually carried out, and certain new information that will be published in Final Charade. Again, and as I stated above, these are my speculations. Since most everyone has passed on, it will be interesting to see whether this aspect of the JFK case--how this plot was synthesized (i.e., who was actually recruited, and when and how)--will ever be resolved. I believe that the publication of Final Charade will help, hut nothing can change the fact that the key players have passed on. So any "solution" is going to be elusive, and will always be a matter of inference based on the identification of individual "overt acts". . . in other words, solving this "who done it" will --ultimately--come down to solving the "how-done-it." If anyone finds what I have written above somewhat obscure, I can only say that that obscurity is deliberate, since it is essential that I be my own "security officer" until my work is published. DSL 5/30/2018 - 5:50 AM PDT

Yes. .IMHO Moyers was involved in all this, but not at all with any evil intent. Rather, he was used, as a gopher of sorts in the trip planning phase. Afterwards, looking back on it, he very likely has thought: "OMG! Look what I was unwittingly involved in? Look at how I was used?" Perhaps someday Moyers will write that promised memoir, when he realizes that the obligation he has to history way exceeds in importance the ethical obligation he apparently feels towards Ladybird (for the very kind hospitality she showed him over the course of many years, when he worked for the Johnsons at KTBC). DSL