David Lifton

(DSL Note, 5/30/18 - 6:30 AM PDT. This post was edited and corrected this date.) Steve Thomas: Thanks for your effort in perusing the Dallas Municipal Archives. As you may aware (but maybe you are not) what you are citing is a small excerpt from the "B-L-S" (or "Batchelor -Lumpkin -Stevenson") combined "Chronological Report" --of the Dallas Police Department-- which is published in its entirety as a "Stevenson Exhibit" in Volume 21 of the WC's 26 Volumes (21 WCH 562- 592). As published there, it is an almost impossible-to-read (31 page, single-spaced) very poor carbon copy, but decades ago, I found a crystal clear copy of this item in the Texas AG's files. If you (or anyone) can send me their email address, I can send along (later today) a crystal clear PDF of the entire report, which is quite lengthy (31 pages) and is dated 11/30/63. And one of you can post it at a cyber site along with an "internet link," so we can all study it and discuss it. (DSL Note, 5/30/18: Corrections were made in this paragraph). My take on this document (and this is from about 25 years ago): that B, L, and S (the DPD Assistant Chief and two of the 4 Deputy Chiefs) each kept notes (and must have made individual "CYA" records in the two (or three) weeks prior to the assassination); and then, immediately after JFK was murdered, convened to create this "combined CYA" record (in the spirit of "we had nothin' to do with this") etc. Anyway, the full report was prepared within eight (8) days, is dated 11/30/63, and was entered into the record (by which I mean the pubic record as published by the Warren Commission), when DPD Deputy Police Chief M W. Stevenson appeared in Dallas before WC Asst Counsel Burt Griffin to give a brief deposition about Jack Ruby and the Sunday (11/24) "abortive transfer" (the WC's delicate language for the 11/24/63 jail transfer of HO, which then resulted in the murder of their prisoner, LHO). This report---if a Robert Mueller type had been leading the investigation---should have (and would have) been carefully reviewed and analyzed, paragraph by paragraph, and additional investigation undertaken, and additional testimony taken, as necessary. But it was not. In some ways (and IMHO) it is the DPD's "we-had nothing-to-do-with-this" report, compiled and written over the next eight days, and finalized and dated on Saturday, 11/30/63, five days after JFK's funeral. This document deserved very serious legal investigation and follow-up. There was none. Not a scintilla of awareness (on the part of the WC) that any such "CYA" activity had taken place or that such a "combined report" from these three top DPD officials was written. I am writing this to provide some context for how it is that now, some 54+ years after JFK's death, a researcher such as yourself finds-- -in a box in the Dallas Municipal Archives---a small snippet of a much larger document which, in fact, is potentially quite significant, and which was in fact was published in its entirety in the 26 volumes (as noted above), but in a barely legible form. What a careless way to run a murder investigation, eh? Wouldn't it be great if we had a time machine, and could go back and question these three (3) top DPD officials, about the "how" and "why" backstory re how this document was created in the first place? When you read the "B-L-S" document in its entirety, you will understand why I believe (and have believed for several decades) that this entire report, viewed in its entirety is (a) a very significant document (legally and historically) but (b) is defensive in nature. Think about it: while much of the country was watching the JFK funeral, and in the 5 days following, these 3 officials were convened in a room somewhere, probably with a stenographer and each with their individual stack of notes, and with someone present who had decent English language (and "report writing") skills. . . putting their heads together and hammering out this (rather complex) document. Its as if these guys had a "history teacher" (as advisor) who said: "OK. . , he;s dead. Now I want a report from each of you as to just how this happened!" And one of them replied, . "Well, can we write just one 'combined' report?" And the answer was "Yes, you can, but there must be no "'internal inconsistencies" of any kind, so make sure there is no room for any cross-examination, and get it done by next Saturday, Is that clear?" "Oh of course", they replied. "Don't you worry. We all learned to write this sort of document when we took summer courses at Harvard Law School, before we decided not to practice law and instead retuned to Dallas and joined the Police Department, available for volunteer work should a President we don't like visit our city." <G> Seriously. . . Wouldn't it have been great if the Warren Commission legal staff had had the insight to properly digest this document, and then press forward with that kind of legal inquiry?. . . i.e., "Please provide a full accounting of how you all arrived at the decision to create this sort of "composite" document and how you all went about organizing it and writing it?" DSL 5/29/2018 - 3:30 PM PDT Corrections made on 5/30/18, 6:30 AM PDT South Orange County, California

Sorry you don't agree with my major work on the JFK assassination, David, and perhaps --if time permits--I'll have something to say on that. Another time... Meanwhile, it would appear that we have some common ground when it comes to DiEugenio, who is bombastic in his pronouncements, and often quite inaccurate, so I'm going to focus on that, in this post, and save the rest for another time. Here goes. . . : I took the time to do a little reading in CD 3/Appendix A to refresh my own memory about what I originally concluded, years ago, when if first obtained this critically important document from the National Archives, and gave it a lot of close study. My conclusions about how the motorcade route was "selected" was largely based on reading the report in its entirety--and especially Appendix A, which details the decision making process that led up to the selection of the motorcade route. (WARNING [to anyone following this discussion, and particularly the "pronouncements and assertions" of James DiEugenio]: Commission Document 3 ("CD 3"), Appendix A--submitted to the Warren Commission in mid-December 1963 by the Treasury Department and the US Secret Service-- is based upon a detailed and authoritative internal investigation, conducted in late November/early December 1963) under the auspices of the Treasury Department and the Secret Service. It ante-dates anything DiEugenio (presently) has to say on the subject by some 55 years later. So all his bombast about the "dog leg" being "added" the week before the Dallas trip, or that the motorcade route as originally designed went straight down Main Street (to Industrial Blvd) bypassing Dealey Plaza is pure nonsense. It is nonsensical "revisionist history" without any basis in fact. Perhaps DiEugenio believes that, 55 years after the fact, he can post this sort of garbage on a discussion group, and it will be believed; but it is not supported by valid data and would never be taken seriously by any historian worthy of that name. CD 3 is the definitive document when it comes to trip planning and parade route selection; not the mythology posted and promoted by James DiEugenio. END OF WARNING) Most important: there is (i.e., "was") only one route that was ever "mapped" out, selected, and test driven. There is no discussion of any "other" route--ever--and always that route, the one that was "test driven" or "selected" is the same as the one that was driven on November 22 1963. From notes I made on a hurried re-reading of Appendix A of CD3: On page 9 of the report (referring now to CD 3, Appendix A), please find the following: The route which a Presidential motorcade travels depends on ., . (lists a number of factors). One of the purposes of the Dallas trip was to afford as many people as possible an opportunityto see the President in the limited time available. SA Lawson was so informed and was also informed by the White House staff that the motorcade from the airport from the luncheon site should take approximately 45 minutes. On the basis of these instructions, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels mapped a tenative 10-mile route through Dallas, and on November 14 drove the entire route at the anticipated speeds of the motorcade. The width of the streets, the number of overpasses, turns and other points where problems with crowds might occur and other security factors were observed and noted., (CD 3, Appendix A, p. 9) Note the phrase: “a tentative 10-mile route through Dallas” —also reerred to later in the sentence as “the entire route” which was then driven “on November 14”. Now turn to page 10. . . : “SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels discussed the proposed route with Dallas Police Chief Curry. (misc. data deleted) Next paragraph begins: QUOTE: The route” —note the word “the”—was also discussed with Mr. Jack Puterbaugh, representing the White House staff, and various local offiials. On November 18, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels drove the selected route with Assistant Chief Batchelor, Dallas Police Department, and another police officer. ((DSL Note: Identity? I don’t know.)) \ Again: note the phrase “. . the selected route. . “ clearliy indicating that a selection had been made. That was referred to as “the survey trip”; and on the next page (p. 11): That Chief Batchelor agreed (after that drive) “that the route would be satisfactory, and the final route was fixed on the afternoon of November 18, 1963.” Keep in mind: this is the only route that was discussed, in this report, or “test” driven by the Secret Service (or the Dallas Police Department). . or both. Ever. There was no other. Here are still additional nots that I made; again, on a re-reading of CD 3, Appendix A: On page 11 of this Secret Service report (again, we are in CD 3, Appendix A) comes a paragraph summarizing the news coverage preceding the Dallas trip, starting on 9/26/63, when the first announcement that there would be such a trip was published. That paragraph includes this sentence: “The selected route of the motorcade appeared in the November 19 [Dallas] Morning News [Exhibit 6D] and in the November 19 evening edition of the Dallas Times-Herald (Exhibit 6E). This route was released locally in Dallas on the evening of November 18.” On page 13, it is referred to as “the route selected.” On page 10, it is stated that on Monday, November 18, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels drove the selected route with Asst Chief Batchelor, DPD, and another Dallas police officer. At no time is it ever indicated that the “selected’ route was anything other than the route as driven on November 22, 1963. Whether its referred to as the ‘selected’ route, the “chosen” route, etc. does not matter. There is (i.e., “was”) no other route under discussion, and that is what is most remarkable (even suspicious) about this situation. Only one route—the “selected” route—was ever "considered" or ever test driven. So all this fuss about whether the dog-leg was “added” is completely irrelevant, false and misleading. There is no evidence that any such "last minute change" (or "addition") was made; So If that is what DiEugenio is basing his case on, it is pure nonsense. Moreover: Debunking this nonsense is a waste of time. Its nothing but vaporware. To repeat: From page 9 of the report First, Lawson and Sorrels mapped a ten mile route through Dallas. Then (still on page 9): Then, on November 14th, they “drove the entire rouite at the anticipated speeds of the motorcade.” Now go to page 10: Then, on (Monday) November 18, Lawson and Sorrels (now along with Asst. DPD Chief Batchelor) drove the same route (now referred to as “the selected route”) with DPD CHief Batchelor. This is referred to as “the selected route” and also as “the survey trip”; and after this “survery trip” (per page 10, bottom); Batchelor agrees “that the route [just driven] would be satisfactory, and the final route was fixed on November 18, 1963.” END OF DSL NOTES OF CD3/Appendix A. Now, here are some additional thoughts and comments I have on the entire situation. RE THE "EXHIBITS" to CD 3: There are quite a few exhibits that are attached to CD 3, and I remember how--decades ago--I had to order them (separately) from NARA (which I did). Today--and this is so very convenient--its all included in the posting f CD 3, on the Internet, at the Mary Ferrell website. How convenient (!). So now let's turn to that. to the exhibits. . : “Exhibit 5 --a map--shows the final route selected for the Presidential motorcade in Dallas on November, 1963." But its hard, if not impossible, to read without a magnifying glass. OK. . . so now let's turn to the exhibits with text: most important is the matter of what was published in the local newspapers. WHAT THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTED (and the text of the news coverage is unambiguous): Exhibit 6E shows the story in the Dallas Times Herald on Tuesday, 11/19/63 Headline: “Yarborough Gets JFK Table Spot” (by Jim Lehrer) Describing the motorcade route, the text employs language that clearly describes the “dog leg” turn: QUOTE: The motorcade will then pass through downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back to Elm at Houston and then out Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart.” Conclusion: So there's the "dog-leg" turn; it was there, from the outset, as\s I maintained in my original post on this threat, FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND DSL COMMENTARY (AND A REQUEST):. . Will someone please knock real hard on DiEugenio’s cranium to see if someone is there; and if so (i.e., if the message is answered), please point out that the Dallas Times Herald of November 19, 1963 (as documented in Exhibit 6E of CD 3) published the motorcade route, and that the text of the story clearly spells out that the motorade will pass through Dealey Plaza, by going from Main (right) onto Houston, and then (left) onto Elm, and then out Stemmons Freeway. Also, please advise DiEugenio that it is nothing less than the tactics of a shallow (not to mention uninformed) demagogue to be proselytizing, some fifty-five years after the assassination, that the 135 degree sharp LEFT turn from Houston onto Elm (I.e., the “dog leg” turn) was a last minute addition to the motorcade route (as he has repeatedly misstated, and misinformed those reading the London Forum. It was not. It was there from the beginning. And DiEugenio, who prides himself as a “recoginized authority” on “this ’n that” ought to know better; and ought to stop spreading false and misleadiing information. He was--once upon a time-- a history teacher. . . was he not? DSL 5/29/2018 - 9:55 AM PDT South Orange County, California

No Text.

Joe: Dallas Attorney Eugene Locke was obviously an important person in the "Dallas establishment." but the reason(s) the Dallas Trade Mart was advanced by Governor Connally as the luncheon site were explained quite well by Connally --as I recall--in the article he published in the 11/22/67 issue of LIFE. Connally explained that he wanted the proper venue for presenting President Kennedy to the "upscale" business audience (his political backers) who would attend an event at the Trade Mart, but not necessarily one held at the Woman's Building (a more "proletarian" venue. [my quotes]). That's what JC's reasoning was (and yes, Connally was an elitist). Locke, no doubt, was a member of that "establishment." And Connally's purpose, he says, was to facilitate JFK's ability to communicate to the business community that they had nothing to fear from John F. Kennedy. As JFK's former Navy Secretary, Connelly knew that to be the case; but he wanted to advance that view to the Dallas business community. Viewed that way, It was a reasonable choice, if you were someone in Gov J'C's position. Did Locke have a hidden agenda, in advancing the Trade Mart as the luncheon site? That's a separate issue (and an important one, but almost impossible to determine). The problem, more generally stated: Who among those "lobbying" for the Trade Mart did so because they thought it offered a superior venue for a presidential address, and who (if any) had a hidden agenda? One other thing bears mentioning, and that concerns foreign policy: in 1967 (as I recall), LBJ named Locke to the post of Deputy Ambassador to Vietnam. Not that he was responsible for the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam war, but LBJ's appointment of Locke to that particular position is, IMHO, interesting (to say the least); and possibly even significant.. 5/29/2018 - 7 AM PDT South Orange County, CA

It is not often that I have the time to drop by and see what's doing on the London Forum, but--sitting in a Starbucks on a lovely Memorial Day--I decided to do just that. What immediately caught my attention was the title of this thread. . "Who Changed the Motorcade Route?" etc. And these long-winded paragraphs written by James DiEugenio which, not surprisingly, are completely incorrect. Its not my purpose to invest a lot of time debunking a windbag, but let me try to set the record straight. I'm writing what follows, from memory, because this was an issue that I carefully investigated, decades ago. The Dallas motorcade route was something I pursued, in great detail, in the very year (or two) after I ordered my own set of the 26 Volumes (and after I began ordering documents from the National Archives). There is plenty of reason to believe that the motorcade route was in fact "contrived," but the notion that it was "changed" --i.e., altered at the last minute to include the Dealey Plaza dog-leg--is completely wrong. That's not what happened. The real issue is not that, but how the Trade Mart was selected as the luncheon site. The governing document--listing in great detail the genesis of the Dallas motorcade route--is to be found in Commission Document 3 ("CD 3"), Appendix A. CD 3 was one of the earliest documents submitted to the Warren Commission after its creation, and Appendix A lays out, in detail, the chronology of the decision making process leading to the motorcade route that was actually followed on November 22, 1963. Historically speaking, CD 3/Appendix A is akin to "best evidence" when it comes to the genesis of the Dallas motorcade route, and anyone who ignores that primary source, is--in short--just "blowing smoke." The motorcade route was "test driven" on November 14 (or Nov 15th)--by Asst Dallas Police Chief Batchelor, and SS Field Office Chief Sorrels-- as soon as the luncheon site decision was made. (Within 12- 24 hours). The luncheon site decision--i.e., the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, which meant the Trade Mart as the terminus of the Dallas motorcade--was made on either Thursday, 11/14 or 11/15 (I'm writing this from memory). Within 12 hours, as I recall, the two individuals I mentioned-- Asst. Dallas Police Chief Batchelor, and Forrest Sorrels --did a "test-drive" from Love Field to the Trade Mart, going through Dealey Plaza, and then via Stemmons Freeway, which meant entering Stemmons from Elm, which meant driving through Dealey Plaza exactly as the JFK motorcade drove that route on 11/22/63. I don't think it matters --at all--what this or that person says he "remembers" years later, even decades later. Go to CD 3/Appendix A, and you will see laid out, in print, the story of how that route was driven on 11/14 or 11/15. That "test drive" occurred within 12 hours of the Dallas luncheon site decision--i.e., the selection of the Trade Mart as the luncheon site. In other words, the motorcade route, as test driven on 11/14 or 11/15--was designed, from the outset, to pass directly in front of the TSBD, where Oswald had commenced working in mid-October. There was no need to "change it" or to "add" the dog-leg; it was there from the beginning. The notion that the dog-leg was "added" is a totally bogus issue promoted by DiEugenio et al. To borrow the language from the debate concerning evolution, that particular motorcade route (and the "crossed-paths" situation that was created, with LHO's location) was present from the outset (i.e., from 11/15, at the latest) and was a case of "intelligent design." If one wishes to search for what is (perhaps) suspicious, then that question devolves to the issue of why the Trade Mart was chosen as the luncheon site--and certainly NOT whether the "dog-leg" was added "later." That is a non-issue. Furthermore, the late Jack Puterbaugh, who I personally interviewed at his Maryland home, back in the early 1970s, had nothing to do with the selection of the motorcade route. IMHO: He is neither a significant (nor a sinister) figure in this affair. (He was practically a bystander to what was taking place; not a decision-making participant). FYI: The luncheon site decision was made, in Washington, by Kenneth O'Donnell, who was, I am sure, heavily lobbied by LBJ (and, very likely, by Governor Connally). It was that decision that laid the foundation for the motorcade route (that was "selected"; and that "selection" occurred as a consequence of the "test drive' by Sorrels and by DPD Asst Chief Batchelor). Furthermore, and for those who want to do serious research in this area, and not spend hours and hours pursuing false leads the lead nowhere, please note the following: when Governor Connally pushed for the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, he had no idea that there would be a motorcade. In fact, and quite to the contrary, Gov. JC was under the impression that there would not be a motorcade. So Gov JC was simply aggressively lobbying for a particular luncheon site, unaware that it would be the terminus for a slow-moving "political" motorcade. (He learned that there was to be a motorcade in the 24 hour period following the "motorcade route" selection", and that led to some very serious conflicts concerning JC and those planning the trip). As for the maps published in the Dallas newspapers earlier in the week, my advice would be to ignore the "squiggles" in the map, and theories about any particular squiggle) and look at the text of those stories. As I recall, the text--starting on Tuesday, 11/19, clearly describes the route as including that dog leg turn. Perhaps not every story does--I don't have my file in front of me as I write this--but there were definitely stories published on Tuesday 11/19 (and the latest, 11/20) that describe the route as it was actually driven on Friday 11/22/63. So the notion that the dog-leg suddenly materialized as a consequence of a last minute change is flat-out false. To anyone who wishes to study this further, and not simply push the "Garrison believed. . [this or that] line," I'd also advise getting a copy of Jerry Bruno's book "Advance Man" (co-written by Jeff Greenfield), which was published around 1971. He talks about the alternate luncheon site, the Woman's Building, and how he thought that would be the final decision, and was surprised at what he experienced as a significant reversal. FYI: I and another researcher talked to Bruno in 1971, when he was on his Los Angeles book tour, and there are unpublished archival documents that are important in that regard. DSL 5/28/2018 - 6:30 PM PDT South Orange County, California

REVISED AND EDITED - 4/17/2018 - 6:35 AM PDT Micah: The basis for all medical statements made in the report of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy is a serious issue, which came up from the very first day day that I brought the Sibert and O'Neill report statement about "surgery of the head area" to Libeler's attention on October 24th, 1966; an issue which he then stressed as a major point that ought to be addressed in his memo to Chief Justice Warren (and the others ) in his 13 page memo dated 8 November 1966, and which was transmitted on to all recipients on 16 Nov 1966. That "medical" statement has nothing too do with the FBI agents observations of a "scalp flap from a craniotomy" --even though I would agree (and wrote in chapter 18 of Best Evidence [titled "The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy"] that the scalp was indeed "flapped," as I quoted Dr Boswell as having stated exactly that in his appearance before the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) of the HSCA. But again: that (i.e., that "data," or that "visual appearance") is not (i.e., "was not" ) the basis for the FBI statement--at least not according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and the FBI hierarchy. After I made a fuss about that "surgery" statement (when I called FBI Agent Sibert on November 2nd or 3rd, which led to Sibert sending an FBI "telex" to Headquarters; and after I laid out the issue in writing (in my letter to Director Hoover on November 9), and after Professor Liebeler flagged the statement in his Memorandum dated Nov. 8th (which was widely distributed on November 16th, as I have noted)--all of this happening in November 1966--Director Hoover then issued a statement to the press, which was published in the New York Times on 25 November 1966. This FBI statement laid out the guidelines for how to properly interpret "medical statements" in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report. These statements, explained FBI Director Hoover, were based on (or "recorded") "oral statements made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of autopsy." And they were based on notes made by the FBI agents at the time. Bottom line: they are evidence of words spoken, i.e., of an oral utterance. Think of them as the "FBI soundtrack" of what happened during the autopsy. I addressed all of this in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence, and that is why I titled that chapter "An Oral Utterance." Therefore, it is completely unwarranted for you to ascribe to the FBI agents that they made visual observations about a scalp "flap". They recorded what the doctors said, and the doctors were focused (according to a detailed conversation I had with Sibert in 1990) on the enormous size of the hole in JFK's skull. (and yes: the doctors may well have been focused on the existence of any flaps; and if they were, then that may have influenced what they said). But. . . : it is what Dr. Humes said--not what he saw--that was recorded in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. And that is the key to understanding what the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report is all about. As I said, it is akin to an "FBI soundtrack" of the event--at least, that is (or "was") the stated position of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And that is why he (Hoover) was able to say to the press, on November 25, 1966, that there was no fundamental inconsistency between the FBI report of the autopsy, and the Naval autopsy report published by the Warren Commission. Said Hoover: "FBI reports record the oral statements of the examining doctors at the time of autopsy; the autopsy report records the final conclusions of the pathologists." (Approx., from memory). For more on the centrality of the sheer "hole size," just view the Best Evidence Research Video, and the part where Paul O'Connor describes the reaction of those in the room when he pulled the sheet down exposing the head. O'Connor said --and this was filmed in October 1980): "There was a gasp in the room, and I looked down and said "My God, there's no brain." As FBI agent O'Neill told Wayne C., the businessman who was a personal acquaintance of O'Neill (and who I got to know quite well, circa 1992), "Wayne, there was no brain." Of course, common sense suggests that when O'Neill made that statement (years later), he didn't have to be "told" by a pathologist that there was no brain; he could simply look, and see that for himself. On this score: remember what Paul O'Connor told the HSCA when interviewed in August 1977 (and repeated to me when I first spoke with him two years later, in August 1979, and then on camera in October 1989: "the cranium was empty.") As O'Connor said to me on camera (in October 1980), when I stated --in the spirit of a mild cross examination--that the Warren Report contained an official document (as part of the Bethesda autopsy protocol) that purported to be the examination of a brain, he looked directly at the camera, and said, very calmly and with great sincerity, "Well I don't know where they got it from; because it certainly wasn't the President's." O'Neill lied when he appeared before the ARRB in 1997, and attempted to rewrite history on this point (claiming one third of the brain was still there. Not true.) By that time, O"Neill was voluble, in conversation(s) with third parties, expressing his intense dislike (if not outright hatred) of me and my book. Too bad, but he couldn't deal with the fact that, if my analysis was correct, the FBI "blew it," and were played for fools, when it came to the goings on at Bethesda on the night of President Kennedy's assassination. IMHO: your focus should not be on "fragment delivery" but on "words spoken" because therein lies the critical evidence, historically speaking, as to "who knew what" (and "when") and that is what is at the heart of the case for "obstruction of justice" that could have been pursued had there been a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the JFK assassination, in the aftermath of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence, DSL - 4/16/2018 - 6:40 PM PDT Orange County, California

Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in accordance with the approval of 'higher authority'). Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed. One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement. The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports". Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!" Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!" Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him. Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory. During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged. Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times. So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966. Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull." As I noted in Chapter 9 of Best Evidence ("A Confrontation with Liebeler") which records in detail what happened on October 24 1966, when I first showed him that passage (which was a discovery that I made the day before), he was astonished; and when he wrote the memo, I met with him and one of his law students, the late Stephen Myers (who co-founded Jacoby and Myers), for a "prep session."In the memo, Liebeler gave me full credit for making the discovery mentioning me twice by name. I don't believe there's any other researcher who had a comparable experience--i.e., finding something of that significance in the published records of the Commission, and being taken so seriously by a former WC attorney that he wrote a memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the other Commissioners, the entire legal staff, plus RFK and the White House. In the years following, I came upon other data which has left no doubt in my mind that by the time Air Force One landed at Andrews, RFK (and very likely Kenneth O'Donnell) knew perfectly well that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin (and that "the situation" had been conveyed to RFK, via radio communication with someone else); but (and this is important) that Jacqueline Kennedy had no idea that this was so, and (frankly) would have freaked out if she had ever thought that that was the case. Of course, the fact that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin is not proof that it was altered; the two issues are quite separate. Stay tuned. DSL 4/16/2018 - 10:50 AM PDT Orange County, California

As I recall, the vehicle was identified as the ambulance from which Jackie (and RFK) exited. Very likely, it was referred to as "the ambulance" or "the naval ambulance." I do not know whether it was identified by color. Of course. at Andrews, the network radio announcer said, "And a gray navy ambulance is backing up towards the side of AF-1" or some such thing. You can check the Best Evidence Reearch Video for the soundtrack of that. DSL

The vehicle (containing Jacueline Kennedy, RFK, Dr. Burkley, etc.) that arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital was a naval ambulance, and it was driven by SS Agent William Greer. This is obvious from motion picture footage covering the Andrews arrival. You can see Jacqueline Kennedy getting into the ambulance at Andrews Air Force Base. As recorded by live TV coverage, the naval ambulance left Andrews at 6:10 PM PST. The naval ambulance, under motorcycle escort, and followed by limousines carrying (for example) FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, made an uninterrupted journey from Andrews AFB to Bethesda. I repeat: it was an uninterrupted journey. No stops. In 1967, I interviewed SS Agent Greer by phone, and he agreed to send me a map of the route he took. It matched perfectly what Manchester reported, based on his interview with Greer. The notion that that the vehicle that pulled up at the front entrance of Bethesda was "without a doubt a black Cadillac" is completely incorrect; and a complete contradiction of the known historical record. Its a seriously incorrect recollection; or, alternatively stated, an assertion that is not based on any credible data. A novelist can get away with an assertion like that, but not anyone practicing the craft of journalism or history. DSL 4/15/2018 - 3:05 PM PDT Orange County, California

Karl Kinaski and Ron: 1. The Naval ambulance with Jackie, RFK, and the Dallas coffin (which was empty, per Dennis David--see Ch. 25 of B.E.) arrived at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:53/6:55 pm. Jackie and RFK exited, and entered Bethesda via the front entrance. These facts, and the sources, are laid out in Chapter 16 of B.E. ("Chain of Possession The Missking Link") 2A. The naval ambulance remained parked there for some 12 minutes, not 5 (or any other number). The time lapse was 12 minutes, and that is specified by a reporter for the Washington Star, William Griggs, who was on the scene that evening. What he witnessed, was reported in the next day's Washington newspaper. (All of this is spelled out in the chapter of B.E. devoted to the arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda, and the goings-on at the front of the hospital). As reported in Chapter 16, where the Griggs account is quoted: QUOTE ON: On page three of the November 23, 1963 Washington Star, I found a story headlined: MRS KENNEDY SPENDS NIGHT AT HOSPITAL, by William Griggs. There was useful information about the ambulance: ". . . hundreds of persons formed a partial circle around the ambulance when it stopped. . . . For at least 12 minutes after Mrs. Kennedy entered the hospital, the ambulance remained in the driveway. Many spectators would see the simple casket within. Military officials, leaning on the open front door of the vehicle, apparently were not sure where the body should be taken. When word finally came, the crowds were pushed back and the ambulance took the President's body to a entrance at the far rear of the hospital." CONTINUING THE QUOTE. . : According to Griggs, the pause in front of the hospital was twelve minutes. Griggs also reported that the time of arrival of the ambulance at Bethesda was 6:53 P.M., two minutes earlier than the hour in Secret Service Agent Hill's report Thus Grigg's account implied the ambulance moved off at 7:05 or 7:07, depending on whether Grigg's 6:53 or the Secret Service's 6:55 was used as the time of arrival." UNQUOTE 2B:. Then came another important quote, this one from the Washington Post. "On page 11 of the Washington Post for November 23, 1963, I found another story: OFFICIALS TO VIEW BODY TODAY AT WHITE HOUSE. Several paragraphs dealt in detail with Bethesda, indicating the reporter must have been there. "More than 3000 persons were crowded onto the Hospital grounds in Berthesda and they surged around the ambulance when it arrived about 7 P.M. . . . The Attorney General escorted the President's widow through the front door and the ambulance containing the coffin sat unattended for several minutes. A Navy cordon finally pushed the crowd back about 15 feet from the vehicle. Then, in the final paragraph, came this detail: "Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, commandant of the medical center, pushed into the front seat and drove to the rear of the Hospital, where the body was taken inside." CLOSE QUOTE 3. My interviews with the casket team--and specifically, Sgt. James Felder, and Hubert Clark--were conducted in December 1967 --that's over 50 years ago. They were all carefully taped and transcribed, and laid out in detail in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence. Further, it is all corroborated by the mid-December 1963 memo written by Coastguard person Barnum. 4. I think it is completely improper to take the account of any witness, written a half century later, and rely on that instead of the interviews and that I conducted in 1967. 5. There was no TV coverage of the arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda. I looked into this very carefully at the time I was conducting my own telephone interviews (1967) and then again a decade or so later when I was writing Chapter 16 of Best Evidence ("Chain of Possession: The Missing Link") 6. IMHO: Gary Mack was correct when he said there was no film coverage. 7. Also please note: Had there been film coverage, that's exactly the sort of evidence that Manchester would have relied on, screened, and reported in his book. (Ron: I appreciate what you believe you saw, but the NBC logs, and other media --the AP "A" wire and the UPI "A" wire--constitute credible evidence that your recollection is incorrect. To those following this discussion: the data I have quoted above is data was published on November 23, 1963 (Washington Star) and November 24th 1963 Washington Post). As I believe any historian or attorney would agree, the "earliest recorded recollection" is the best (or "better") evidence. These accounts, which I unearthed through laborious library research back in 1967, and featured in Chapter 16 of B.E. (published in Jan 1981) far exceed in credibility and significance the account of anyone who --today--is basing their account (i.e., today in 2018), one something they believe they "remembered" from over 50 years ago. In general, what is important is not just "who was there" and "what was witnessed" but when the "read-out from memory" occurred; i.e., when that person made a written record of what they witnessed; or, in the case of the members of the casket team, when they were first interviewed. As far as I know--and with one important exception (the missing taped account of team leader Lt. Bird)--I am the only person who interviewed these people. So in a way, I was history's first responder; and its for that reason that I am "speaking up" here on this forum, to sound a warning about the recollections offered by whose who, over half a century later, come up with accounts based on what they claim to have "remembered", when in fact they made no record at the time. In real estate transactions, it is well known that nothing "said" is what is important; all that counts is what is "in writing." A similar situation exists in history. Barring some very unusual circumstances, we don't credit what someone "says they remembered" happened at Ford's Theater in 1915. We do care about what they wrote down, or told a reporter, in April 1865, or in some reasonable time thereafter. DSL - 4/15/2017 - 2:45 PDT Orange County, California

Hello Paz: If you wish to email me, please use DSL74@Cornell.edu Please put JFK (or "from Paz" in the subject line. Thank you. DSL

Hello Ron Ecker: Photography at Love Field in the 2-1/2 hours following JFK's assassination is an important area of JFK Research. That means collecting information about the following: a) All photographs that were taken at Love Field--who the photographer is, where the pictures are available (on the Internet) etc. b ) All info re attempts to suppress photography (I'm aware of at least two) c ) Careful analysis of any photographs taken showing the starboard side of AF-1, during the time period that eyewitnesses report the activities of a forklift truck) Like any area of the JFK case, this one can be a serious "rabbit hole." I thank all those who have sent me information or pointed me to photography I had not known about. Thanks so much. DSL Monday, 4/9/2018 - 1:30 PM PDT Traveling aboard the AMTRAK Coast Starlight heading south from San Francisco, back to the Southern California area. (Not supposed to have Internet on the Coast Starlight, but it turns out there's a secret password someone tipped me off to, so I can watch these lovely vistas presented by this southbound train, and be keeping track of the London Forum at the same time. Small world.)

Thanks to everybody for taking part in this discussion. No time just now to contribute. I'm on the AMTRAK Surfliner which must be hitting speeds of 60 MPH (at least) as I race north across Orange County towards Los Angeles, and then board another train to San Francisco. This train rocks back and forth, and I'm truly amazed that I can open up my laptop and get email! DSL Heading north. . from San Juan Capistrano to L.A.

Hello Robert Harper: The Boeing 707 has four doors--two "full doors" on the port side--one at the front, which goes up to the cockpit, and the other at the rear, which goes up to the tail compartment. The other two doors are "half doors" and are on the starboard side--one at the rear galley, and another in the forward area of the plane, just to the rear of the cockpit. Usually, stairs with a ramp are used to access the two doors on the port side. As to the half doors on the starboard side, the normal procedure is for one of those trucks, which bring the food aboard, to pull up against the starboard side of the airplane, and that is how material is brought aboard from the starboard side. What happened in Dallas--according to the pilot of Air Force Two--is that a forklift truck (fully extended) was used on the starboard side, at the rear half-door. Sorry to hear of your confusion, but I do understand. In pursuing this matter, I had to get full four-color drawings from Boeing (showing the exact dimensions of the aircraft, and the exact location of its four doors), and all of this became a major research project. Very likely, you can find these materials somewhere on the Internet. DSL

Hi David Josephs: I disagree with your terminology. A forklift is what was described, in detail, by the pilot of Air Force Two, to me. Thats what he observed on the starboard side of the aircraft. A "forklift" is not what was used at Andrews (on the port side, and at the rear port-side door). What was used at Andrews was properly described, in media reports, as an "enclosed" mechanical "lift." I don't know what the exact name would be (in US Army terminology) but it was certainly not the classic "forklift" which you can see in use if you go to any warehouse (e.g., to a COSTCO). What you see being used at COSTCO to move merchandise around the area is a forklift truck. That's not what was used at Andrews. And, of course, no one at Costco is using a forklift to retrieve bodies from an upper shelf of a Costco warehouse. Mostly stored on those shelves are paper goods and cleansers. Not bodies. Of course, if I'm wrong, and if anyone should see any such activity at a COSTCO, please do photograph it using an iphone and send me the picture so I can publish it in Final Charade with an appropriate caption (joke). DSL

Hello Joe Bauer: You wrote: "You also can't help but contemplate and consider the possible tie in of this type of government change to the JFK assassination. " Yes, in the current vernacular, its called "regime change." And, if my analysis is correct, and this was an 'inside job," then that's what happened in this country on November 22, 1963. JFK was "removed from office" (as Sec State Rusk characterized it in his Warren Commission testimony) using a sophisticated deception operation which created the outward appearance that this was a quirk of fate, a historical accident. To the contrary, it was a political murder, with a specific political purpose: to change the occupant of the Oval Office. The political purpose (once again): To operate the USG constitutionally-mandated "line of succession," and replace Kennedy with Johnson. In other words, it was a political murder, designed to look like a quirk of fate; designed to look like a historical accident. As Theodore Sorensen said, not too long before he died, he believed it because, to all outward appearances, it looked like "a Marxist who got lucky with a gun." Yes, that's the way it appeared on November 22, 1963, and in the days and months following. But anyone who persists in seeing it that way, particularly in the year 2018, has never gotten past the original disguise, which hides a much darker reality. DSL 4/6/18 - 9:40 AM PDT - Orange County, California

DSL

Brian, Sandy, and others who are interested in the goings-on at Love Field: I am quite familiar with this picture,and have been for years. Do you know by whom it was taken? And when it was first released? That's my first question. But here's some more commentary. Let me number the points for convenience of future discussion: 1. The witness I interviewed, and who knew all about the forklift truck on the starboard side of Air Force One was the pilot of Air Force Two. I have no doubt about his credibility, or the accuracy of his recollection. (Remember: He's sitting in the cockpit, located in a more forward position, and can look directly across the space between the two aircraft; which, according to Manchester, were parked "wingtip to wingtip"). 2. I dispute your glib contention that you can tell, from this single photograph, and the angle from which it was taken (which is aft, on the starboard side, and one to two hundred feet away) that you can properly infer what persons on the port side can see, especially if they are pre-occupied with the offload of the Dallas coffin, from the arriving ambulance (which is what the photo appears to show; and which has not yet occurred). Moreover, many of those on the port side were SS agents of the White House Detail, some of whom were involved in getting the body "onto" AF-1, so it could immediately be opened and "offloaded" on the starboard side. Do you think anyone on the port side was going to say, "Hey, Kellerman, look at that forklift truck!" (after it arrived); or, if before, might he exclaim: "Hey, Roy, where the heck is that forklift truck, that was supposed to be on site, and waiting?" 3. Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side, who happened to focus his gaze, at ground level, across the underside of the AF-1) that wouldn't necessarily mean that there would seem to be anything improper about it being there. The rear starboard side door was a "half-door" and normally used to service the rear galley area (although normally, of course, by one of those trucks with an "upper level" used to "match" with the starboard rear- entry door). 4. I call your attention to the "blackened out" area on the rear starboard side. I call this area to your attention because, if it represents photo alteration, then the picture was altered to hide whatever was going on (An opened starboard half-door? Who knows.). This is an area that needs more work, but its important because of point #1, so let me repeat. 5. The pilot of AF-2 saw the fork lift, on the starboard side ofAF-1, fully extended, and with what he believed to be a coffin. This is a tape recorded telephone interview which I had around Feb/March 1980, some 38 years ago. (And I omitted it from the publication of B.E. because, at the time, I was certain that if anything had occurred, it would have happened during the swearing in. And it was only after publication, when Gen. McHugh wrote the letter to TIME disputing my contention, that I was forced to rethink the entire issue, which puzzled me for a good three years). It was not until the summer of 1984, when paying a summertime visit to the UCLA campus, that I suddenly realized that the swearing in wasn't the only time that "Jackie wasn't with the coffin." In view of the above. . . the first such time period was when she (and the others) were down on the tarmac (as the photos taken by White House photographer Stoughton show), and the coffin was being (or had just been) brought "upstairs" by the men who carried it up the stairs on the rear port side). 6. I think that your quick-to-judge notion that the inferences I have drawn about the goings-on on the starboard side is "ridiculous" is seriously flawed. 7. I have additional information about the fork life truck that will be in Final Charade, and which I cannot release at this time. 8. If you (or anyone else reading this) be able to ascertain who took this photo, and when it was processed and released, please let me know (at DSL74@Cornell.edu). Just look at the high quality of this picture. It doesn't appear to be taken by someone with an ordinary "Brownie" type camera. But it does appear to have been taken by someone seated inside the airplane. (As one poster has noted, you can see part of the window frame). So. . what (i.e., "who?") was the source? 9. Please keep in mind that photography in that area, and particularly on the starboard side, was prohibited. A TV cameraman, as I mentioned, had his film and camera confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Chief of Police (Fisher), and a Texas Highway Patrolman was threatened with arrest, by the Secret Service (and specifically, by Agent Rufus Youngblood) if he kept filming. So I think your snap judgements are entirely incorrect, and in fact represent an oversimplified and one-sided view of this issue. Having spoken at length to the pilot of AF-2, I can assure you that he did not imagine the particulars of what he told. me. 10. Regarding the timing of the photo: it would appear, form the cluster of people at the rear of the Dallas ambulance, this was a moment when the coffin was about to be removed from the back of the Dallas ambulance. I don't know if the fork lift truck had yet "arrived" (and was photographically removed); assuming that was not the case, then when it did arrive, a more reasonable question to ask would be: once the agents started carrying the Dallas casket up port side stairs, is it not reasonable to believe that all eyes would be glued on those fellows, struggling with the Dallas coffin, and not the movements of an apparatus on the starboard side which, in any event, would appear to be legitimate. DSL (Edited, 4/6/18 - 5:55 PM PDT)

DVP: You wrote: "John Connally never claimed to be hit by more than one bullet. Never. " Going back to November 22, 1963, when Gov. JC was still emerging from anesthesia, and it was his wife who was "doing the talking". . . : Perhaps you have forgotten, but Nellie Connally--in her original (Fri., 11/22, or perhaps Sat 11/23) press statements released either via a direct interview (or possibly by JC's press aide Julian Reade) explicitly stated that Governor Connally was struck twice--once in the chest, and a second time in the wrist. (As I recall, she did not mention the left thigh at all). Her (original) account was changed within a day or two, but that was her original account. Perhaps someone can look it up in newspaper files; but Nellie Connally definitely said that the shooting of her husband consisted of two bullet strikes, the second one being the wrist. As fas as I recall, neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission questioned Mrs. Connally about this change in her account. DSL - 4/3/2018 - 10:10 PM PDT

Hi Ray, You wrote: " LBJ was aboard Air Force One quite some time before the Kennedy clan got aboard. LBJ was there when the coffin with the President in was loaded. What on earth could he have been up to whilst he was on there?" Good question. (And I like your use of the word "whilst"!) Short answer: Arranging for the covert egress of the body on the starboard side ( via the rear starboard half-door) as soon as the Dallas coffin, containing the body, was brought into the tail compartment on the port side, via the rear "full door" at the rear port side. IMHO. DSL 4/3/2018 - 8:28 AM PDT Orange County, California

Hi Ron: You wrote: "Fascinating stuff. Thanks. If your account is accurate, it suggests to me that LBJ was literally a hands-on conspirator. " Yes, that's true (unfortunately). I state that its most unfortunate, because there's no way to sugar-coat the implications of the timeline evidence. And that means that anything I have to say on the subject will (no doubt) be viewed as seriously "politically incorrect." But if we can get past Johnson's psychopathy (and the matter of what is "politically incorrect" (which is really quite besides the point), then the way is cleared to ask (at least) these three questions: (1) How many Secret Service agents (who, as the Stoughton photos show) carried the coffin up into the tail compartment) know about what happened next? My answer: maybe not everyone, but certainly quite a few. It was a known fact among a small number of agents on the White House Detail that JFK's body was removed from the coffin within minutes of its being carried into the tail compartment, and that the Dallas coffin, from that point forward, was empty. The explanation: "security". Which brings me to the next question. (2) How did Johnson justify this action? Answer: Almost certainly, by some argument about "national security"--that it was a "security measure" to insure that no one would "get to" the body; or that the Dallas Police Department would not be able to halt the take-off and insist on recovering the body for autopsy. (This last notion is a joke, since Chief Curry was right there, on the plane, and could countermand any such an attempt (in the [highly] unlikely event that it occurred, which--of course--it did not). So that whole idea is nothing but a bogeyman; and I mention it only because it was, apparently, a possibility that seriously worried Ken O'Donnell, according to Manchester. Now all of this leads to the next question. . . . (3) Did Bobby Kennedy know that this had occurred? And that his brother's body was not in the Dallas coffin? Answer: Yes, he did. He learned of this situation after AF-1 was en route back to Washington, via communication with Sec Def McNamara, who learned the truth from Johnson; along with some screwball justification that LBJ offered to "explain" why this was the case, i.e., why this "had to be done." I will address this subject ("what Bobby knew, and when he knew it"; along with another closely related question, "what Bobby knew, that Jackie did not" (and rest assured, the First Lady did not know that the Dallas coffin was empty, and would have freaked out had she been told) in Final Charade. But back to your original observation, and I will now address it by adding a little bit more information: yes, once the Dallas plot failed (and yes, there was a Texas plot to alter the body, but it went seriously awry, because of the unexpected shooting of Governor Connally, among other things), LBJ was (then) involved in a series of actions that was tantamount to pulling the plotters' chestnuts out of the fire. Of critical importance was getting JFK's body (which was unaltered, except for the trach incision [i.e., if an incision was really made, etc.]) out of the coffin, and arranging for an alternate autopsy site. I'll have more to say about this in Final Charade. Stay tuned. And thanks for your commentary. DSL, 4/3/2018 - 8 AM PDT Orange County, California

DSL NOTE, 4/3/2018 - 7:55 PM PDT: This post has been edited and revised, from the time it was originally written. DVP: Quoting from your post, QUOTE ON: Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?! UNQUOTE You seem to believe--or think--that those who murdered President Kennedy (and then altered evidence in an attempt to hide what they had done, and blame the crime on Oswald)--were following certain rules of "logic" (DVP style) and were perhaps engaged in prim and proper behavior. And so you say such things as, "Well, the Z film couldn't have been altered, because look, see!?. . the head snap is still in the film. Since the inclusion of that in the film presents important evidence of conspiracy, ergo, there could not have been an (or "any") alteration." This is bizarre and nonsensical logic, or "logic." Suddenly, you have become Mr. Psychologist, making judgements about whether evidence has been tampered with based on whether those involved in this tawdry affair had a deep commitment to performing "the perfect crime." First of all, the crime was far from perfect (and this applies to the cover-up, as well). But let's start with the crime: Do you think that anyone in their right mind, planning to shoot Kennedy (and, let's say, to frame Oswald) would then also shoot Connally? Obvously not. Certainly, Connally was not a target, and yet,he got shot. So that should tell us (and particularly you) something right there. This crime, however (elegantly) it was planned (in the abstract), was imperfectly executed. And I would suggest to you that the cover-up was (that is, "is") also riddled with similar problems, i.e., similar inconsistencies. In other words, whatever the original plan--it was bungled in execution. Bottom line: both the crime, and the cover-up had serious same flaws. So. . .if it was desired to remove a car-stop, for example, "they" didn't have a month to take their time and "get it right." Consider the time line. The Z film came out of processing by 5pm, or thereabouts. The film--just as it exists today at the National Archives--was sold to LIFE by about 9 - 10 AM the next day (in a rather peculiar auction; but that's another story). So do the math, DVP. . . that's not very much time. Whatever was done was done very hurriedly--i.e., essentially within the first 15 hours (approx) and I am sure that those involved were not pleased that the result. Why? Because it contained something as powerful and telling as the Zapruder film headsnap (regardless of how you and your apologist friends try to explain it). But the "head-snap" was the result of the film editing done to remove the car stop. By eliminating frames in that area of the film, the acton was speeded up and so JFK's "slump" was turned into a backward "snap." I realized this back in 1969, when I first spotted the existence of all these "car-stop witnesses" in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes. The car stop was gone, but now the head "snapped" back. This artifact of film editing does not change the fact that so many people saw the car stop--and I know, because I interviewed five of the car-stop witnesses in November 1971. I wanted to hear these car stop witnesses personally, and brother was that an experience. When I spent an evening with William and Gayle Newman, and told him, after hearing his account (which focused on the stop), that there was a film at the Archives which showed no stop, (remember: this was four years before the film was shown by Groden on national TV in March 1975), Bill Newman was somewhat exasperated and said words to the effect that "I don't give a fig what any film shows! We were there, and the car stopped, right in front of us!" (This interview was recorded on audio tape--using a reel-to-reel TC 800, the same recorder used by Nixon to record his Oval Office conversations). So now we turn to the audio record of Dr. Perry's interview (by Eddie Barker); and we find that Perry used the word "inviolate" --clearly heard on the tape (by both me and Pat Valentino) --and for me, that key word (clearly audible on the tape) worked to confirm what he told Groden in 1977, when Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) showed Perry the autopsy stare-of -death photo; and what he told Dr. Dave Stewart, on November 22, 1963: that he left the wound inviolate. Here's what I don't understand. Why can't you seem to understand that the audio record, when considered in the context of the two different transcripts--one from CBS and another from the writer of the show (Stephen White)--which differ in just one word ("inviolate" versus "invalid") clearly indicate that something is amiss? DVP: You think that my argument leaves the debate about the audio record an "incoherent mess". But what about the body, DVP? Does it not bother you at all that, as I described in my previous post(s), that JFK's nody left Dallas with a small bullet entry wound, and --possibly, but not definitely--a small and modest trach incision ("2-3 cm", according to what Dr. Perry told me on 10/27/66) ; and arrived at Bethesda with a wide gash, measured at "7 - 8 cm"? And which, according to the autopsy report, had "widely gaping irregular edges"? And that's just the beginning: what about the fact that, according to O'Connor, the throat area was such a mess that you could see the esophagus through the wide gash; and that the larynx was destroyed? Can you face yourself in the mirror and tell me that your honest response to all this is what we see in the face-up autopsy photograph, which I published for the first time in October 1988, in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence, is a tracheotomy incision? And then, now moving forward to the Bethesda morgue, and the time the two FBI agents arrived, there's credible evidence that, at some point before the two FBI agents arrived, it was "sutured shut". And the FBI agents were mislead into thinking that what they were looking at was a trach, which had been sutured at Parkland. Do you think that's legitimate? (This matter will be developed at length in Final Charade). What I have described above--with regard to the President's body, and this area at the front of the throat--is what was an "incoherent mess." You ought to get your priorities right, DVP, before preaching the lone-nutter story to your political "base"--i.e., your "audience"--while the evidence is so very clear that something really awful happened to the President's body, and viewed in context, the alteration of collateral evidence (such as the Perry interview) some three years later, would be mere "collateral damage" in the larger scheme of things. DSL, 4/2/2018 - 10:30 PM PDT; edited/revised on 4/3/2018 - 7:55 AM PDT

DVP: You refer to my "outlandish" altered CBS tape theory. To begin with, I know how to separate theory from fact; and I'm well aware that its not a "fact" (yet) that the CBS tape was altered; what is a fact is that two transcripts of the show exist, that differ (principally) in just one key word: "inviolate" versus "invalid." The official CBS transcript--which I obtained in 1967 after these broadcasts aired, and is at the Ford Library--says "inviolate." And that supports the accounts of two people with whom Perry spoke: Dr. Dave Stewart (on 11/22 and over that weekend); and Robert Groden. He told Stewart that he left the wound "inviolate." He said the same thing when he met with Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) at his office in New York City, and was shown the "stare-of-death" autopsy photo, which shows that wide, horizontal gash in the neck. "Inviolate" was used on both those occasions, by Perry, to state that he didn't touch the wound; that it left Parkland Hospital exactly the way it was when he saw the wound in the Trauma Room One. But what Perry said changed in the transcript of the Barker interview of Perry. According to that transcript, he now (supposedly) admitted to making an incision through the wound, which action (on Perry's part) "rendered it invalid." Full quote from the CBS transcript as publishe on page 242 of the White book: "I didn't think abut cutting through the wound--which, of course, rendered it invalid as regards further examination and inspection. The transcript published by the late Stephen White--and he was the primary writer of the CBS show says "invalid", the context being that Perry's "cutting" rendered it "invalid." But Perry told both Dr. Dave Stewart, and Robert Groden--approximately four years apart--that he "left the wound inviolate." Since the two transcripts each say something entirely different, and since the word "inviolate" could be clearly heard (by myself and Pat Valentino, on the audio, when Groden played his super-special 3/4 " tape, obtained from God-only-knows where at CBS, the suspicion naturally arises that someone monkey'd with the audio in connection with changing the meaning of what Perry said. And yet trace evidence of what he originally told Stewart ("inviolate") and Groden ("inviolate") is right there on the tape. So did Perry just change his story, or did someone monkey with the audio, or was it some combination of both? That's the issue. Now here's something that could be done, if Groden was willing to assist. The 3/4" tape of the CBS show, the one that he played for us (Pat Valentino and me) in June 1989, is in Robert Groden's possession. A high quality digital copy could be made of that part of the show; and we could all listen to it, and decide. Is what Groden possessed (and played for us, in June 1989) superior to what is available today--for example, at the Dan Rather site? Or is it identical? That would be an interesting matter to pursue, and I'd like to see it done. DSL; 4/2/2018 - 7:40 PM PDT

Hello Geoff: What a small world! Perhaps you can locate a transcript of the show? Or, if you can send me the audio, I know someone who will produce a letter perfect transcript. Let me know. You can respond privately to me at DSL74@Cornell.edu Thanks for showing up here, in this dialogue.

David Von Pein: You say I'm ignoring this or that "fact" and quote me as follows, QUOTE ON: In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". UNQUOTE But you, David [Von Pein] are ignoring the fact--the published fact--that on November 23, 1963, Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin, in an article quoting him and which was published on Sunday 11/24/63 that he made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound. Also, you are ignoring the account of Dr. Dave Stewart that Perry told him that he left the wound "inviolate"--which is exactly the same thing that he told Groden when Groden visited him in his New York City office (circa 1977) and showed him the face-up "stare-of-death" autopsy photograph. What's clear is that Perry said different things to different people on different days. So the issue is: why is Perry behaving this way, and which account is to be believed? If the issue was as straightforward as you would like it to be, Perry wouldn't be saying these different things to different people at different times. I don't understand how you can invoke Perry's statement, on camera, about "cutting through the wound" (made around December 1966, when this interview was filmed) and ignore what he told Jimmy Breslin the day after JFK was murdered (i.e., on 11/23/63, that he made his cut "below" the wound) or what he told Dr. Stewart --according to Stewart--on 11/22/63 (that he left the wound "inviolate"); or what he said in his office to Groden (and a Baltmore reporter) in 1977 (again, "inviolate"). If Perry had been brought before a Federal Grand Jury investigating President Kennedy's murder, how do you think he would have handled all these discrepancies? Do you really believe he could have ignored everything he said on these different occasions, and simply used your selective approach to the record? And, of course, had there been such a Federal Grand Jury inquiry, perhaps one of the questions would have been: "How do you explain the fact, Dr. Perry, that you told David Lifton on 11/27/1966, that the incision you made was "2 - 3 cm", when the autopsy doctor testified it was "7 - 8 cm"? And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that you used a knife, while the autopsy report states that the wound had "widely gaping irregular edges"? (See Ch. 11 of B.E.) And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that when the autopsy was conducted, and Colonel Finck examined this wide gash (i.e., the so-called "tracheotomy incision"), and examined the edges very carefully, he said he could not find any evidence of the previous wound; even going so far as to say, "I don't know why it is not there"? And perhaps, if Paul O'Connor had been called before such an inquiry, he would have testified to what he told me, both in the telephone interview in August 1979, and then in my filmed interview in June/July 1989, that the situation in the area of the neck was so bad that the esophagus and the trachea were clearly visible and "through" the so-called trach incision, and perhaps one of the Grand Jurors would have asked Perry: "Did you make a wound that was so big that the esophagus and the trachea could be seen through the hole that you made?" And perhaps another of the Grand Jurors, hearing about the fact that the wound was "sutured shut" when he saw it, might ask that Dr. Humes, the autopsy pathologist, be called to testify, and to explain: "Hey, Dr. Humes. . do you mind telling this jury who stitched up this wound? And when that occurred?" And perhaps another question: "Dr. Humes, would you mind explaining why you told the FBI that this suturing was where a trach had been performed, in Dallas? And implying that the suturing was done in Dallas? Were you attempting to mislead the FBI, Dr. Humes?" So you see, DVP, there's a lot more to this issue than what you are trying to focus on. And its kind of peculiar--even laughable--that you would take one piece of evidence out of an entire array of facts, and just focus on that one datum, and ignore the rest. No one is denying what Perry said on camera. The issue is why he said so many other things, at other times; and why there's such obvious evidence that this particular wound area was altered, and in a most ugly fashion, before the body arrived at Bethesda. That's the bigger picture, DVP; and no matter how much you try to focus on just one little tree, there's a whole forest out there. DSL 4/2/2018- 6:55 PM PDT Orange County, California