David Lifton

Andrew Prutsok: Thanks for finding and distributing this article about Dr. Dave Stewart. And to Paul Rigby for also distributing it. I am working with an archivist in Tennessee attempting to locate the major article in the Nashville Banner that --I believe (based on 30 year old recollection, was a front page item)--preceded this one. In the article that I vividly remember, and which is (unfortunately) located in a file in a storage box, Dr. Stewart's main point was that (based on conversations with Perry on 11/22) Dr. Perry did not have to make an incision, and simply "pushed the tube" through the pre-existing bullet hole (something along those lines). I carefully photocopied, and filed that Nashville Banner article; unfortunately, its in "storage." But that article led to my original interest in Dr. Stewart, who I interviewed in detail by phone in 1982, and then came the hour long (at least) professionally filmed interview at his home in Tennessee (with Pat Valentino present) in June of 1989; and then (one or two days later) the multi-hour visit with Groden at his home in Media, PA (alng with a multi-hour filmed interview of Groden) at which time (but not during our actual interview, with the camera running) he played for us an excellent 3/4" copy of the Perry interview, by Barker, in which Perry clearly and unequivocally stated that he left the wound "inviolate.". I'm postponing further comment on all this until I can (hopefully) locate the original article in the Nashville Banner. With one exception: Pat Valentino has pointed out another possibility (and I hadn't thought of this until recently): That Groden's 3/4" video of Perry--a very special item that he had "obtained" from someone at CBS, and very early on--was so clear compared to what's available today (via the Internet) --and which is "muddled" and is subject to interpretation as to which word was being spoken (i.e., "inviolate" or "invalid") that its entirely possible that there was further hanky panky with the audio record of this interview in the years following. In other words, there is the possibility that Groden obtained his very special (and very clear) 3/4" copy of the CBS tape (which he played for us in June 1989, but obviously had possessed for many years previously); and then came another round of messing around with that tape, perhaps (for example) in connection with the 1993 CBS documentary on JFK's assassination produced by Dan Rather in 1993. So among all the things that Groden may have "obtained" and stored away --somewhere--is this very special (and very early) copy of the Barker/Perry interview, in which the word "inviolate" is clearly (and quite unequivocally) audible. It is pretty obvious that this particular sentence that Perry spoke received some special attention (over the years) since the official CBS transcript that I received from CBS in New York back in 1967 (and which is on file at the Gerald Ford library) uses the word "inviolate", whereas Steve White's book (which was published in 1968, which means it was likely written in late 1967/early 1968, and which I just ordered from Amazon recently) has the identical transcript, except for one word: "invalid" (instead of "inviolate"). FWIW: White--who died many years ago--was the senior writer on the CBS program. So he took what he was given, and then wrote the script. And his book, by the way, is really good. It documents the path he took in arriving at the conclusion that the Warren Report just had to be correct. ("Should we NOW believe the Warren Report?" was the title). Of course, White had no idea that there was a pile of evidence that the autopsy had been falsified (as a document); with the one published in the Warren Report being the third version (as documented in Horne's book); or worse, that JFK's body had been altered prior to autopsy (my thesis, as originally published in Best Evidence, first published in January 1981; and with 3 different publishers after that. And there will be another publisher, plus an e-book, coming). IMHO: The persons responsible for "playing around" with the audio record are Dan Rather (who produced the CBS programs) and Eddie Baker (who conducted the original 1966 interview). Anyone reading this please note: There weren't any gremlins who fooled around with this record. There were real people who sat at editing machinery and --whatever the rationale provided--wanted to make the word "inviolate" go away, and make it sound like (or close to) "invalid." (And, unfortunately, they succeeded in fuzzing up this issue). But remember what was said years ago, "Truth is the daughter of time," and that's what's going to happen in this case. DSL; 4/2/2018; 4:40 PM PDT

I mean no disrespect to David Josephs, in posting this notice about my own writing. I simply want to point out that the essay that I wrote just prior to this post (scroll up, just one item) represents an effort to present, in one post, a rather complete and up-to-date summary of my views of what was going on at Love Field on the afternoon of 11/22/63, starting when Johnson boarded Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST, and extending through the time the plane departed Love Field to Washington (2:47 PM CST). By "up-to-date summary," I'm referring to the fact that much of the information in the above writing was developed in the years since the original release of Best Evidence in January 1981. That, and more, will be presented in Final Charade. DSL -4/1/2018 -9 PM PDT Orange County, California

DSL NOTICE, 3/31/2018 - 7:40 PM PDT: This post has been amended (and expanded) several times. Steve (and all others who may be interested in the "Air Force One" problem, and, in general, the details re the chain of possession of JFK's body after it left Parkland Hospital [at about 2 PM CST], and prior to its arrival at Bethesda for the autopsy [which officially commenced at 8 PM EST]): No, I don't remember when we spoke. . that was a long time ago. Now, about the goings-on in and around Air Force One, when it was parked at Love Field (and which was the site of the swearing in of LBJ at 2:38 PM CST) and which didn't take off until 2:47 PM CST. FYI: Based on my present understanding and much interviewing, the body bag (and the shipping casket) were introduced in connection with the arrival of Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, at about 6 P.M. EST. (There was no body bag or shipping casket, earlier. Details to follow in Final Charade.). Going back to Web Page 32 on this thread: For a detailed exposition of the "where and when" problem, go to Web Page 32 of this thread, and the long post that I wrote (dated March 15th), with the section labeled "The Where and When problem, Reconsidered." Keep in mind that if JFK's body arrived 20 minutes before the coffin, at the Bethesda end of the line (which it did, based on the accounts of Dennis David [Ch. 25 of B.E.], Don Rebentisch [see 1982 Epilogue to B.E., a witness who completely corroborates Dennis David, and was just as important] and documentary evidence [i.e., the Boyajian receipt, unearthed by the ARRB investigation, which records the arrival time as 18:35 (6:35 PM EST)], then the the body must have been removed from the Dallas coffin prior to the take-off of AF-1 in Dallas. This inference, or "conclusion," is just logic, and is discussed in detail in Chapter 25 of B.E. It is based on the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda and the simple fact that (as explained in detail in Chapter 25) Jacqueline Kennedy and one or more Kennedy aides (e.g., Kenneth O'Donnell) were always with the Dallas coffin from the time of the Dallas take-off (2:48 PM CST) until the time of the Bethesda arrival (6:53 PM EST, referring here to Jackie's arrival at the Bethesda front entrance, along with RFK, in the naval ambulance). Consequently, if the body arrived (at Bethesda) in a shipping casket some 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin, then the Dallas coffin must have been empty. This analysis leads to an unavoidable conclusion: "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance means an empty coffin upon take-off from Dallas." I can't go further than that, until Final Charade is published. But one additional fact should be noted. Johnson's Arrival at Air Force One: According to Secret Service reports, Lyndon Johnson left Parkland Hospital (accompanied by SS Agent Rufus Youngblood) at !:26 PM CST, and that event, showing the two of them exiting, was photographed. He (and Youngblood) arrived at Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST. LBJ was driven from Parkland Hospital to Love Field by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Traveling a short distance behind (i.e., in a separate police car) was DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence, 52, a 19 year veteran of the DPD and a captain in the Traffic Division. His chief passenger was Ladybird Johnson. I conducted a detailed, professionally filmed interview of Captain Lawrence in the summer of 1990. One of the more interesting statements he made concerned his observations as to what was occurring as Curry's car (carrying LBJ) and his own (carrying Ladybird) had entered Love Field and were approaching Air Force One. He saw people scurrying down the ramp(s) and carrying seats off the airplane. At first he was puzzled. "I knew they were making room for something," he told me. (All of this is on camera). And then, of course, it became obvious what the "something" was: that the coffin containing JFK's body would be brought to Air Force One. As the record shows, LBJ (followed by Ladybird) ran up the stairs to AF-1 at 1:40 PM. What This Implies: That the plan to remove JFK's body from the coffin that was to be placed aboard AF-1 was hatched back at Parkland Hospital, when LBJ made it a point to tell JFK's top aide, Kenneth O'Donnell, that he was leaving for Love Field, and leaving O'Donnell with the clear impression that he would be promptly leaving for Washington (aboard his own plane, AF-2). In other words, when the Kennedy group arrived at Love Field (led by SS Agent Kellerman), they (Jackie, O'Donnell, Gen. McHugh, etc.) were thoroughly unaware ("disarmed" if you will) and believed they would have AF-1 "all to themselves" (my quotes) for the trip back to Washington. That, of course, was based on what Johnson had said (and led them to believe) back at Parkland Hospital, before he departed for Love Field. But that's not what Johnson did (which raises the question of whether he was involved in a deliberate deception). What Johnson Did. Instead, and immediately upon entering the plane (AF-1), Johnson personally began hurriedly closing all the windows on the plane (lowering their plastic coverings) and pulling all the drapes shut, and demanding assistance from others, so this could be done expeditiously, throughout the plane. He then made a beeline for the cockpit and instructed the pilot (Col. Swindal) that there would be no takeoff without his say so, and that they would be waiting for "the widow and the body". (Verbatim, from SS reports, and Colonel Swindal's account). What Happened Next: As to what happened next, and here I am referring to the very public (and well photographed) on-load of the Dallas coffin, at the rear port door, followed by the covert (and almost immediate) offload of JFK's body (on the starboard side, and onto a forklift truck). Only the first event was photographed. The Secret Service prevented photography on the starboard side, and threatened to arrest a Texas Highway Patrolman who had a camera, and was trying to film. (Source: Interview with patrolman). The offload took place within a minute or two, once the Dallas coffin was placed aboard [between 2:14 PM and 2:18 PM], the times given here according to the official Secret Service chronology. For details about how this happened (i.e., the actual "mechanics" at Love Field, prior to take-off), note (i.e., "Go To") the breaker on my post which appears on Web Page 32 of this thread, with the label indicating "another" period when Jackie (et al) weren't with the coffin. That state of affairs (on the port side) was actually photographed by White House photographer Stoughton, from his vantage point standing at the top of the forward port-side staircase, as Kellerman and his clique of agents carried the coffin up the rear ramp. Those pictures--or at least some of them---were published in the late 1960s. July-Aug. 1980: The Stoughton Photos and my discovery of the "wink" photograph FYI: I obtained these photos (from the LBJ Library) in the summer of 1980, and was the first person to publish the entire set, in Best Evidence (released in mid-January, 1981). By the "entire set," I deliberately mean to include the (now infamous) "wink photograph" (showing Houston Congressman Al Thomas, who played a major role in inducing JFK to make the Texas trip, winking at Johnson, during the swearing in). I discovered this remarkable photo within days of receiving the package of photos from the LBJ Library, and I immediately showed it to Macmillan's top executives. They agreed to include this particular photo in the about-be-published book, along with a neutral caption, and that's how the "wink photograph" (as it is now known) came to be published. I also promptly interviewed --in detail, and by telephone--photographer Stoughton, then living in Florida. Stoughton was astounded that I had that particular picture, angrily demanded to know how I had obtained it, was very surprised that my source was the LBJ Library, and then--finally--calmed down and related to me his own experiences with that picture. What Stoughton Told me by phone: He had immediately seen the wink photograph, when his pictures were processed on 11/22, and arranged a personal meeting with RFK (within a day) and showed him the picture. It was too late to include any of this (Stoughton's account) in the hardcover edition of Best Evidence, but I did discuss my experiences, and in detail, when I appeared on certain talk shows (e.g., the Larry King radio show, on which I appeared for at least two hours, circa Jan-March, 1981) and will include all of this in Final Charade, and/or in an epilogue to an e-book release of Best Evidence, which is currently in the planning stages . Now back to Air Force One, on 11/22/63, and what happened at Love Field . . . What we don't have (of course) is a photo of (or a direct eyewitness to) what happened once the Dallas coffin was actually inside the plane, and during the brief period before Jackie (et al) were given the "green light" that it was OK to come on board. Also, and in the spirit of FYI: At the time the Dallas coffin was brought up the portable stairway at the rear port door and then into the tail compartment of AF-1, Johnson was in the tail compartment, "helping" (according to one USAF witness), but not visible through the open rear port door. So the Kennedy group, standing down on the tarmac, were completely unaware that LBJ was on "their airplane," Bottom line: there's no "Zapruder film" of the event, but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that that's when it (the covert offload) occurred. The presence of a fork-lift truck on the starboard side (witnessed by the pilot of Air Force II, who I interviewed about this), and the logic of the "sequence of arrivals" at the Bethesda end of the line, is the key to understanding what occurred at Love Field. Now changing the subject just a bit. . . : Re the "hallway fight" at Parkland.. . : That had nothing to do with getting the body out of the Dallas coffin. That had everything to do with preventing a Dallas autopsy; i.e., getting the body out of Parkland Hospital (and then out of Dallas), without an autopsy (as required by state law). The President's body was not removed from the original coffin at Parkland Hospital. Again: that event occurred at Air Force One, after the coffin was brought up the rear port "on-ramp", placed in the tail compartment, moved around a bit, and then "fastened" with straps. Only then was Jackie (and the other Kennedy aides) given the green light to ascend the stairs. It was doing that brief period--while Jackie (and the rest of the Kennedy party) were down on the tarmac, and before Jackie entered the aircraft--that the Dallas coffin was opened, the body hurriedly and (in effect covertly) removed via the rear starboard door, and placed on a forklift truck. Photography on the starboard side was not permitted, and one photographer, shooting with a telephoto lens from the roof of a nearby structure, was spotted doing so, had the misfortune of having his camera (and film) confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Police Chief as soon as he descended a ladder from his perch. His camera, but not his film, was later returned to him. He was told that what he had filmed was "sacrilegious," but he didn't see to understand what he may have filmed, or why that term was used. What upset him was that both his film and camera were confiscated, and that he never got his film back. (Source: DSL interview with photographer, 11/22/1998). The pilot of AF-2 witnessed the activity on the starboard side of AF-1, witnessed the fork lift truck, and I interviewed him at length, back in 1980. A clique of Secret Service agents (also) know all about what happened on AF-1, and the "national security" rationale (apparently offered by LBJ) for removing the body from the coffin and placing it "elsewhere" on Air Force One. Johnson's Whereabouts on Air Force One: Also (and again, in the spirit of "fyi"): Shortly after the "unload" (or "offload") was complete, and when the Kennedy party had ("finally") boarded, and Jackie (and others) were actually seated in the tail compartment, General McHugh--still unaware that LBJ was aboard what the Kennedy's considered "their" airplane--could not understand why there was not a prompt take-off. So McHugh, quite agitated, went forward to the cockpit. As described by Manchester, the pilot (Swindal) told McHugh that Johnson was on board, that he (LBJ) was now the president, and that he had given the order not to take off (yet). All this is spelled out in Manchester's 1967 book "The Death of a President." McHugh and O'Donnell then went looking for Johnson, who they (mistakenly) believed had already departed for Washington, on "his" airplane (AF-2). So where was Johnson? What follows is not in Manchester's book, but is in HSCA interview reports and in a radio interview with McHugh broadcast in the early 1970s. McHugh and O'Donnell found Johnson at the rear of the plane, apparently hiding in the bathroom connected with the presidential bedroom. He was hidden behind a curtain and excitedly exclaimed to McHugh (and Kenneth O'Donnell, who was with him): "Leave me alone!! (or "Get out of here!"). The Secret Service told me to hide in here! There's a worldwide conspiracy!" LBJ, according to McHugh was very panicky. As noted, this incident is detailed in HSCA interview reports of McHugh, and in a detailed radio interview of McHugh on CBC, back in the early 1970s. Further details can be supplied; and I do remember the name of the show: a very detailed radio documentary titled "Thou Shalt Not Kill." (Its a well known interview to JFK researchers.) Johnson's Changed Shirt. When Johnson emerged from the bathroom, and was next seen in the Stateroom for the swearing in, it was noted (by JFK aide Larry O'Brien, in his memoir No Final Victories) that Johnson had changed his shirt. So much for the goings-on aboard Air Force One. Admiral Burkley was noted with blood on his sleeves. (He later told Manchester that that was the result of his having reached into a trash can at Parkland Hospital, to retrieve a rose to give to Mrs. Kennedy, as a souvenir.) The lack of a proper investigation. If the Warren Commission--not to mention the FBI--had interviewed the people I and an associate managed to locate and interview, and done the kind of detailed analytic work that I have done with timelines and chronology, there would not be so much mystery about what happened aboard Air Force One in the period between the 2:05 PM arrival of the ambulance, with the coffin, from Parkland; through the coffin unload (2:14 to 2:18, according to SS reports), and then the swearing in (2:38 PM), and--finally--the take-off of AF-1 from Dallas, which occurred at 2:47 PM CST. ( Its not "rocket science".) This whole period is discussed in Chapter 31 of Best Evidence, based on what I knew by April 1, 1980, the final due date for the Best Evidence manuscript. But I know more about it today, and additional details will be included in Final Charade. * * * As far as Walton is concerned, you can ignore just about everything he says. He seems to repeat the same points, over and over, posing questions that have already been addressed (as if his repeated posts make what he has to say valid) , behaving like a slow-witted learner who constantly raises his hand, asks absurd questions, and drags an entire class down. He presents as an ignoramus, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be that dense. I think he's motivated by a certain degree by malice, plus an apparent need to call attention to himself, no matter how absurd his comments and observations. Most of his posts appear to be a juvenile effort to weaponize his own (supposed) stupidity. DSL 3/29/2018 -6:15 PDT; amended at 10:35 PM PDT; again on 3/30/18 at 11:35 AM; and 9:30 PM; 3/31/18 at 7:40 PM.. Santa Monica, California

Hello Michael Clark: After I first began posting on this thread, I was told (i.e., as in "warned") privately about Walton, and his general behavior; i.e., that he was a "know-nothing" who was a pest. It was obvious, just from the way he responded to my posts, that he doesn't understand the case. Perhaps he's just slow-witted; or, as they used to say back in my college days, he was "someone whose elevator doesn't run to the top." I don't want to waste even a minute on him. I'm willing to entertain any competent criticism from anyone who is willing to deal with the evidence, or sensibly deal with the model of conspiracy that I am proposing. That's why I wrote the post that I did; its a "preview" of sorts to a lot of "other" information that I have, and that will be in Final Charade. If someone has objections to any thesis that I have advanced, I'm interested in hearing about what those objections are. For example, there are some people who are unwilling to believe that this was a body-centric plot; or unwilling to believe that any Secret Service agents could be involved; or unwilling to believe that anyone would "Plan in advance" to alter the President's body, in the aftermath of the shooting; or that the body could be removed from the coffin ("no matter what the evidence is" etc). I'm interested in becoming familiar with the psychological attitudes of those who follow the case; and, of course, what is perhaps most valuable of all is when someone points out a genuine error in my own analysis (which I would then immediately seek to correct); or perhaps can add a piece of evidence that I had neglected to take into account in the first place. Thanks to all. DSL 3/15/2018 - 10:50 PM PDT Orange County, California

Andrej: No, it was not a "random" choice. (But, presently at least, I do not believe it was sinister). FYI: The Parkland Hospital reports (see Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes) contain at least one where Clint Hill states that a casket is needed, that he is told of ONeals Funeral Home, and either he gets on the phone directly (or tells someone who is on the phone) that they (ONeal) should select "the finest." So no, it was not random. The "finest" were the operative words, and Vernon Oneal then chose the "top of the line" Elgin Brittania. In general, I would be very careful, if not very wary, about inferring that because an SS agent said to bring "the finest", that that person (making such a specific request) already had in mind that the body would be removed from the coffin, and so deliberately wished to see that a rather heavy casket be selected, and brought to Parkland. I think that "the finest" would be language that would be reasonable for an SS agent to use, in view of the fact that the coffin was being requested for the body of the President. Candidly, I've never viewed that language as being suspicious--although in the JFK case, "anything is possible," and you are correct that if an ordinary "shipping casket" had been brought to Parkland, and if it was intended to remove the body from that type of casket, then the "empty casket" (after such a removal) would be rather obvious. Still, my belief would come down on the side of "innocence"--that it was reasonable to request "the finest" casket, since it was the president of the U.S. DSL - 3/15/18 - 11:08 AM PDT Orange County, California

THIS POST HAS BEEN RE-EDITED FROM THE TIME WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED Rick McTague: I see that you are a relative newcomer to this forum, and that you seem to be interested in the matter of the arrival of more than one casket (in fact, two caskets) at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63, each of which supposedly contained JFK's body, but --in fact--only the first actually did. The second was empty. Then there followed some rigmarole in which the second casket (the Dallas casket, the one which arrived in the naval ambulance, carrying Jackie and RFK, and which was empty) was brought to the Bethesda morgue (the 7:17 PM entry), "loaded" with JFK's body, brought back outside, and then brought back in at 8 PM (under the watchful eye of the tri-service honor guard) in order to conceal the fact that the body had been intercepted in the first place. I have referred to this "three entries of two caskets" and the situation in treated in considerable detail, and with appropriate timelines, in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. That chapter is titled "The Lake County Informant"--the "informant" being Dennis David (who died recently) and whose account, if true (and I am certain that it is ) establishes that the coffin in the naval ambulance that arrived at 6:53/6:55 PM at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. was empty. Why? Because Dennis David had already witnessed the true arrival of the body, some 20 minutes before, in a black hearse, and in a shipping casket. In fact, he had assisted by arranging for some of his men to bring that casket to the morgue; and it was only some "20 minutes later" (as he originally described it to me) and after he had gone "back upstairs" and to the front of Bethesda, that he witnessed the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jackie and Bobby. (This sequence was later corroborated by documentary evidence--i.e., by the discovery of the Boyajian document (Sgt. Boyajian being the USMC person in charge of "morgue security", which indicates that the body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM). The discovery of this situation was truly remarkable, and marked a major turning point in my JFK research. I interviewed Dennis David on July 2, 1979--and you can read what he told me. verbatim, in Chapter 25. Then, about two weeks later, the HSCA report was released, and there was the statement --in Appendix Volume 7 (devoted to the medical evidence) --that JFK's body arrived in a body bag (!). That led to my interviewing Paul O"Connor on 8/25/79. The combination of Dennis David (on 7/2/79) and then Paul O'Connor on 8/25/79, was dynamite. If these accounts were true, that mean the Dallas coffin in the naval ambulance was indeed empty; and that led to a meeting with the top people at Macmillan (my publisher) as to what to do in light of these new and startling developments. That led to agreement--in effect--to a lengthening of the book (which originally would have ended at about Chapter 24, but now, as a consequence of these discoveries, extended out to chapter 32), and to a changed due date. Meanwhile, I had to contend with another "research" issue. which can be boiled down to one word: "When?" When was the body removed from the original Dallas coffin? Just how did that happen? "When and where"? THE "WHEN AND WHERE" PROBLEM Within an hour of getting off the phone with Dennis David, I knew that the President's body must have been removed, from the Dallas coffin, prior to takeoff. This was apparent, indeed obvious, just from a careful studying of time lines. Just from studying the time line of events, the following proposition (which I viewed as an important corollary) was crystal clear; "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty coffin upon take-off in Dallas." See Chapter 25 of B.E., where this is all spelled out, just as I experienced it. To the explain this (originally to myself, but then to the reader), I thought of it as running a hypothetical picture film, with the focus on the Dallas coffin, "in reverse," starting with the arrival of that coffin in the naval ambulance,at the Bethesda front entrance. If you "ran it backwards," it was very clear that nothing could have happened after Jackie entered the ambulance at Andrews. The naval ambulance never stopped anywhere between Andrews and Bethesda. Then, continuing the "thought experiment" of "running the film backwards," it was clear that nothing happened between the time Jacqueline stepped onto the mechanical lift, when it was in the "raised position" and when it was lowered to ground level, at Andrews. Finally, by running it backwards one more step, to takeoff, it was clear that nothing happened once Air Force One took off from Dallas. Sp again, let me repeat the corollary: an empty casket at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty casket upon takeoff from Dallas. The logic was airtight: the question was: when could the body have been removed from the coffin (i.e., when, "before take-off") could that have occurred? At the time (July 2, 1979, and in the days following) I was well aware of the dispute over the circumstances of the LBJ swearing in and how the swearing in of LBJ caused a delay in the take-off of the flight back to Washington. The dispute centered around why the necessity for such a swearing in before the take-off? Lyndon Johnson said it was necessary because "Bobby told me I should be sworn in before take-off" ( and so that was the reason the take-off was delayed); but Bobby--upon hearing this version of events, directly from Jackie and Kenneth O'Donnell, after the Kennedy party arrived back in Washington, denied any such instruction. In other words, there was a direct conflict between what Lyndon Johnson said was the reason for the delay, and what RFK said. And all of this burst into the public discussion in March 1967, when the Manchester book was published. Because that's when it was first brought to light, and aired publicly. And so, from the beginning (again, July 1979), I focused on the swearing in, with all those people being drawn towards the area with LBJ, at the time this covert removal (of the body, from the coffin) must have occurred in the tail compartment. As I say, this was my original view, but.this initial conclusion turned out to be incorrect; but that's the way it appeared to me, initially. THE PRESENTATION IN BEST EVIDENCE (as published in January 1981) Anyway, I gave an accurate account of how I reasoned with the known evidence, and presented it that way in Best Evidence, which, by the way, was not reviewed by TIME, but instead, in a break with standard procedure, the publication of my book was covered as a news story --two full pages splashed across the National Affairs section of TIME, January 19 1981. (Furthermore, there had been serious consideration at TIME of buying first serial rights--i.e., and publishing it in TIME, as series of magazine articles). But. . The "but" is that within a month of publication, General Godfrey McHugh (JFK's Air Force Aide, who was on the Dallas trip, and made it his personal mission, almost as a matter of honor, to always "stay with the coffin" wrote a letter to TIME Magazine saying, in effect, "This coudn't have happened, the way the author states it did. Why? Because I was there, in the tail compartment, the whole time. I never left! And no one took the body out of the coffin." I respected Godfrey McHugh, having spoken to him twice, in lengthy conversations, in connection with the researching and writing of Best Evidence. So . . what to do about this? If McHugh's account was accurate, then when could the body have been removed from the casket? WHAT WILLIAM MANCHESTER SAID ABOUT McHUGH (in The Death of a President, published in March 1967): When I consulted Manchester's The Death of a President, he provided some important detail. He painted a picture of McHugh so upset by the delayed departure, that he was constantly leaving the area, at the back of Air Force One, and going to the front, and to the pilot's cabin, wanting to know what the delay in the take-off was all about? (McHugh did not realize that Johnson was aboard the plane--"somewhere"--and had ordered the pilot not to take off until (a) the body arrived and (b) until he personally gave the order to take-off. Manchester paints a picture of McHugh as so upset that if that plane didn't take off soon, he would fly it! (He was an Air Force Brigidair General). Anyway this is where matters stood by about February 1, 1981. This event, the removal of JFK's body from the Dallas asket --which was dictated by the sequence of the arrivals of the two ambulances at Bethesda later that day (the black hearse at the back at about 6:35 pm and the naval ambulance at 6:55 pm) represented a logic which made clear that if the body was no longer in the Dallas casket---then the "removl" must have occurred during the swearing in. Because there was no other time that Jackie wasn't with the casket. Or so I thought. . . Now flash-forward to the summer of 1984 --three full years after the publication of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence. I was back in Los Angeles (I was living in New Jersey at the time, but was on a visit to L..A., where I maintained an apartment); and was up at the UCLA campus. It was a beautiful bright sunny day, and I was walking across the campus, and suddenly, I had this very important insight: the swearing in of LBJ was not the only time that (at Love Field) the Kennedy party was separated from the casket prior to take-off. That was an incorrect statement, and I could hardly believe that I had made such an error. The Other Time Period (when Jackie wasn't with the casket) . . first "discovered" in the summer of 1984 The "other" time period was when the cream colored ambulance from Parkland had first arrived, and Jacqueline and others congregated on the tarmac on the port side of Air Force One. As photographed by White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, a group of SS agents, led by senior agent Roy Kellerman, carried the Dallas coffin up the stairs, and into the tail compartment. Then they had to turn left, which caused the coffin to be lost from sight, and there followed a brief pause as there was the activity of supposedly "securing" it against the wall of the airplane. So that took a bit of time; not much, but some additional seconds. Very likely a minute (or maybe at most two minutes). It as during this period that Kellerman (et al) were with the coffin, in the tail compartment, while Jacqueline Kennedy, and others, were still down on the tarmac. There is no "Zapruder film" of Jacqueline Kennedy's ascension up the steps, but it was not immediate. There was a small time interval. Most important: That was the only "other" period, and I now realized that, back in July 1979, when I first interviewed Dennis David, I had never taken that into account. So now, everything changed, and I had to deal with what is sometimes referred to as a "paradigm shift." I was forced to re-examine the "old" data and forced to deal with certain "new" possibilities and conclusions. MY OWN INFERENCES FROM THIS "NEW" DATA It was during that period, that Kellerman (and others) opened the coffin, and hustled the body across to the starboard side of the aircraft (a very small distance, inside a Boeing 707) and to the rear starboard door --actually a "half-door"-- and off the plane. That was just a hypothesis (at the outset of this reevaluation, in the summer of 1984); but then, in the years following, I found more evidence - -evidence of a forklift truck being utilized on the starboard side of AF-1. It was even better than that: I had an important witness who saw something being offloaded or onloaded via the forklift. I'l have much more to say about all this in Final Charade, but rest assured that, with certain additional evidence, the conclusion I have reached can be stated quite succinctly: JFK's body was removed from Air Force One between the time Kellerman was at the top of those rear port stairs (and again, I refer you to the photographs taken by Cecil Stoughton), and the time that Jacqueline Kennedy (and others) ascended those same stairs, entered the tail compartment, and took their seats, assuming an immediate takeoff--which, as is now known, did not occur At least not immediately. Because as the Kennedy party soon found out, Lyndon Johnson was aboard what they viewed as "their" airplane, and was now telling Kenneth O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien that there must be a delay, because he (LBJ) had to be sworn in prior to take-off. And why was that so? Because, said LBJ, Bobby told him that he must do that. There is additional detail about what occurred, and when, etc. The bottom line: JFK 's body was removed via the rear starboard door, and it ended up in the forward luggage compartment. More later. Well, there is --in fact--one other matter that I'd like to mention, something that I believe I wrote about back in 1982, when the first paperback edition of Best Evidence was published. IMPLICATIONS OF A BODY-CENTRIC PLOT The only reason that Kellerman (et al) were able to act so quickly (with regards to the body) is that, from the outset, this was a body-centric plot. I used this phrase in describing the basic structure of the JFK murder plot, in my talk at Bismarck State College in November 2013 (Google: David Lifton Bismarck, for a video). From the outset, there was a "twin focus" if you will: (a) to murder the President and then (b) to alter the body (retrieve bullets, and alter wounds) so as to lay the groundwork for a false autopsy, one designed to "doctor the body" so as to change the basic facts of the shooting, and incriminate a pre-selected patsy. To elaborate just a bit. . : from the standpoint of plotters, JFK's body was viewed in two separate contexts: (a) a person to be murdered; and then (b) after death, a target to be altered. However, the plan (as originally conceived) didn't work as intended--and a major problem developed --when Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot. This not only led to major confusion, but a serious malfunction in the original plan, and much of which then occurred was sheer improvisation --i.e., was done "ad hoc" (as they say in Latin). First of all, there was now an extra "body"--and Gov JC wasn't dead. But whether he lived or died, the true circumstances of how he was shot would have to be falsified (if the original "lone nut" scenario was to be maintained). Furthermore, there was still another complication to Gov JC having been shot: had he not been shot, and if there were complications with getting JFK's body out of the state without an autopsy, the Governor (a close and lifelong friend of LBJ) could probably be relied upon to issue an executive order going along with such a request. But once shot seriously (as he was), it was hardly possible for an aide to show up in his Operating Room, clipboard in hand, and say, "Governor, would you mind signing this? They want to take the President's body out of Texas, without an autopsy." And that's just one of several problems. So many things happened after the shooting of JC that were strictly ad hoc; and --in Final Charade--I hope that there will be sufficient evidence to persuade the reader that this was a plot that was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution." I bring up this subject not only because I have written about it before, publicly (but probably not at this length, and with such specificity); but because unless one understands the basic concept (and implications) of this being a "body-centric" plot (one in which the conclusions of a future investigation could be "structured in advance' via alterations on the body) it is difficult to comprehend how, upon reaching Love Field, anyone would be prepared to remove JFK's body from the Dallas casket, in order to change its condition (and future autopsy conclusions) so as to harmonize with some pre-conceived scenario. DSL 3/15/2018 - 3 AM PDT; edited, 5:35 AM PDT; edited 10:50 AM PDT) Orange County, California

Andre - - post whatever you wish, and whatever you deem necessary to make your points. Walton's objections (and many of his statements) are pure rubbish. When it comes to photo evidence and "truth," this is a guy who changed his avatar from a true picture (he's just under 50) and tries to pose as a teenager. Enough said. FYI: when (in 1988) I made the decision to publish the autopsy photos (in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence), I had to face the possibility of offending certain partisans of the Kennedy family, if not Kennedy family members themselves. I wrote an Epilogue making the point that the publication of these photos raised "competing interests." Specifically, that while, in an ideal world, everyone would want sensitivity towards the living, we should also pursue the goal of justice for the dead. And that's the key: truth in history, and justice for the dead are closely related. Some people just don't "get it." They can't even be relied to tell the truth about their own age, much less answer simple questions about their education. They'd rather pose as someone they're not, and raise a bunch of disingenuous objections about how "oh so upset" they are, by autopsy photos. This is the kind of pretentious phony that might appear as a fringe character in a novel, but is not to be taken seriously in a discussion of the most important evidence in this murder case: the body of President John F. Kennedy. Carry on. DSL 3/13/2018 - 10 PM PDT Orange County, California

Hello Michael Clark: Still no email. . You may be making a common error. . The proper address is DSL74@Cornell.edu Not DS174@Cornell.edu To repeat: the third character in the email address is "L", not "1" Inserting some spaces, for clarity. . : Again:. . DSL 74 @Cornell.edu (written: DSL74@Cornell.edu) Not DS 174 @Cornell.edu FYI: Still have not received any email from you. See what you can do to correct the situation. DSL

David Von Pein: As I recall--and I'm not certain of this--I first heard of Dr. David Stewart because of the major news story that appeared in a Tennessee newspaper. Perhaps someone sent me that newspaper, or perhaps I obtained it via UCLA's "Interlibrary Loan" facility. But I clearly remember possessing it, and opening a separate manila file folder for it. What was unusual about it (to the point that I was rather skeptical) was that Stewart was stating that Dr. Perry did not have to make a tracheotomy incision; and that (somehow) he ws able to use the pre-existing bullet hole in the front of the neck as the entry point for the tracheotomy procedure. Now jumping to the present. . . : Because of time constraints, I have to postpone any further discussion of Dr. Stewart at this point, but I do intend to return to the subject, and Pat Valentino has been reviewing the June 1989 filmed interview with Stewart. The only point I wish to make here: Dr. Stewart never said (to me) that he was in ER-1. Ever. To the contrary, he made clear that he was not. He made that point in my 1982 telephone conversation with him, and again in the June 1989 filmed interview. With regard to JFK's wounding, he was a witness to what the other doctors told him, not to what he saw. If you could compile what he said on the few occasions that he spoke publicly (as you have been doing) that would be helpful. I am endeavoring to get the major story in the Tennessee newspaper (the Nashville Banner, as I recall) which was the first time I had heard of him. What was most impressive about that story was not just its detail, but the "early" date (1967, I think). Both Pat and I met him in person, at his home (June 1989), and spent at least 5 hours with him. He is very well spoken and impressive. He would make a very credible witness before a jury. Despite all of that, I did not believe what he said when it came to the word Dr. Perry used because--at that point in time (the night we filmed him)--I believed (erroneously as it turned out) that the filmed interview of Perry had him saying "invalid" and not "inviolate." I believed that because of the CBS transcript as published in the Stephen White book. When we went to Groden's home the next day (or the day after that--i.e., 2 days later) and were watching the CBS Perry interview, Pat and I were both astounded to hear Perry very clearly use the word "inviolate." We both rose up out of our separate chairs, simultaneously, exclaiming "What??!!!" And such things as "Robert, please back it up and play that again!" etc. The rest of what happened I have previously written about. Now there are two other matters I will hurriedly report here, to be further elaborated upon when time permits: ITEM #1: What Robert Groden told us during the filmed interview - - A New Fact Pat Valentino, reviewing the video tapes over the last few days (before he had to leave town on personal business) emailed me that the following repartee took place when Groden (and the Baltimore reporter) visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office. Upon being shown the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. (This was actually stated during the filmed interview). Groden agreed, and that is when Perry said "OK" (or words to that effect); and it was then that he shook his head from side-to-side, and said that that was not the way he left the wound. Why I bring this up: This is in response to your question, DVP, as to (possibly) why Groden may not have reported the incident when he wrote his book, The Killing of a President. Remember what I said: I said that (in 1993) he wouldn't want to say anything which would indicate an agreement with body alteration; but based upon the June 1989 filmed interview that Pat V has been reviewing, Groden may have felt constrained by an (informal, and certainly legally unenforceable) agreement with the late Dr. Perry. ITEM #2: Audio analysis A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts). He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have reviewed it, I will pass it along. DSL 3/9/2018 - 9:40 PM PST Orange County, California

Michael Walton: QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (above): QUOTE ON: Yes, they were Ray and even if they weren't who and what in the world were they doing grabbing a bloody corpse out of a coffin mid-flight in a tight place like an airplane? Come one, Ray. Do you really think this could have happened unnoticed and not a single person has EVER gone on the record who was in that airplane state anything suspicious? UNQUOTE Just a minute, Walton: "bloody corpse". . . "mid flight" etc etc ? This is a good example of how you function. I never said--nor does anything I have ever written (or stated) anywhere or anytime--say or imply any such thing. As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be disqualified from participating in any discussion on the JFK assassination. Michael Walton: Go see a good therapist and get your psyche checked. To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom are sensible, know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale., FWIW: I do not have the time to spend refuting all of the nonsense this jerk promotes, but this is a perfect example and so I jumped in here just to make a point. I was tipped off early on about his behavior and so that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I cannot afford to spend time doing "clean-up" with the garbage trail left by a person with such a loose connection to reality. Also note how, despite multiple requests, he has failed to respond to my request(s) and post reliable background info. Obviously, he has something to hide, and FWIW I'm no longer interested in what that "something" is. DSL 3/9/2018 - 8:45 PM PST

3/9/2018 - 8:35 PM PST Michael Clark, Re your statement, "Hi David, it looks like I already e-mailed you. I'll look back and see if I have anything new." RESPONSE: No, Michael;I have not received any email as yet. Please try again. Use: DSL74@Cornell.edu Thanks. DSL

Friday, 3/9/2018 - - 7:05 PM PST Hi Michael Clark: I really did appreciate your email, which I found not just informative, but genuinely amusing. OK. . . here's the email address that I believe you wanted: DSL74@cornell.edu Repeating: DSL74@Cornell.edu Looking forward to hearing from you. Please put "JFK" or "Friend from Education Forum" in the subject line. Many thanks. Best, DSL

To all those who are following this person and his posts.. .: Walton is setting up his own "reality distortion field" for those naive, credulous or foolish enough to believe (or rely upon) anything he has to say. When it comes to my book, practically every single statement he makes about how this covert operation worked (or how and where the body was altered) is either factually wrong or a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said in Best Evidence. His postings --sentence after sentence- -are filled with falsehoods and straw men containing multiple misrepresentations about my supposed beliefs. His most bizarre assertion is that I "took a word here and there and turned it into a body alteration theory." What total nonsense, as anyone can see from reading Best Evidence, and the very careful way I went about reporting what was in the record. When the book was first published, a law school asked me for permission to use part of it in a class. ("Earth to Walton. . are you there?") I asked him earlier to provide some personal history as to his personal background and education. The reply: NADA. A deafening silence. (Does anyone have reliable information as to who he is?) If you believe this uninformed person and his goofy posts, which repeatedly misstate facts and weave together his imaginings into a fabric of sheer fantasy, then implicitly one must subscribe to the following absurd proposition: that, by cleverly misquoting a few documents "here and there," I cleverly deceived the top executives at Macmillan (and also at Book of the Month Club), along with hundreds of thousands of readers whose interest led to my work being at the top of the best seller lists for 3 plus months in the spring of 1981, and then being published by three additional major publishers (Dell, Carrol & Graf and New American Library [1993]). And oh yes: I also deceived UCLA law prof Liebeler, who was so concerned with the evidence I brought to his attention in October 1966 that he drafted a 13 page memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the entire staff of the Warren Commission, Senator Robert Kennedy and LBJ. And, oh yes, I somehow caused all the witnesses, whose accounts I documented in Best Evidence (and which can also be viewed on the Best Evidence Research Video) to not have remembered what they witnessed and which a wide assortment of official documents reported as fact). Its difficult to describe this individual --and his strained connection to reality--accurately without violating the rules for civil discourse on this forum. But OMG! If only Michael Walton had been around, and sharing his profound wisdom and insights for the past several decades. .. : just think! So much of this JFK controversy could have been avoided! Sure Michael Walton . . . in your dreams. Meanwhile, how about addressing the questions that I previously asked? Surely you have some general idea of who you are? Surely you are able to describe that, without engaging in falsehood and fantasy? Why not share it? Its so easy. Just pretend you are taking a selfie, only doing it with words. You know how to employ words in the service of truth. . .don't you? What are you hiding? DSL 3/9/2018 - 3:10 PM PST

DSL NOTE - 3/7/2018 - 6 PM PST For those readers who may be interested in background on the original discovery of the "empty casket" evidence (and the body bag)--which began in July 1979--and how that changed the structure of Best Evidence (as originally designed) and the subsequent process of publication of the book, the following information is provided. Thank you all for the ongoing interest in my work. DSL BEGINNING WITH Rick McTague (i.e., starting with your commentary from a previous post): Running the risk of being included in your insults and vitriol [directed at Michael Walton --DSL], I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body (covered in sheets, in a body bag) that are a matter of record and hard evidence, none of which match the condition of the body matched to the casket as it left Parkland. Thanks for your support. The fact that someone is voluble (but ignorant) does not mean that what they are saying is true (or that it has any validity). My advice: ignore that kind of uninformed "commentary." JULY 2, 1979 - - HOW THE "Published" VERSION OF BEST EVIDENCE REALLY BEGAN FYI: The evidence of the multiple casket arrivals was first discovered (by me) on July 2, 1979, when I first spoke with Dennis David (as described in detail in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence ["The Lake County Informant"]). Then came the next event: it was corroborated by the release of the HSCA Report (within one or two weeks, which reported that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, and then all of that was corroborated by my (first) conversation with Paul O'Connor [Aug 25, 1979]). At that point, my literary agent (Peter Shepherd) arranged for a special meeting with the top executives at my publisher, Macmillan, because it became imperative to explain what I had discovered, and to change the "due date" for the book (and that was done). A description of all this "high drama" will be contained in Final Charade. As my interviewing continued, and the overall findings became apparent, the Macmillan executives became increasingly excited by the potential importance of the book. On the one hand, they were in the business of publishing a hardcover book; but on the other, they were dealing with something that had the quality of a "fast-breaking news story." They wanted it to be accurate, but they didn't want to see it "stolen" or to be scooped. They made clear to me that this would be the "number one" book , on their "A list", when it was published, and they even gave me an office on the main executive floor, at Macmillan [866 Third Avenue, NYC, if anyone cares to check]. Really: think about that. After the manuscript was finally turned in (4/1/1980), I had an office on "executive row" at Macmillan! The whole experience was surreal, and I've written it up for inclusion in Final Charade. I've never heard of a writer being given an office at the publisher, but that's what happened to me. Then Book of the Month Club stepped up and made arrangements for it to be a BOM Selection (an "alternate" for one of the Spring 1981 months). Macmillan's executives realized it could be a dynamite book, but they also demanded accuracy. The publication of the information, even though in hardcover (which normally takes a year) had the quality of a fast-breaking news story, and to speed production, the President (Albert Litewka) came up with the plan to split the 1877 page triple-spaced manuscript into two parts: each had a code name, and each went through the production process separately (e.g., copy-editing, legal, etc.) and then the two parts would be "joined" together towards the end of the production process. It worked, and B.E. was brought to market in record time. Then Macmillan bought the cover of Publisher's Weekly , the industry trade magazine, around September 1980, to announce the forthcoming publication of the book. Also: they then agreed with my suggestion that the key witnesses that I had just discovered and interviewed by phone, ought to be re-interviewed on camera. I was worried that the TV program 60 Minutes would "re-interview" my key witnesses, do some tricky editing, and create the appearance that I had misrepresented their accounts. I was particularly concerned about Dan Rather, who was one of the top producers at 60 Minutes, and was CBS's so called "Kennedy expert." So my suggestion was to, in effect, stage a "pre-emptive strike" against such a possibility. If we interviewed the witnesses first, and they confirmed their accounts, as told to me via telephone, that would greatly minimize the possibility of some "wise guy" editing, aimed at undercutting the credibility of the work. October 1980 - - the creation of the Best Evidence Research Video So I was thrust into the role of being a documentary film producer, without ever having had any film-making experience. Fortunately, I had a few great friends and associates and my learning curve was rapid. I departed New York City, with a fully professional film crew (16mm cameraman, and first rate sound man) in late October 1980, when B.E. had already been sent to the printer. We visited five cities and interviewed five key witnesses, returning to New York City with thousands of feet of film that had to be processed (at Duart) and then properly edited. The editing expert was Arnon Mishkin, a recent Yale graduate who was also a key editor and producer at WNET-TV, the New York City PBS station. Mishkin and I spend hundreds of hours going over and over the footage, and constructing a "program" that used the style and technique of 60 Minutes. I vividly remember spending many hours in a 10th floor editing room overlooking Broadway; and particularly the time we spent there on Thanksgiving 1980, at the time of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. As we worked making decisions and executing the edits, the Macy's float with the traditional (and very giant) Mickey Mouse balloon floated right by our window. At one point, we had a visit from Dan Rather's producer (Steve Glauber) who was astounded at what we had found, and said--repeatedly, as he viewed our footage-- "Oh boy, Dan [Rather] is going to love this!" Well it didn't work out that way. Dan did not "love" the footage--at all. To the contrary, he pretended "not to understand". In other words, the same guy that misreported the Zapruder head snap would claim that he "didn't understand" why anyone would alter the body. (Read on. . ) DECEMBER 1980- DSL AT 60 Minutes (and meetings with Don Hewitt, and another with Dan Rather) In mid-December [1980], I and the President of Macmillan (Albert Litewka) and the Editor in Chief (George Walsh) and Mishkin: all of us attended an important meeting with Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of 60 Minutes, and screened the original "cut" of the footage. It was about 45 minutes long., When the lights went up, an incredulous Hewitt almost couldn't believe what he had seen; and most specifically, as I later came to realize, that a private citizen had unearthed material of such importance, and was bringing it to him, already documented., "Did you pay these people?!" he yelled, very angrily. By this time I had had enough, and shot back, "Yes, a dollar for the release!" (You're supposed to get a legal release, before filming anyone, and of course we had done exactly that. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT. . .There was some back and forth, and then Mishkin, who had a personal relationship with Hewitt, said, "C'mon Don, calm down. This is important stuff, and David's got it on film" (or words to that effect). In fact, Hewitt calmed down, and soon was an enthusiastic proponent of getting it broadcast nationally. He said that Dan Rather (then one of the key 60 Minute producers [there was so many of them that the show was called, by insiders, "60 Producers"] should be the next to screen the material. Mid -DECEMBER 1980 --I MEET WITH DAN RATHER Within a week, I was seated alone in a screening room with Rather, and once again, and for the umpteenth time, watched the film. When the lights came on, it became apparent that there was a problem. At first I almost couldn't believe it, and when relating what happened next, anyone reading this (net post) must understand that I was much more naive in December 1980, and than I am today. Here was "the problem": Rather said (or pretended) that he was confused, and didn't understand why anyone would want to "alter the body." At one point he actually said, ":Since Oswald killed the President, why would anyone want to alter the body?" This is the same Dan Rather who, back in 1966, had interviewed Humes in detail as to exactly how many holes there were in President Kennedy's body, and which ones were entrance, and which were exit. (See the CBS Program, broadcast in June 1967). Without question (I later realized, in retrospect), Dan Rather of course (!) understood that "the body" was the key evidence, and that "the wounds" (i.e., the holes on the body ) constituted "a diagram of the shooting". In retrospect I realized this (i.e., that Rather's reaction was disingenuous), but at the time, I didn't fully realize it; and so initially, I was simply amazed, and flabbergasted. I gave him (Rather) the benefit of the doubt, and thought he was serious. So, believing that to be the case, I tried to explain,. .one point, after another, as if I was "explaining" the basic concepts of body alteration to a retarded high school student. (Privately, I was thinking: How can this be? How can a person who appears to be so dumb, such a complete blockhead, be in such an important position at CBS?) Finally, after a few innings of this (of playing this "game", I asked him: "Dan,what do you think of these witnesses?" Oh, replied Rather, I just think you found some people who remember things a bit differently. Really, Dan Rather said words just about like that., In a future writing, possibly in FInal Charade, I will have more, a lot more, to say about Dan Rather, because I now know considerably more about him, and what he knew [on 11/22/63], and when he knew it. As he told a media producer who is friend of mine, about the JFK's murder (in the late 1970s), and in that clipped repertorial twang: "I have a private and a pubic opinion about the JFK case." Dan Rather declined to be "the producer" for the show, which had been approved by Don Hewitt, and so Best Evidence was never aired on 60 Minutes, even though it became a New York Times best seller, was number 1 in several cities, was number one at least one of the two wire services (and possibly both). Meanwhile, and now going back to mid-January 1981, as publication date approached, TIME magazine expressed interest in buying the serial rights to the book (i.e., for magazine publication), but that didn't work out. (But it almost happened). What did happen was that, in the January 19, 1981 issue, TIME devoted 2 full pages to Best Evidence, as a news story, in the National Affairs section. "Now, a Two Casket Argument" was the headline. I will try to place exhibits, up here on this thread, to illustrate these events. (For context, please remember: this was the week that President Reagan was inaugurated). mid- January 1981: Macmillan kicked off the publicity tour for Best Evidence with a major event at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, D.C. I screened the the full length Best Evidence Research Video for a roomful of reporters. (Seth Kantor was there)., Also present was Jim Lesar, who never supported my work (and who had once tried to lock me out of the AARC offices, in Washington, after the late Bud Fensterwald (a good friend) had approved my visit, but then had to attend to some business, outside the country, leaving everything "in Jim's hands"). I watched as Lesar (along with a friend of his) were trying to walk off with as many copies of Best Evidence (the hardcover) as they could stuff into their jackets. It was not a pretty sight. Within a day or two, I departed NYC for a 20 city cross country book tour. About the second week of February, I was having lunch with a friend in Chicago, when the restaurant manager called me to a telephone (there were no cell phones back then). It was mid-week (about Wednesday), but the person in charge of publicity at Macmillan was calling to tell me the good news; that this coming Sunday, we would be on the New York Times best seller list. That was extraordinary. Hurray! In the above writing, I have described some of the main features of the unusual experience I had between July 2, 1979, and my first conversation with Dennis David, and mid-January, 1981, when my book was featured, in two full pages, as a news story, in TIME. On July 2, 1979, and for the first time, I discovered the evidence that made it clear that the Dallas coffin, the one that was off-loaded from Air Force One, upon its arrival at Andrews Air Force Base at 6 PM, was empty. I know knew that to be true because, according to Dennis David's account, the body had arrived earlier, some 20 minutes prior to the coffin. In the space of 18 months, I investigated this radical thesis, found additional supporting witnesses, re-written the entire ending to Best Evidence (adding seven additional chapters, starting at chapter 25), and made a documentary film. In July 1979, I was 39, living in my parents home in Rockaway Beach, New York, with no particular employment other than my Macmillan book contract and no major support except for Peter Shepherd, my literary agent; Dr. Bernard Kenton, a dear friend and family man with a PhD in physics, my parents, Pat Lambert, and JFK researcher Paul Hoch. By January 1981, I was 41. The whole experience was akin to a roller coaster ride, in which many of the days were like a living nightmare, working against seemingly impossible deadlines; then came sleep, and then I'd wake up the next day to a continuation of the same nightmare, with the roller coaster always seeming to be about to come off the rails. Yes, there was a happy ending, a first -rate happy ending, but the journey to the finish line was unforgettable and very scary. Today, anyone can view the 37 minute "Best Evidence video" --containing the interviews conducted in late October 1980- - on the Internet. It now has almost 45,000 views. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWFvcrp-ao DECEMBER 1982 to the present: I now have conducted many more interviews than I had back in 1980, and have much more footage. With the assistance of family funding (my father, who emigrated from Russia, had four brothers, and my mother was the youngest of 8, so I had many cousins) I conducted major additional filmed interviews in 1989 and 1990, and then additional interviews as I thought necessary (and could afford) afford, over the years. The total cost of my work on the JFK assassination, most of it plain ordinary expenses such a food, rent, auto insurance, etc., but extenting over a period that began in mid-1966, and has extended to the present, has been about 1.8 million dollars. (And that's not a typo). Moreover. . : Final Charade has become not just a definitive book about Lee Oswald (which was its original design) but a full blown sequel to Best Evidence; and very possibly it may have to be published in two volumes, because both stories (the one about Oswald and the new info about the medical evidence [i.e., the body] are each rather complex, and, when conjoined, there is just too much information). But it will be published, and I can assure you it will be well worth the wait. They say you get only one chance for a such a "happy ending" in life. I'm hoping for a second one, and doing everything I can to bring it about. Those who have honestly followed what I have published on this thread have gotten a good glimpse --but only a glimpse--of what is coming. Genuine feedback (and not the fulminations of an ignoramus) is always welcome. Stay tuned. DSL, 3/7/2018 - 12:30 AM PST; Edited: I shifted the location of this writeup from a previous location on this thread, 3/7/18; 6 PM PST

Paul Rigby: Thanks. I'm using another archival source and attempting to get the actual newspaper story as it originally appeared in that Nashville, Tenn. paper. We'll stay in touch, because there's other things we should talk about. . soon. DSL

DSL NOTE, 3/7/2018 (12 noon PST) This post has been considerably augmented (and once again "edited") from the time it was first drafted, and posted. Rick McTague: Starting with your commentary from a previous post: Running the risk of being included in your insults and vitriol [directed at Michael Walton --DSL], I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body (covered in sheets, in a body bag) that are a matter of record and hard evidence, none of which match the condition of the body matched to the casket as it left Parkland. Thanks for your support. The fact that someone is voluble (but ignorant) does not mean that what they are saying is true (or that it has any validity). My advice: ignore that kind of uninformed "commentary." For a detailed discussion of the discovery of the "empty casket" evidence (commencing on July 2, 1979, with my discovery of --and first conversation with--the late Dennis David), and how that conversation, plus the publication of the Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) just a few weeks later changed the structure of Best Evidence, scroll down a bit further on this thread, and to my post which begins, "DSL NOTE - 3/7/2018 - 6 PM PST". Thanks to all for your interest in my work. DSL, 3/7/2018 - 6:05 PM PST) * * * * On the subject of helicopters. . : Many years have passed (and newcomers may not know this because we take for granted what we ourselves have done, and sometimes don't realize that the intervening years has changed as to who is in the audience [so to speak]). . but: Back in 1996, I actually located the helicopter pilot who flew the mission to the starboard side of Air Force One. It all happened by accident because, in a school somewhere in the western part of the U.S., a teacher was discussing the Kennedy assassination (6th grade, as I recall); and a little girl raised her hand and said "My daddy was there!" The teacher proceeded to follow-up, established the facts, was quite excited by what he had learned and telephoned me. I was soon talking to the pilot, who was an Air Force Captain who --in 1963-- was part of a special unit that was on call to fly top government officials "to the mountain" in the case of a nuclear alert. It was called the "HMX squadron" and his code name on the night he flew the mission was "Nighthawk One." We then made arrangements for a filmed interview, which occurred in late 1966. During the interview, he showed me his logbook, and did something I (pesonally speaking) would never have done. He let me take the log book, so when I returned to L.A., I could get it photographed. Then we lost touch, and it was partly my fault. Years later, he wanted it back, and I know he was very pleased when he called me up, and I returned it to him, via Express Mail or Fed Ex, within a few days. It had always remained right near my desk, on a special shelf on my bookshelf, and I always wanted to write a chapter called "The Flight of Nighthawk One." At the time I did this interview, I had part of--but not the whole story--of the transportation of the body, from Dallas to the Bethesda morgue. This particular chopper pilot--who met AF-1 on the starboard side (and you can actually see his flashing flights on cameras of the Andrews arrival--did not retrieve the body. He was sent there to get Bobby and Jackie off the starboard side, and fly them either to the White House or to Bethesda (I think). But the real point of the story was that Jackie refused to exit the plane on the starboard side (the "dark" side); she would not leave the coffin (which was offloaded, as is well documented) on the port side. The consequence of Jackie refusing to leave the plane on the starboard side--of refusing to leave the Dallas coffin--was a major contributing factor to the situation where she (Jackie) and the Dallas coffin ended up in a Navy ambulance, instead of she (Jackie, with Bobby) leaving AF-1 from the starboard side, and so the Dallas coffin (being offloaded on the port side) was not flown to Walter Reed in the twin-rotor MDW chopper; which, apparently, was the plan, and what the "Walter Reed" radio transmissions were all about. (See Chapter 31 of B.E.; but also, what I have said about this subject in a previous writing on this thread). I have already written about this previously on this thread, and--as I recall (but I may have the year wrong)--I showed a brief snippet of my filmed interview with the helicopter pilot at JFK (Lancer) Conference in either 1996 or 1998. (I believe that Doug Horne writes about this in one of his 5 volumes). As to the rest of the story--my understanding as to exactly where the body was on AF-1 and how it was offloaded and transported etc--all of that will be set forth in Final Charade. Stay tuned. And again, thanks for your support and here's my advice: ignore those who talk loudly and vociferously, but don't know what they're talking about, and really don't have much to say. DSL 3/6/18 - 2:15 PM PST; edited, 12 noon PST Orange County, California

DSL NOTE, 3/6/18 - 11:20 PM PST. The writing below has just been reviewed, and slighly re-edited. DVP: Your post marks the first time I have ever been aware of what Groden said on the subject of the throat wound (and the issue of the tracheotomy) in his 1993 book (The Killing of a President) which I always viewed, more or less, as a “picture book” and never really paid much attention to the rather skimpy. But now I realize that that assessment was incorrect, at least insofar as this particular issue (the tracheotomy) is concerned. In any event, the question you have posted is interesting and truly important, and deserves a thoughtful response. Unfortunately, I am deluged (at the moment) with other (“non-JFK”) matters; but I am giving it careful thought and discussing it with other people as well (Pat V., and another, presently). Whatever I say on the subject will end up being somewhat speculative because it necessarily deals with the psychology and general behavior of Groden, who I knew very well, and for a period of some 20 (or more years) starting around 1971. All of this is discussed in great detail in my 100-plus page essay “Pig on a Leash” (addressing issues of authenticity in the area of the Zapruder film, which I do not wish to deal with in this post), and which appears in the Fetzer anthology “Hoax” (2003). The relevance of that essay is not the Z film, but the detailed discussion of my 20-year history with Groden (1971-1991, approx.) and what I learned from that experience about him personally. April 1990 - Fed Ex Receipt - - Documenting shipment of autopsy photos to Groden (for free) In the course of a quick file review, I came across the April 1990 Federal Express Receipt for the JFK autopsy photos which I sent to Groden at that time. That’s how he obtained the autopsy photos—from me. I gave them to him, gratis, because I never wanted to be accused of selling those materials to anyone for profit. Groden then promptly turned around and sold the photos to a tabloid (the National Enquirer, as I recall) for $50,000. The contract for that transaction was unearthed by a JFK researcher, provided to me, and I provided it the lawyers involved in the OJ Trial. This led to a national broadcast in which TV journalist Nancy Grace was exclaiming, in outrage, “Robert Groden? Groden sold the autopsy photos to the National Enquirer!” etc. I bring this up because that was just one example of the Groden story. In the period 1976-1979 (approx.), the HSCA employed Groden as a consultant, giving him access to an array of precious (and priceless) original materials. Today, both the original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are simply gone. 1996: My Heavy Liaison with ARRB re Z film, Groden, and his "arrangement" with Weitzman When the ARRB commenced its investigation (1994-1998), I was in very heavy contact with the two top lawyers, Marwell, and Jeremy Gunn since one of their jobs was to pursue the matter of the Zapruder film, in the area of authenticity. Through telephone and written communication, I made very clear my views that Robert Groden showed all the signs of kleptomania. Of particular importance is a 12 page 1996 letter (with numerous attachments) that I sent to Gunn, and which, no doubt, was useful in connection with the subpoena to Groden. During that sworn deposition, Groden denied, under oath, ever possessing various items that the signed contract that I provided (as an attachment) showed that he had sold (copies of) to me in June 1989, for the sum of $5,000! Robert Groden (and the issue of his credibility) All of this bears on the credibility of Groden, and his relationship with me. When I visited him at his home in late 1982, and he realized (because I showed him) that I had crystal clear black and white copies of the autopsy photographs, he was astounded, and green with envy. When (in 1978/79) he set out to write his “minority” report on the authenticity of the photos to the HSCA, I told him that I did not believe the pictures were photo composites, but that any fakery had been achieved by “reconstruction” –late at night, and at the time of autopsy. Groden believed otherwise, and showed me a draft of his report. It was poorly written, and I told him so. I said that although I didn’t agree with his view, it should be rewritten if it were to have any credibility. So I rewrote the part of his report dealing with the fakery of the autopsy photos, and which can be found (as I recall) in Volume 6 of the HSCA volumes. (I wrote the part of that report dealing with the back of the head). Throughout that period, and when I would visit Groden at his home (then in Hopelawn, New Jersey) I concealed from him the entire content of my book, Best Evidence, which was contracted for in December 1978, and published in January 1981. I did so because he behaved like a juvenile “collector,” and I sensed that he couldn’t be trusted. I remember that one of his reactions, after publication, came down to this: “Why didn’t you tell me [about this]?” etc. Anyway, I provide this as background. When the B.E. Research Video was released (via Rhino, and then Warner) in 1989 as a VHS cassette, and I gave Groden a copy, he said something like “What are you trying to do. . .torture me?” GRODEN AND “B.E. Envy” It was during that period that he became affiliated with Harrison Livingstone, another character, who told the NY Times that he was trying to sell the autopsy photographs for a million dollars, and who actually filed a lawsuit against me in Federal Court, accusing me of being a part of a plot to kill him, and suing me for $50 million dollars. (Yes, I’m not joking. And that cost me about $250 to get it dismissed). GRODEN AND OLIVER STONE (and “JFK,” released in December 1991) Then we come to Groden’s being hired by Oliver Stone as his principal consultant in the photo area. Groden told Stone that I had his screenplay (which I certainly did not) and that I had provided it to George Lardner, of The Washington Post, who then wrote a widely read and very damaging article about Stone and his film, months before the film was ever released (December 1991) . I know exactly what Groden was saying about me to Oliver Stone, on the movie set, because it was witnessed by John Newman (who was present, and who was a very good friend of mine), and who would telephone me at night and tell me what he was witnessing as Groden merrily went about assassinating my character, with Stone apparently believing him (!). (In fact, it was Groden who carelessly gave the screenplay to Harold Weisberg, who hated Stone, and who provided it to George Lardner at The Washington Post). Very late in the game, I think I managed to (finally) convince Stone that I had nothing to do with the Post getting his screenplay, writing him a long-ish letter explaining the situation with Groden, and which ended, “Oliver, I’m just a patsy.” Stone eventually paid me some money, and my name appears in the film credits to JFK, but basically the damage was done (and what could have been an entirely different relationship never happened). I am providing this information not to debate any technical details about the Zapruder film, but to shed light on the matter of Robert Groden’s general behavior and credibility. RETURNING NOW TO JUNE 1989 (and my detailed interview of Groden, on camera) Do I believe what Robert Groden told me (and Pat Valentino)—on camera—in a lengthy and very detailed interview in June 1989, about what happened when he visited Dr. Perry in New York in 1977, and showed him (an HSCA copy) of the face-up (stare-of-death) autopsy photo? Absolutely. And remember (and as I believe I’ve already written on this thread): I spoke with the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden, and he confirmed Groden’s account. He remembered Perry shaking his head from side to side and saying that wasn’t the way he left it. Did Groden play for us the Barker/Perry interview, and did both Pat and I hear “inviolate”? Yes, without question. Was there a problem with the lip-sync etc., and did we all (Groden included) go to a audio house in Trenton (or Philadelphia) and give it further study ? Yes, just as I described previously on this thread. Did Groden have good technical equipment on which to play the cassette? Absolutely. (Groden will eat dog food for a week, if necessary, but he will always find the money to buy the best electronics.) And did we interview Groden, extensively, and in detail, about his New York City visit with Dr. Perry? Yes, absolutely. On camera, for at least 30 minutes, on camera, on this subject alone. And did Groden say what Perry said, and is it what I’ve reported? Yes. So now, back to your question, DVP. What happened between 1989 and 1993? What happened such that—in writing the text for his 1993 book (probably written in early 1993) –Groden ignored what he told us (on camera, in 1989) and set forth (instead) the “conventional” version of Dr. Perry and the tracheotomy? What happened was the relationship with the late Harrison Livingstone and the publication of High Treason. HIGH TREASON (Orig pub date: March 1989) Groden could not accept the fact that the throat wound was altered—on JFK’s body—without endorsing one of the major tenets of Best Evidence (see Chapter 11 of B.E., on the changed length and character of the trach incision, Dallas vs. Bethesda). Again, please note: Groden’s entire adult life was devoted to the thesis that the photographs (of the body) were altered—the photographs, but not the body itself. (At least this is the case with regard to JFK’s head wounds). On Amazon, his book got plenty of good reviews (because of the major conspiracy stance), but here’s what a negative reviewer said: The authors are the "Odd Couple" of JFK assassination researchers. Neither are good writers and neither seems to understand that the value of their writing is directly proportional to the value of their sources and the authenticity and authoritativeness of their documentation. Almost all of the claims and conclusions in this book are insufficiently sourced and cannot be accepted until corroborated by other, sufficiently referenced works. Once you realize this, you conclude that your time is better spent with the top-quality books like David Lifton's "Best Evidence". . . So now let’s go to 1993. . . Groden is writing some text for his “Killing of a President” book, and has had this big “Ooops!” moment: He cannot say that the throat wound was altered, without undermining his own thesis that it was “the pictures” that were altered, and not the body (!). (Livingstone has a similar problem, and he was much more of a researcher than Groden, but they were both tied, like siameese twins, to this hypothesis that it was "the pictures," and not "the body" that was altered. As I learned, decades later, from examining correspondence in the Weisberg files at the Hood College library, Livingstone personally interviewed the witnesses I did, confirmed what they said, admits in private correspondence to certain third parties that I am correct ("Lifton is correct, that. . .etc.), but continues to attack me in public, in the most vicious terms!) GRODEN AND THE ARRB (1995 - 1998) If you now move forward to the period 1995- 1998, you enter the period of the ARRB, and the fact that, because of my correspondence with Gunn and Marwell (the two top persons on the staff at the ARRB), and my relationship with Horne (who was the senior person in the area of militar records, but also headed up the depositions of the medical witnesses), the jig is up. The “magic” of how Groden does what he does is revealed, and its not all that complicated. You just have to understand what an optical printer is, and how it works. (I did all of that, renting time on one, in New York City, for about 4 or 5 days, and then I actually met with Groden’s guru, Moe Weitzman, and who was a wizard in this area; a meeting which infuriated Groden; because Weitzman now learned that Groden was getting tens of thousands of dollars for work done with film negatives obtained from Weitzman, and on Weitzman’s equipment, no less!) For awhile, Groden was in Weitzman's dog house, and the two hardly spoke. (But somehow, Groden managed to "get back" into Weitzman's favor). On hearings that were nationally televised (on C-Span), Tunheim personally acknowledged my contribution in writing memos to the ARRB explaining how an optical printer worked, how film duplication was done, and then Groden was seriously questioned under oath as to how the got this or that film, what happened to this or that one, what negative was used, where did he get it from? etc etc. (Doug Horne said that I was so active, what with my book, and sending in tapes of my 1966 telephone interviews, and video copies of my 1989/90 interviews, that Doug Horne, who I had lengthy phone conversations with several times a week, jokingly called me "the 'sixth man' on the ARRB). Now here's another important point to understand:. . . Groden ended up with this great picture book, with all these wonderful high quality photos , not because he was a great collector (the way someone is said to be an “art collector.”) Not at all. Groden’s “collection” is entirely different, and the outgrowth of an entirely different kind of activity. All of it was a consequence of his employment by the HSCA, and his relationship with Moe Weitzman of EFX (the NYC optical house (i.e., lab )where he could reproduce motion picture film. Furthermore, EFX is where Groden originally obtained his "superior" prints of the Z film (when he was an employee there, which is how his original odyssey began) because of a contract that Moe Weitzman had with LIFE, back in 1967. (This is all spelled out in Pig on a Leash). Anyway, Groden could make excellent duplicates of anything he possessed (and from anything Weitzman had retained, from the days of his original LIFE contract). With regard to the former, Groden had access to numerous originals; because Robert Blakey (unwisely) trusted him, and granted him such access. Today, the original Nix and Muchmore are missing, and Gale Nix Jackson is involved in a never ending search for her grandfather’s original film. GRODEN TODAY. . . (and for many years since the movie JFK, released in December 1991) . . . So Robert Groden now makes his “home” on the Grassy Knoll, selling his wares, and using a car battery to run a Visa and Mastercard machine. And if someone asks him about DSL and B.E., he often parrots Livingstone’s line, and says that I am a fraud. I know because I periodically check, when friends of mine visit Dallas (and, of course, the Dealey Plaza area, where Groden can often be found, encamped with his wares). He has been arrested over 50 times, and has a lawyer who has broken some new legal ground, at least in Dallas, in this area (on whether Groden has the right to sell his goods where he sets up his table); or so I am told. The anti-DSL and anti- "Best Evidence" Clique (and DiEugenio and his use of ghost-writers0 Finally (of course), Groden is now a card-carrying member of the “Hate DSL” and “Hate Best Evidence” club, featuring Dr. Cyril Wecht and his pal, Gary Aguilar (and I could name others), with supporting roles played by someone like DiEugenio, whose claim to fame was his uncritical belief that Garrison was the be-all and end all (when he charged Clay Shaw with conspiracy, and put him on trial in 1969, which lasted less than an hour when he was acquitted); and who still believes that JFK and his brother didn't know about the CIA's assassination plots, and---apparently, and perhaps most importantly--DiEugenio doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that autopsy falsification (via body alteration) could be conceived of (and planned) before the fact. From his website, DiEugenio often chimes in, using his site to launch similar snide (and sometimes nasty) commentary about me and my work (often from one of his “writers”; and often signed "by Jim DiEugenio [i.e., as if written by DiEugenio. when it was not)]. He does this quite a bit, so he appears to have detailed knowledge on a wide range of subjects. He doesn't. He promotes this false illusion about himself. DiEug --who prides himself in saying that he has me on "ignore" (an accomplishment in which a small mind can take some pride)--is reasonably good when it comes to issues like Vietnam (but even there his ghost-writing operation takes over). DiEugenio doesn’t understand the medical evidence and won’t discuss it, usually referring people to Aguilar (who probably listens carefully, when he is on his meds). My last conversation Aguilar (who is tightly wound, and has a barely controlled temper, and often flies off the handle), occurred in March 2000 (yes, that long ago) . It ended with Aguilar having the telephone equivalent of "road rage" and in a screaming cursing tirade, like an out-of-control child, with his multiple uses of the “F” word, directed at me personally and screaming that no, he didn't believe the body was altered; saying that I wasn't even a good Jew, and if I appeared at "his" hospital, where a JFK gathering was scheduled to take place, he would have me arrested and thrown out by security, if I dared to open my mouth. Nice guy, whose temperament has perhaps improved, over time. An interesting question, for those who enjoy the theoretical, is whom would you rather have to dinner: DVP, Aguilar, or DiEugenio? (I'll take DVP, anytime. At least I know I'll be able to finish dinner, using my knife and fork to eat with, and not to defend myself; and maybe I'll get the chicken for free!*). *DSL Joke Alert: DVP owns a KFC franchise (or perhaps more than one) in the Indiana city where he lives. Have I now explained the situation, DVP? I never really expected to write all this out, in this detail. But perhaps its necessary to explain what is going on here. To properly appreciate one of the major splits in the JFK research movement: was it the body that was altered, or was it "just the photos"; and who is really the fraud in this whole area, and who has conducted an honest investigation? And, finally, to properly depict Robert Groden –in context. And to do attempt to do so in a reasonably fairly and accurate manner, and without—as the saying goes—throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And there is a lot of bathwater. DSL 3/6/2018 - 1:05 PM PST; reviewed, re-edited 3/6/18, 11:20 PM PST Orange County, California

Andrew Danjek: Thanks for your detailed laying out what you see as 3 possibilities. There’s one point I wish to make, but the reason I’m delaying a further response (at this point in time) is that I want to retrieve the original story in the Nashville Banner that was published (to the best of my recollection, and it could be incorrect) in November 1967. That’s the first time that Dr. Dave Stewart ever made a public statement, and it has a power all its own, simply because it was published at such an “early” date. As I recall, Stewart said that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision, and that was the chief reason (again, based on my current recollection) that the story was newsworthy (and was published). FURTHER COMMENT ON YOUR THREE POSSIBILITIES. . . As to your three possibilities, I believe you should understand something else: there is no doctor or nurse (or anyone) at Parkland Hospital who has ever (or who would ever) support the idea that Dr. Perry (or anyone else) made any stitches whatsoever on the President’s body. That just didn’t happen. Had it occurred (in connection with JFK’s “treatment” at Parkland), it would have been witnessed and/or “known about” by numerous people in the room, would have been mentioned in official reports (and/or testimony) and in media accounts. That’s just the way “history works” (my quotes) and how it worked in this case. Had there been any suturing in Parkland, accounts about that would have appeared in the New York Times and in all major media. But there’s no “trace evidence” of any such event—i.e., no trace evidence of any suturing at Parkland. So, with all due respect for the effort you have put into your post, I believe you can (and should) set that aside and “edit it out” of your possibilities. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF SUTURING (presently published). . . The only evidence of sutures—at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan. 1981)—is laid out in Chapter 23 (“Allegations of Dr. John Ebersole”) and it is quite thoroughly set forth and discussed there. Not only did I draw on official documents (the HSCA testimony of Dr. Ebersole, which Blakey conveniently “locked up” for 50 years, and was only released earlier as a consequence of Stone’s movie, and the subsequent 1992 JFK Records Act) but I had a wonderful audio tape to work with from a local high school teacher (Art Smith) who Ebersole trusted, and to whom he granted a detailed interview. In addition, I had (actually, a document of an audio) the transcript from local reporter Gil Dulaney, of the Lancaster (PA) Intelligencer-Journal who interviewed Ebersole on the subject prior to his trip to trip to Washington to be interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). CERTAIN “NEW EVIDENCE” OF SUTURING.. . . About four years ago, and through something of a fluke, I discovered certain “new evidence” regarding suturing. And that forms the basis for the statements on the subject that I have made on this thread (and which will appear, in full form, in Final Charade). Specifically: first, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, the area of the throat wound was so torn up and damaged that the esophagus (as well as the trachea) were visible through the “hole” in that area (consult your anatomy text to understand how serious the damage had to be for the esophagus to be visible); and second, what would qualify as “new evidence” on the subject, some credible data that I have that the suturing was done in the Bethesda morgue and just prior to 7:17 p.m. when the two FBI agents arrived (See Chapter 28 of B.E. for timelines, if you wish to know more detail). I have already written about this in one (or more? I don’t remember) previous posts on this thread, but this latter event (the discovery of certain new data) has led to a substantial revision in my understanding of “what Humes knew and when he knew it”; or, more accurately stated, what Humes and Boswell knew, and when “they” knew it. I cannot say more at this juncture. Pat Valentino is currently engaged in a careful review of our records (the June 1989 filmed interview) of Dr. Stewart, as well as the lengthy filmed interview of Groden; and I am trying to obtain a copy of the original November 1967 (I think is the date) publication of the Nashville Banner news story, in which Stewart says that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision. Please note: I’m not saying that because this account was published in November 1967 it necessary represents “the truth” about this event; just that it is an important historical document, and is what the lawyers call “probative.” Stay tuned. DSL 3/6/2018 - 1 PM PST Orange County, California

DELETED.

DSL NOTE: THis is another spurious post. So I am removing 95% of it, and just marking the text area "deleted". DELETED

DSL NOTE - 3/4/2018 10:35 PM PST: I do not know why there are multiple copies (and/or partial copies) if my post. I will try to clear all this up in the next few yours. Sandy: Just tying up a loose end here. No, I do not believe the body was altered at Walter Reed. There are a number of radio transmissions indicating that it was "supposed to go" to Walter Reed, but it never there. So where was the body altered, and what are those Walter Reed transmissions al about. Here's a rapidly written preview of my answers to these two questions which will be elaborated on in Final Charade. DELETED (unintended duplicate #1)

REMOVED. . APPARENTLY AN UNINTENTIONAL 'DUPLICATE'

Sandy: Just attempting to tie up a loose end here. . . : No, I do not believe the body was altered at Walter Reed. However, there are a number of AF-1 radio transmissions indicating that it was "supposed to go" to Walter Reed, but (rest assured) it never did. JFK's body never went there, and I wasn't able to confirm this, with certainty, until about 1982 (approx), a full year (or more) after the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence. So where was the body altered, and what are those Walter Reed transmissions all about? Here's a rapidly written preview of my answers to these two questions which will be elaborated on in Final Charade. NUMBER 1: Where was the body altered? There are 3 periods where "the alteration" could have taken place (and I've concluded that "something" occurred during each of these 3 periods). Period #1: Love Field, after the body was removed from the coffin, and before it was put in the forward storage area, prior to take off;. Period #2: the brief period at Andrews after a covert off-load took place, and prior to its being put aboard a chopper, for Bethesda Period #3: At Bethesda, in the period after the body arrived (6:35 p.m., per the Boyajian document); but before the official start of the autopsy ( 8 pm) Now let's consider each of these three periods, and add some detail. Re Period #1 (At Love Field): I don't know precisely what happened during #1 (i.e., at Love Field) but that is the primary location where a sloppy alteration took place; and whatever was done (at that time) --what I sometimes call "smashing and bashing"--was done hurriedly and sloppily. (To be elaborated on in Final Charade). Its an unspeakably ugly, horrific scene and it took place on AF-1, in the forward luggage area. (It left a blood trail, and that's how I know about it). Re Period #2: (At Andrews): That was "cleanup" and almost certainly had the sanction of RFK and Sec Def McNamara, who (it would appear) were not aware that the body had been (maliciously) altered (back in Dallas). Period #2 (at Andrews) is when the body was put inside a body bag, and when the body bag was placed inside a (military style) shipping casket, and the combo was placed aboard a chopper; destination: Bethesda Naval Hospital. Re Period #3: (At Bethesda): In the 42 minutes between 6:35 pm (when the body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket) and 7:17 pm, when the two FBI agents arrived at the Bethesda morgue; there was additional "clean-up," with the full sanction of one (or more) of the several Admirals who were present. But during this period, Humes was acting in accordance with orders from "higher authority." That's when Humes--either by himself, or assigning the job to a med-tech (but always with the approve of higher authority" [i.e, the Admirals present])--had the front throat area sutured shut. Humes then personally misled the FBI by telling the two agents that the suturing was from a tracheotomy done in Dallas, and--most importantly--that the suturing (also) had been done in Dallas. That was false. The suturing was done in the Bethesda morgue, with Humes present. BUT PLEASE NOTE: Humes had nothing to do with the actual pre-autopsy alteration of JFK's body--either the conception of such a plan, or its execution. I am aware that Doug Horne (with whom I shared a close personal relationship during the 3 year (approx) period when he was on the ARRB [Aug 95 -9/30/98] believes otherwise, and has advanced a hypothesis along these lines in his five-volume work, Inside the ARRB. Horne apparently believes that Humes got the body, and then proceeded to do the alterations, right there in the Bethesda morgue--specifically, in the area of the head. IMHO: That's flat out wrong. I disagree completely, and believe that Hornes "Humes did it" hypothesis to be completely incorrect. I told him this back before he published (2009) and his response was that this is what he believed, and that if I believed differently, then "you'll write you own book one day." Horne apparently didn't want to hear what I had to say, and was intent on "amending" (in the spirit of "correcting") my work. In the process, he advanced what I believe to be a completely unreasonable and absurd hypothesis : that Humes (and Boswell) were the culprits. That "they" altered the body. I believe that to be completely incorrect, but do not wish to debate it in this post. Final Charade will--hopefully--dispose of that incorrect hypothesis once and for all. But anyone who has studied this matter should ask themselves this question: Is it reasonable to believe that JFK's body was covertly removed from Air Force One, during the brief period prior to Jacqueline Kennedy ascended the stairs on the rear port side, simply so that JFK's body could be brought to the Bethesda morgue (1500 miles away, and four-plus hours later), some 20 minutes before the arrival of the empty coffin? I find that absurd. The body was removed from AF-1 in Dallas so that it could be altered (i.e., bullets removed, and wounds altered) as soon as possible. Every minute of delay represented a situation in which the "best evidence" --unaltered--posed a threat to the plot, because here was "best evidence" which, unaltered, could tell the truth about the Dealey Plaza shooting. So the notion that it was "covertly removed" from AF-1, before take-off, only to remain in some baggage hold, in its UN-altered state, until some four hours later, at Bethesda, strikes me as a highly dubious, if nonsensical, proposition. NUMBER 2: The Walter Reed Radio Transmissions -- what were they all about? The answer. Bobby Kennedy and McNamara learned, very likely from Johnson himself, that JFK's body was not in the ceremonial coffin. Almost certainly, they were told--again, by Johnson himself--that he (LBJ, in conjunction with certain SS agents) ordered the body removed from the coffin ( and placed in a luggage area), supposedly because of his (LBJ's) concerns about "security." How considerate of him! (Also, There are some indications that Johnson implied that this was being done with the Attorney General's approval.) All of this was pure LBJ hogwash, but that--almost certainly--is what certain SS agents were told. Then the problem (for McNamara and RFK) became "logistical": how to return the body (i.e., JFK's body) to the original Dallas coffin, without the country finding out about this cockamaymee situation? So a plan was hatched, with the full approval of both of these two senior officials, to have the (empty) Dallas coffin choppered from Andrews to Walter Reed (in the twin-rotor MDW chopper); and then to have the body (which was also to be brought to Walter Reed) re-inserted into the Dallas coffin; and then, the final step, for that coffin (i.e., the Dallas coffin, but now [once again] containing JFKs body) to be flown (by chopper) to Bethesda. That was the plan. and at each step along the way, "national security" would be invoked to "explain" (as necessary) what the heck was going on.. But this plan didn't work out. Why? Because at Andrews, a certain official who was not "in the loop" saw the Navy ambulance, and, with good intentions (and only trying to be helpful) instructed the driver of the Navy ambulance (which had gone to Bethesda with a cardiac team, in case LBJ had a heart attack etc.) to back up toward the plane. And so the driver did so. As the driver backed the Navy ambulance up towards the side of Air Force One, it was spotted by Jackie, who was descending in the motorized lift, and she said (to Bobby): "We'll go in that," pointing to the ambulance. Jackie's stated wishes could not be ignored, and that's how "the best laid plans" (of mice and men, and RFK and McNamara) got derailed. The Dallas coffin was placed in the Navy ambulance, instead of aboard the MDW "twin rotor" chopper (which was the original plan); And Jackie, accompanied by Bobby, got into the ambulance containing the (empty) Dallas coffin. Please note: RFK knew it was empty; Jackie did not. Once that happened, the problem of putting JFK's body back into the original (i.e., Dallas) coffin had to be changed; but now, because of the snafu, that had to be done ("somehow") at Bethesda, and not at Walter Reed, as originally intended. OK dear reader. . so now, if you have studied what I have just written, and been able to follow it (and yes, its a bit complex), you can now "pick up the narrative" by going to Best Evidence, Chapter 28.. Specifically: See Chapter 28 of Best Evidence, where the rest of this tale is told; i.e., where the remaining pieces of this puzzle are laid out, in detail (with appropriate time lines as to what the heck was going on at Bethesda). Anyway. . . : now you know what (I believe) the "Walter Reed radio transmissions" were all about, and perhaps most readers will understand why I drew an incorrect inference about them, when writing Best Evidence in late 1979, and up to April 1, 1980, which was the hard deadline for the manuscript. I had those AF-1 transmissions, and believed the body was going there, but I still tried to be somewhat "tentative" in my conclusions about the matter. But here's another piece of information, which is important, and which I have never talked about (very much)--at least not publicly. FYI: I interviewed General Chester Clifton, in his Washington DC office, for about 2 hours, on July 15, 1980, with a SONY TC 800 reel-to-reel recorder sitting on the desk between us. Clifton, as those who study the case may know, was handling all the communications between AF-1 and the White House situation room, and the Pentagon. I'll just say this: Clifton was a valuable source. This 1980 interview (with Clifton) was granted at a time when Best Evidence was already known "in the trade" (i.e., the publishing business). So Clifton agreed to see me, spoke reasonably candidly, and I learned quite a bit--but not everything--from that 7/15/1980 interview. It took additional years for me to acquire additional information (e.g., from a detailed film interview with the helicopter pilot who met Air Force One on the starboard side), and to piece all the different parts of this puzzle together. But now I have done that, as best as I can; and now I am sharing it (at least in part) on this thread. So now you know, and all this will be laid out, with considerable detail and plenty of backup, in Final Charade. This new evidence, about the fumbled "interception" of JFK's body, should help clear up many of the anomalies connected with the issue of the covert alteration of JFK's body prior to autopsy. Doug Horne's hypothesis about Humes having altered the body at Bethesda, is wrong; but at least he tried; and he understood that the essential hypothesis set forth in Best Evidence was correct. (And he said so, publicly, in 2004, in a written statement. See Spartacus, under his name). As for David Von Pein, much of his commentary will be proven false, and unnecessarily insulting; and, as I have said, he and his views will, to a large extent, end up in what Leon Trotsky called "the dustbin of history." But (and as I have also noted), DVP is a good collector, and we should all give him credit for that. Bottom line: DVP is very good at "collecting the dots." He just isn't particularly adept at "connecting" them. Stay tuned. . . DSL P.S.: In my remarks (above), I am referring to the way DVP has treated my work. As for DVP's ongoing "debate" with DiEugenio, that's an entirely different matter. More often than not, his arguments in that debate have significant validity. 3/4/2018 - 10:35 p.m. PST; edited 11:15 PST 12:40 a.m. (3/5) Orange County, California

DSL NOTE, 3/4/2018 - 3:30 PM PST - - Spell checked and slightly reedited for clarity, where appropriate. LETS START WITH WHAT YOU SAID, DVP, IN A RECENT POST. . . QUOTE: Some additional thoughts.... Since you are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry? If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? UNQUOTE DSL RESPONSE: Yes, DVP, I believe the tape was altered, but let's put that aside for the moment, and focus on the transcript of the CBS Broadcast--specifically, Part 2. Just consider what you have written; let me repeat your complaint: If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? The answer is that "they" did, or at least attempted to, and that "intention" can be inferred from the following fact: Yes, there are two separate transcripts, and they differ in only one word: the first, put out by CBS News shortly after the four-part series was broadcast in June 1967; and then a (supposedly) identical transcript which appears in the Appendix to the book written by the writer of the show --Stephen White. White's book, Should We Now Believe the Warren Report, was published by Macmillan in 1968 (according to Amazon; but a correspondent of mine says it was published in 1967; that point is yet to be resolved). In the official CBS transcript, as distributed by CBS in New York, the following paragraph appears, words supposedly spoken by Dr. Perry, when interviewed by Eddie Barker (of KRLD-TV, the CBS affiliate in Dallas): And I didn’t really concern myself too much with how it happened, or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn’t think about cutting through the wound—which, of course, rendered it inviolate as regards further examination and inspection. In the transcript --presumably the identical transcript--as published in the Appendix to the White book, as published in late 1967 or 1968, by Macmillan, the same paragraph appears, but one word is different: And I didn’t really concern myself too much with how it happened, or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn’t think about cutting through the wound—which, of course, rendered it invalid as regards further examination and inspection. Please note: the first transcript is a photocopy; the second transcript was typeset (in standard book publishing font) from a source that is not specified. The presumption is (that is, "would be") that it reflects the official CBS transcript, but maybe not. Maybe someone made an penciled in "editorial correction"; or perhaps there was an "official transcript," but that particular page was retyped. We don't know (and can't tell). All I can say, for sure, is that years ago, I checked the transcripts of all four shows published at the back of the White book and found that they were word-for-word identical, except for this particular instance, where one word was changed: again, in the official CBS transcript, it says "rendered it inviolate", and in the transcript published at the back of the White book, it says, "rendered it invalid." Simply because the copy published in the book was clearer, and easier to read, I had photocopied those pages and placed him in a manila folder which functioned as a "subject file" on this one subject: Did Perry make an incision, or did he not? Also in that folder was Dr. Stewart's story from the (Nov 1967) Nashville Banner, in which Stewart said that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision--that he just used the pre-existing bullet hole as an orifice of entry. Somewhere in that time frame, I called Stewart, by way of following up the Nashville Banner story. Stewart told me what Perry told him, that he "left the wound inviolate." Since I already possessed a transcript (from the White book) which showed that Stewart had used the word "invalid," I discounted what Stewart told me. In 1985, Pat Valentino, listening to the tape of my conversation with Dr. Stewart, caused me to re-evaluate this situation. Pat told me that Stewart sounded both dignified and credible, and that it was imperative that we meet him, and interview him in person, on camera. This we did, in June 1989, routing ourselves through Tennessee, to interview Dr. Stewart, and before we interviewed Groden. JUNE, 1989: MY FILMED INTERVIEW WITH DR. DAVE STEWART During our filmed interview with Stewart, he repeatedly emphasized what Perry had told him--that (a) he didn't have to make an incision; and (b) had "left the wound inviolate." He was absolutely certain on this point, and at some point said something like "Hell, you can hear Perry say it himself, in that 1967 program!" When we asked Stewart how certain he was, on a scale of 1 to 10, that Perry had said "inviolate," Stewart replied--instantly, and strongly--"fifteen." Everything I have just described was recorded on camera (i.e., DSL/Dr. Stewart). I was polite but skeptical (inside) because I the transcript on which I was was relying, published at the back of the White book, said "rendered it invalid," and I told Pat V that, regardless of how credible he appeared to be (and he certainly appeared credible) that he must be mistaken: that the transcript said "invalid"--and, of course, I thought of the transcript as "best evidence." Two days later, we were in Media, Pennsylvania, and at Groden's residence. At that time, and perhaps out of sheer curiosity, we asked Groden if he had the 1967 four-part CBS broadcast; he did. Could we view it? Specifically, Part 2. Yes, we could. So he retrieved the tape, popped it into the machine, and that's when Pat V and I had the extraordinary experience of listening as Perry quite distinctly used the word "inviolate" in responding to a question. Simultaneously, we had the same reaction, rising out of our separate chairs and exclaiming "What?!!" We were both unprepared for this, because the transcript I had (which came from the Stephen WHite book, said "invalid." We played it, and replayed it--there was no question. It wasn't even "close." Somewhere at this point, Groden related his experience of visiting Dr. Perry (in 1977) --with a Baltimore reporter--when Perry was practicing medicine in New York City. Groden described how he showed Perry the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph--a photo Perry had never seen before. Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, sadly, that that was not the way he had left the wound. "I left the wound inviolate," said Perry, according to Groden. Watching us bubbling with barely suppressed excitement, Groden wanted to know what this was all about. We said that we "couldn't say" (at the moment), but that if he would just restrain himself (and he was, naturally, very curious), we wanted to put this whole episode on film. ONE OR TWO DAYS LATER: FILMING ROBERT GRODEN Thereupon, we set up our lights and camera (we were with a professional film crew, which had been hired, for the purpose of these various visits--in Dallas, the doctors and nurses; Dr. Stewart, Groden, etc.)--and then did a multi-hour interview with Groden. After we had thoroughly interviewed him--in effect, "debriefed" him--we then explained why we believed this was so significant: what Dr. Stewart had said, the importance of what he had just said, how what he said comported, completely, with what Dr. Stewart had just told us, etc. GRODEN'S COPY OF PART 2 of the 4-Part CBS DOCUMENTARY: The Audio/Visual Divergence (the Lip sync issue) When viewing the tape, it was obvious that the words Perry was mouthing were substantially out of sync with the audio. That--plus the fact that the transcript on which I had been relying said "rendered invalid" whereas the sound track we were hearing most definitely had Perry saying "rendered it inviolate"--caused us all to go to an audio house in either Philadelphia or Trenton, N.J. We spent an hour or two studying the issue there, and making sample clips to illustrate what we viewed as "the problem." RESPONDING TO DAVID VON PEIN'S REACTIONS AND ASSERTIONS ON THIS POINT DVP has repeatedly asserted that his copy shows no audio/video disparity, as if that is the final word. He even goes so far as to imply that the problem was, perhaps, Groden's equipment. None of this is valid, and here's why: a) Our work was done with a high quality copy (Groden "obtains" only the best) and on his high quality and very well maintained equipment. (He will eat dog food for a week (if he has to), but he will buy the best equipment available). b ) We studied the "problem" at a professional audio house, and on high quality equipment--and it was obviously present on that equipment, too; it was readily visible. Think about it: how could we record "video samples" if it wasn't present? c ) Our source was Groden's copy, obtained back in the period 1967-1975, or thereabouts, and there was no Internet then. d) DVP's copy, as far as I know, was made years later, and in the "age of the Internet" and very likely was downloaded, from some site , via the Internet. (And I'd like DVP to either confirm that this is so (and perhaps specify the site of origin, and the year of the download), or if he actually purchased a tape from a CBS library, to provide details (i.e., the year, the transfer modality, etc). ) What I can say for certain is that all of us were dealing with this problem, and the cause wasn't the equipment in Groden's home. And by "all of us" I mean Pat (who is an audio expert), myself (an engineering graduate and a former Ham Radio operator [K2HKC], who has built transmitters, etc); and our film crew, who had competent technicians, and their own equipment. So one either has to entertain the notion that Groden's original tape was defective, at that particular point (and only at that particular point), in the entire program; or that there has been an "improvement" in the original from which Groden's copy was made, and the time that DVP purchased his copy from CBS, or made his download, if he was able to do it more recently, via the Internet. June/July 1989 (and later. . ): RETURNING TO LOS ANGELES AND "DISCOVERING" THE "OTHER" TRANSCRIPT Back in 1989 (or perhaps even 1990) I located a copy of the "official" CBS transcript. I immediately went to Program Number 2, found the paragraph in question and learned--for the first time--that there were two different versions of the transcript, differing in only one word (!). I wrote "memos to the file" about this situation, one of which I re-examined the other evening (on a separate computer) and I can retrieve that memo, if necessary. So where do matters now stand, and what do I make of all this? To begin with, one must understand more about the source of what, for want of a better term, I will call the "Stephen White" transcript. STEPHEN WHITE -- AND HIS BOOK: Should We Now Believe the Warren Report? (1968, per Amazon) Stephen White died in March 1993, at age 77. That's 25 years ago. His New York Times obituary (3/30/93) describes him as having been "a producer and principal writer for "A CBS New Inquiry: The Warren Report. The four-hour documentary examined rumors and accusations about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It concluded that the Warren Report, flawed as it may have been, was the likeliest explanation of the killing." I became aware of White's book around the time it was first published --1968--and certainly by 1970-1972. It was one of the most well-written (and reasonable) defenses of the Warren Report I had ever seen; but--and this is what intrigued me--it very nicely illustrated the complete dependence of the WC's conclusions on the validity of the Bethesda autopsy. Since, by that time, I was well aware of the evidence that the body had been altered (see B.E., for details of my own chronological narrative, which began in late October 1966), I studied the White book closely. (I'm surprised that White's name does not appear in B.E., because I clearly remember that I thought of his book as containing, in published form, the sort of arguments that I was hearing, week after week, when I attended Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law class on the WC). Anyway, I'm pretty sure that White argued, in one of his chapters, that it was Perry's cutting through the wound that created some measure of confusion at Bethesda. For years, I accepted all this (which I now, more or less, view as a "story"). But I wasn't skeptical of this "story" until after my experiences with (and filmed interviews of) Dr. Dave Stewart and Robert Groden in June 1989. After that, and after the discovery of the "second transcript" (i.e., of the original CBS transcript, which had the word "inviolate" whereas the one in White's book used "invalid," as in "rendered it invalid," I revisited this whole issue. "WALKING THE CAT BACKWARDS" As some readers of this thread may know, there's an expression in intelligence circles for revisiting an issue, when new information has become available, and the analyst attempts to (in effect) "press the reset button" , start from scratch, and make a fresh effort at "connecting the dots." That's called: "walking the cat backwards." And that's what I did in the days, months and years following my June 1989 experiences with Groden and Dr. Dave Stewart. At this point, I have a whole sheaf of notes, and could write a complete (and very detailed) chapter on the subject, but I don't have the time (or energy) to do that. In a nutshell, here's the essence: 1. Dan Rather was "the" major producer of the CBS four-part series; so was Eddie Barker. (I have yet to determine the details of whether this was a shared "producer" credit, or what). 2. Starting on the night of 11/22/63, Dr. Perry became aware that he was being "blamed" for the confusion at Bethesda, because his tracheotomy (supposedly) had destroyed the bullet wound. 3. The next day, he was interviewed by writer Jimmy Breslin. Dr. Perry told Breslin that he had made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin wrote that in his story that was published in the Sat Eve Post on 12/14, but was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. 4A. Over the weekend, Perry told Stewart (with whom he was personally friendly) that he had left the wound "inviolate" and in fact never had to make an incision 4B. In November 1967 (date to be fact-checked), Dr. Stewart told the Nashville Banner that Perry (had told him) that he did not have to make an incision; he just pushed the trach tube in through a pre-existing bullet wound. 5. In 1977, Perry would tell Robert Groden, when seeing the autopsy photo, that he had "left the wound inviolate." 6. However, on March 30 1964, Perry testified before Chief Justice Warren in Washington and--under oath--and swore that he took a scalpel and made a horizontal incision through the wound. Here's exactly what he said to Chief Justice Warren, and the others present, when he was under oath: “I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.” (Vol. 3, p. 369) December 1966 (approx): PERRY'S FILMED INTERVIEW WITH BARKER--AND THE PROBLEMS THAT FOLLOWED. . . 7. Around December 1966, Perry had a filmed interview with CBS (Eddie Barker). Although its not clear exactly what he said, Perry did use the word "inviolate." That can be heard on the audio visual record, and the word "inviolate" appears in the official CBS transcript. THe transcript says that Perry said that he "rendered it inviolate," which of course makes no sense. According to the CBS transcript which appears at the back of White's book, Perry is quoted as saying that, because he cut through the wound, he "rendered it invalid" (for future examination, etc.) 8. The lip sync problem that was observed by me, Pat Valentino, Robert Groden, and our film crew (i.e., by all of us) made clear that there was "something wrong" with that tape. There was nothing subtle about it. Perry was moving his lips and mouthing words, but they were not the words audible on the sound track. 9. I (and Pat V) discovered the word "inviolate" on that tape, in June 1989, when we were at Groden's home in Media, Pennsylvania. I don't think we focused (as much) on the words preceding it. What was very clear that Perry said "inviolate" (on the audio visual record) but that the transcript (on which I had been relying, for years) was incorrect because it said "invalid"--and not "inviolate." SOME TIME AFTER JUNE 1989 (DATE UNCERTAIN): MY DISCOVERY THAT THERE WERE TWO TRANSCRIPT RECORDS (THAT DIFFERED BY ONLY ONE WORD) 10. On returning to Los Angeles, I found that the "official" CBS transcript had the word "inviolate"--and not "invalid". I was quite excited about this discovery. Nowhere else in the entire CBS transcript, as released by CBS in 1967, after the four-part broadcast, was there any difference between the official transcript, and the transcript published at the back of the Steve White book. SEEKING A HYPOTHESIS THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THE DISPARATE DATA 11. My hypothesis: that sometime after the December 1966 (Barker) interview of Perry was conducted, he said something about "inviolate" (and its not clear just what); and then the tape was monkeyed with, and modified in some way, in an attempt to change the meaning of what Perry had said. (Again, it is not at all clear what he said, except that it does appear that he used the word "inviolate", in some sensible context--unless one wishes to entertain the hypothesis that Perry talked nonsense, either by accident or design) . Then the film was altered to address the "inviolate" problem. Then, that "modified" film, and a "matching transcript" (which used the word "invalid" as part of the phrase "rendered it invalid") was then provided to Stephen White, who was principal writer for the show. White (then about 50) who was then working under Rather, then about 36 (and/or Barker) then did the writing necessary to structure the narrative of the show in that area; and relate the "story" (quotes deliberate) about how Dr. Perry's tracheotomy had caused confusion that night at Bethesda. Then afterward the broadcast, Steve White wrote his own book, published in late 1967 or early 1968. On that project, White used the transcript he had been provided, and which he placed at the back of his book. Conceivably, he was given a copy of the "original" transcript, with an "inked in" editorial change; but I doubt that was the case, because (if so) then doing it that way would draw attention to that particular word, and/or phrase, so I doubt that was the way it was done. I think he was given a transcript without any hint that a change had been made. And that transcript --that was provided to White--reads exactly as printed in the back of his book. 12. I think it is possible that, over the years, additional work was done on the video record of that particular Perry/Barker interview. I say that because DVP is claiming that there is no lip sync problem at all in the copy that he has, but there certainly was such a problem on the very high quality copy that Groden had (and his was from the 1970s period, whereas DVP's is from the age of the Internet, a good 20 years later). On this point, it should be noted that Dan Rather remained at CBS for many years, becoming a major news anchor in March 1981, and remaining in that position until March 2005. During that period, there a number of "other" JFK assassination documentaries that he produced, or played a major role in; and the matter of Perry and the tracheotomy he performed were probably discussed more than once. Furthermore, I met with Dan Rather, alone, for at least an hour (in December 1980) and know quite a bit about the way he functions, and his "private versus public" attitude on the JFK case. More on that another time. Rest assured that if the tape on later programs where he was the producer had technical problems, they would be addressed and fixed. 13. At the "Dan Rather, American Journalist" website today, there is a copy of the transcript of the 1967 CBS four-part program and it is the official transcript--the one with the word "inviolate". Its as if the one used by Steve White, in his book, (with "rendered it invalid") has simply disappeared. 14. In 1966/67, when the four-part program was being assembled, Dan Rather--with producer credit--Rather was 36 (approx); Steve White was 50. If Part 2 had two different transcripts with only one word changed, on a key issue discussed on that program, then the interviewer, Eddie Barker (and Dan Rather)--both of whom had "Producer" credit, surely had to know about it. The person who appears to have been in the dark was Stephen White, who was principal writer. In 1966 White was 50; Dan Rather was an ambitious and fast-rising 36 (approx). A Special Prosecutor--had there been one--would have had a field day investigating this entire question, because he (or she) would have copious array of evidence: a changed written record (with both versions available); plus strong evidence of a changed audio record, and--finally there is (or was) the body itself. Think about it: There would be Dr. Perry, who was a personal witness who would be claiming he had nothing to do with creating the confusion, but, as noted in Best Evidence (Chapter 11) there was a trail of evidence (as laid out in Ch 11 of B.E.) that the body had been altered, in the throat area, before the body reached Bethesda. Furthermore, and because of the anatomic mess that had been created (per my interviews with Paul O'Connor, that JFK's esophagus was damaged and partially exposed) that area (at the front of JFK's throat) had been sutured (per Ch. 23 of B.E.) apparently to hide this extraordinary damage to the body (!); and further, the FBI agents were misled to believe that the suturing was done in Dallas, where a tracheotomy had been performed (and then "sewn up"). Further discussion will be found in Final Charade, but--from what I have written above--it should be clear that there is now enough information available to write a small e-book on this problem alone, with plenty of filmed interview material to back it up and document the narrative I have just laid down (Barker/CBS intvw ofPerry, DSL/Groden, DSL/Stewart , DSL/ McLelland, etc ) (And maybe I'll tackle that e-book issue, someday!) Feedback welcome. DSL 3/4/2018 - 10:55 AM PST Orange County, California P.S. I will soon be posting links to JPEG images from Steve White's book.

Sandy: I'm going to explore the matter of the steno tape, as discussed in the previous lengthy post. I am also going to obtain a copy of the Nashville Banner story, which marks the first time that Dr. Stewart ever spoke publicly on this matter. Pat V is checking the Dave Stewart filmed interview, and I am retrieving certain memos that I wrote back in 1989, after the extraordinary experiences we had with both Stewart and Groden. None of this will happen overnight, but I'll see what can be done.